The majority opinion in the inappositely named case, Clever v. Clever takes on the question of when and how to litigate domestic pet ownership. This is a hot topic in the family law bar and not a few practitioners and state legislators believe that courts should decide pet custody. For now, that issue remains ripe for further discussion, but the precedential Clever case makes clear that title to the animal governs unless there is a claim for equitable distribution pending.
Darren and Kenna Clever were divorced in Franklin County in November 2020. Neither party raised any economic issues, so their divorce was simple and final. They had two dogs. At the risk of violating canine confidentiality their names are Bentley and Bailey. The opinion tells us that wife moved out of the residence, leaving the two pets behind.
Eighteen months later, now former wife filed a petition under the Divorce Code to have the dogs partitioned (23 Pa.C.S.3507). The court first dismissed this; then granted reconsideration and held a hearing. Having concluded the hearing, the judge afforded the parties some time to make a settlement. When none occurred, the court ordered the dogs sold; treating the matter as if it was a partition of jointly held property. Husband appealed.
To the layperson, this all must seem strange. Who in the...
