In the recent Full Court case of Grunseth & Wighton, the Appeal Court dealt with how a pet would be treated in the context of a de facto relationship property settlement.
In its decision, the Court said:
As much as it will pain pet lovers, animals are property and are to be treated as such. Questions of attachment are not relevant and the Court is not, in effect, to undertake a parenting case in respect of them.
As much as we animal lovers disagree, this is the current state of the law.
The Court went on to say:
If the animals have significant value, they can be valued in the usual way. Of course, as with other assets, a party may have a particular reason for wishing to keep the animal, and that can simply be dealt with in the ordinary course. It is much more difficult in the case of a family pet of limited financial value. If the ownership is contested, there is much to be said for each party making a blind bid for the pet, with the highest offer accepted and taken into account when dividing the property.
So what to do?
Make sure their records at the vet are maintained in your name and that a record is kept of the purchase history.
These formal indicators assist in identifying just who the owner is.
In this case, the dog in question “Roxy” was registered in the Appellant’s name, and so the Court overturned the earlier decision of the Trial Judge and made an order for Roxy to remain with the Appellant, her registered owner.
Need advice on getting your ducks in a row?
Tiyce & Lawyers – we’re here when you need us.
