Cambridge, Massachusetts Pet Custody Lawyer
We have been representing clients in pet custody cases for more than 15 years. These cases present unique issues and challenges, as people, naturally, consider their pets as family members but, unlike child custody cases, the appellate courts offer little guidance to trial judges on how best to determine who should be awarded a dog, cat, or other pet.
According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, dogs and cats are property. Irwin v. Degtiarov, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 234, 237 (2014). We have successfully defended clients accused of stealing their own pets, who want to reclaim possession of cats and dogs that have been stolen or withheld from them, as well as those trying to maintain custody of their pets – usually from former partners who formed an emotional bond with the dog or cat. Indeed, we have consistently won these cases against lawyers who proclaim themselves the experts in this field. Indeed, we have won over 90% of our cases against these lawyers.
Domestic companion animal custody cases are increasing, as families, former couples, and even neighbors battle over custody of pets. These disputes are often emotionally charged and draining for those involved. Not infrequently, they include allegations of crimes, such as larceny, and cruelty to animals, and disputes over responsibility for veterinarian bills.
We treat these cases seriously. Our bonds with our own companion animals are real, deep, and meaningful. Someone who has never formed a bond with dog or cat cannot understand just how significant these animals are to our lives and the obligations we undertake when we raise or adopt a companion animal.
Visitation & Sharing a Pet
Following a break-up, former partners sometimes choose to share the pet or, alternatively, allow a former partner to have visitation with the dog or cat, especially when they adopted or acquired the pet together. For reasons that vary from case to case, these sharing or visitation arrangements can become contentious. And, eventually, one of them wants to discontinue the sharing or visitation. If the former couple cannot resolve the matter amicably, a court may have to decide whether any written or oral agreement is enforceable.
If you are contemplating entering into a sharing or visitation agreement with a former boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse, it might make sense to speak with a lawyer.
Complaint in Replevin
To reclaim a pet from a former partner withholding the dog or cat, experienced lawyers will file a Complaint in Replevin in the appropriate Superior Court.
In an action for the redelivery of goods or chattels brought pursuant to General Laws c. 214, sec. 3, an order that a party redeliver goods or chattels may be made ex parte, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 65(a) and existing law governing the issuing of restraining orders, or with notice and hearing, pursuant to Rule 65(b) and existing law governing the issuing of preliminary injunctions. Importantly, G.L. c. 214, §3(1) empowers only the Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Courts in “[a]ctions to compel the redelivery of goods or chattels taken or detained from [an] owner.” While the District Courts have adjudicated pet custody cases, they do not actually possess the authority, prior to trial, to order a defendant to deliver personal property to a plaintiff. Mass. R. Civil Procedure 65.2 (Reporter’s notes (1996) (“[w]ith the merger of the District Court Rules into the Mass.R.Civ.P., Rule 65.2 has now been made applicable to the District Court. However, the applicability of this rule to the District Court does not serve to grant jurisdiction to the District Court over actions to compel redelivery of goods pursuant to G.L. c. 214, §3. This statute grants jurisdiction only to the Supreme Judicial Court and the Superior Court. See Rule 82”). The District Court simply does not possess the authority to grant a plaintiff the equitable relief he requests.
Moreover, G.L. c. 247 provides a procedural mechanism for an aggrieved party “whose beasts have been distrained or impounded in order to recover a penalty or forfeiture supposed to have been incurred by their going at large or to obtain satisfaction for damages alleged to have been done by them may cause them to be replevied.” G.L. c. 247, §1. To recover a domestic cat or dog, pursuant to G.L. c. 247, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the value of this animal exceeds $20.00. G.L. c. 247, §7.
Dog Bite Cases in Massachusetts
For a dog owner, preserving the life of his canine friend is paramount following an incident in which the dog allegedly bites someone. Healthcare providers, pursuant to G.L. c. 112 § 12z and 330 CMR 10.04, are required to report any bite by a domestic animal of a person, within 24 hours of the alleged event, to the Animal Inspector of the city or town wherein the bite occurred. Each municipality investigates these incidents differently, applies various standards, and affords the dog owner different rights.
Once a dog biting incident is reported to a local animal control officer, police, etc., the municipality will usually hold a hearing to determine if the dog is dangerous. The hearing board will likely vote on the appropriate action to take in response to the incident, which may include muzzling the dog, restraining it, ordering it to be removed from the town or city, and destroying it. Fortunately, the dog owner is allowed to appeal to the District Court for relief from the decision of the municipality.
For the dog owner, there are, of course, other considerations and worries. Under G.L. c. 140, § 155, the individual allegedly bitten can bring a civil lawsuit against the dog owner for damages. If the dog owner is covered by home insurance, the insurance carrier will very likely be responsible for providing a lawyer to the dog owner and paying the cost of the defense.
Mahoney Trial & Litigation Group
Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney began his career serving as a Judicial Law Clerk to the Connecticut Superior Court working exclusively on civil litigation issues for the Superior Court Justices. As an associate of Lecomte, Emanuelson, Tick & Doyle, Mahoney won a verdict of $389,000.00 following a nine-day trial.
Many, if not most, Massachusetts civil litigators have tried few, if any, cases before juries. No lawyer, no matter how intellectually gifted or well-educated, can acquire the skills necessary to succeed at trial work absent practice. Attorney Mahoney’s trial skills were honed in hundreds of courtroom battles. He is, in fact, battle-tested.
If you need representation in a dispute over a companion animal, kindly contact our office. We would be delighted to assist you.
Kevin J. Mahoney is a Cambridge Criminal Defense Lawyer.
