In the recent case of Grunseth & Wighton [2022] FedCFamC1A 132, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia had to decide how to deal with Roxy, an 8 year old spoodle.
The parties were in a short relationship of around 3 years. The wife purchased Roxy for the husband’s daughter from a previous relationship. The wife was the registered owner.
Each party wanted Roxy after the separation. Perhaps, considering her age and likely limited financial value, neither party included Roxy in the list of assets for division.
First instance decision
The primary Judge considered the husband and his daughter’s emotional attachment to Roxy. The Court required the wife to transfer ownership of Roxy to the husband as a just and equitable outcome.
The wife appealed to the Full Court on the grounds that the primary judge erred in considering the husband and his daughter’s emotional attachment to Roxy and disregarding her emotional attachment to Roxy.
Decision on Appeal
On appeal, the decision of the primary Judge was overturned. It was held that Roxy be retained by the wife in exchange for payment of $800 to the husband. There was no evidence before the court about Roxy’s value. So, the court used $800 which was Roxy’s purchase price.
The Full Court held that pets are property as defined under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court stated that “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 to them.”
The Full Court accepted the parties’ mutual intention that Roxy was purchased for the husband’s daughter. The Full Court stressed that the husband’s daughter is not a party to the proceedings and does not have an equitable or legal interest in Roxy. It was deemed inappropriate for the court to make an order transferring Roxy to her.
The Full Court placed weight on the following factors. The wife was the registered owner. She paid for Roxy, her desexing operation and ongoing day-to-day care costs such as food, grooming and medication.
The Full Court also considered how to determine the value of pets in family law proceedings. It confirming that “if the animals have significant value, they can be valued in the usual way”. For example, if Roxy was the Edenhope-bred kelpie, Hoover who sold for $35,200 at a working dog auction in 2021, the parties could have dealt with her in the ordinary course of a property settlement. Instead, Roxy was a family pet of sentimental value but of insignificant financial value.
The Full Court suggested that where the ownership of the pet is contested, the parties can make a “blind bid”, with the highest offer being accepted, to then be considered in the overall division of property.
Conclusion
You may be disappointed to know that, in family law disputes, the Court will not treat pets in the same way as children. It will not make orders for “custody” or “visitation” rights. Even your most beloved pet will be treated as property.
If a pet is of significant financial value, an expert valuation can be obtained for court or negotiation purposes.
If you cannot agree about who the family pet will live with, the Court can decide. In doing so, the Judge will consider who things like who is the registered owner, who purchased the pet, who paid for the ongoing costs and who looked after the pet.
Of course, it is possible to come to other arrangements in a negotiated settlement. If you require assistance with your family law settlement, including negotiations involving your pet, please contact our lawyers for expert advice and representation.
