New Article – From Property to Paws-itivity, courts rethink who really owns the dog following a divorce.

In her new article, NIKUE ASSARPOUR, an Associate Attorney in our family law and litigation teams, considers how the courts in the Cayman Islands would approach the question of who owns the family pet following separation.

From Property to Paws-itivity

Courts rethink who really owns the dog in Divorce Battles

It will be no surprise to learn that pet ownership increased significantly in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic with some 3.2 million households in the UK reported as having acquired a pet since March 2020.¹ In the Cayman Islands the level of pet ownership is not easy to quantify, however, undoubtedly a lot of households own a least one pet.²

As a result of this upswing in pet ownership, disputes over pet ownership are on the rise, with such disputes often marked by heightened emotional tensions. These conflicts typically arise during a divorce or the ending of a relationship, particularly when a couple is either in the midst of separation or has already parted ways.

This brief article will examine how courts in the Cayman Islands may look to resolve a dispute about who owns the pet following a breakdown in the parties’ marriage.

The Position in the Cayman Islands

The position within the law has been and remains that pets are considered chattels (possessions), meaning that the Court has the discretion to be able to determine ownership in the context of a property adjustment order. Such determination by the court is based on the rules of property law.

Under Section 27 of the Animal Act (2015) Revision,

27. A person —

(a) in whose custody, charge or possession, or in whose house a dog is found or is seen; or

(b) in whose name a dog licence is issued,

is deemed to be the person who keeps such dog unless the contrary is proved.

The above allows for ownership of the dog to be “proved” by means other than those specified in the section itself, although it is silent on what such means might be.

In today’s world, many couples are careful to keep detailed records regarding the purchase and care of their pets, as these can play a crucial role in disputes over ownership. Documents such as the pet’s registration certificate with bodies like the Kennel Club, proof of who paid for the animal, who covers its insurance, who arranges veterinary care, and takes responsibility for feeding, walking, and kennelling all provide valuable evidence.

While historically this would have been the key evidence in determining who gets to keep the pet, initial ownership paperwork is not always decisive. Over time, the responsibility for a pet may shift, leading to changes in ownership. A notable example is when a dog, originally purchased as a gift for one partner, ends up being cared for primarily by the other. This can be especially true in cases where the dog spends significant time with one partner, such as accompanying them to the office and staying with them throughout the working day. In such instances, the balance of responsibility often tilts, and the courts may recognise the shift in ownership accordingly.

This shift was explored in the recent English case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384(B). The case highlights a shift in approach by the courts, moving away from treating pets solely as objects and instead focusing on the question of who cares for the animal and who the pet recognises as their primary carer.

The case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384(B) – (“Fi-Do”) – the welfare of the dog?

In the ingeniously named case of Fi-Do, the couple wed in 2010 and separated in November 2022. They shared two children, born in 2011 and 2017. Separate legal proceedings were initiated concerning the children, who, at the time of the hearing, lived with their mother and had no contact with their father.

One of the key disputes in the case was the ownership of the family dog. The husband sought a formal declaration of ownership and proposed a shared care arrangement in respect of the family dog. Meanwhile, the wife in the case, initially argued that the dog should remain with her, but suggested that the dog could visit her ex-husband’s home should the court approve such contact. However, the wife later revised her stance, stating that she believed it would not be in the dogs best interests to spend time with her ex-husband following a specific incident on 12 December 2022, a matter that District Judge Crisp, who conducted the case, subsequently ruled on.

In his evidence before the court, the husband claimed that he had purchased the family dog for £1,200 in cash, and that his ex-wife did not contribute financially to the purchase. The husband further stated that he was the one who trained the dog and had registered her as a support dog, which was supported in evidence by a letter from his doctor. The husband explained to the court that he suffered from a mental health condition and required the dog to assist with managing his anxiety and depression. The husband asserted that after their separation, his ex-wife had failed to care for the dog, refusing to feed or walk her, and that he became the dog’s sole carer.

In her evidence the wife in the case stated that the dog was purchased jointly by the family. The wife gave evidence that their daughter had contributed £320 from her birthday money, whilst she herself had added £280, and her ex-husband had paid the remaining £600. The dog was bought after the children were upset by the loss of their previous pet. The wife claimed she was the registered keeper of the dog, having registered her with the Kennel Club and covering all associated costs. She denied that the family dog was ever registered as a disability support dog during their time together.

In her judgment, District Judge Crisp reminded herself of the factors outlined in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which are similar to the Section 19³ factors the Court in the Cayman Islands must consider).  She was also referred to the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), where Moylan J had stated in relation to a dog:

“I do not consider it appropriate to make any order in respect of one of the dogs, because on the evidence I have heard, they would seem to have been principally looked after by the husband.”

District Judge Crisp observed in her judgment that the family dog was considered a chattel by the courts, although she noted that the case had taken on aspects of a Children Act application, particularly during the wife’s cross-examination about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements.

District Judge Crisp found as a fact that the family dog had only been registered as a support dog in February 2024, after the couple’s separation. She found that the husband in the case had registered the family dog as a support dog to bolster his claim for her return. While it was ultimately irrelevant, she acknowledged that the family dog had been jointly purchased by both parties and their daughter. Regarding the incident of 12 December 2022, District Judge Crisp determined that the husband had forcibly taken the dog, and that the dog had run back to the family home (FMH).

Referring again to RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), District Judge Crisp emphasised that the key issue was not who purchased the family dog, but who had principally cared for her. It was important to consider who the dog regarded as her primary carer. This was not simply about past care, but current care. Taking into account that the dog had run back to the family home in December 2022, that the wife had been looking after the dog for the 18 months since the separation, and that this period was significant in a dog’s life, District Judge Crisp determined that the dog should remain with the wife. The Judge also commented in particular on the wife’s understanding of dogs and her compassionate nature towards them.

What does this case mean for how the courts in the Cayman Islands may approach dog ownership?

The case of FI v DO illustrates that Courts in England are now willing to move beyond the simple consideration of who bought the family pet and instead consider:

Who cares for the pet on a day to day basis and;

What arrangements are in the pets’ best interests.

In the Cayman Islands, in the absence of authority from the Cayman Islands court, the law is based on English common law, with decisions of the courts of England and Wales having persuasive authority. As of the date of the article, there is no reported decision in the family courts of the Cayman Islands regarding the ownership of a family pet. Therefore, it is likely that were the Court in the Cayman Islands to be asked to adjudicate upon such an issue, the principles in RK v RK and FI v DO would be considered.

What can I do to protect my family pet?

Couples may wish to consider including a provision regarding the ownership of any existing or future pets in a Nuptial Agreement or Cohabitation Agreement to avoid a costly dispute at the point that they separate. Such an agreement could confirm what is to happen upon separation to the family pet and having such provision would avoid a costly legal dispute, such as the one in the case of Ozzy the cat which cost the parties £24,000 to resolve.⁴

It is important if you are considering entering into a Nuptial or Cohabitation Agreement to get specialist legal advice. Here at Priestleys we can give you that specialist advice and can guide and advise you throughout the process.

Specialist legal advice is important because without it, any such document is unlikely to be binding on you or the other party, leading to more uncertainty and increased legal costs in the event of court proceedings. Both parties to the document must have received independent legal advice as to its meaning and effect and be fully aware of what the agreement contains.

Further information on the status of pre-nuptial agreements in the Cayman Islands and benefits of a co-habitation agreement can be found here.

Alternatively, couples can also a have a freestanding agreement drawn up in writing at the time of acquisition of their pet to address both ownership and what should happen in the event of a breakdown of the couple’s relationship.

Need more help?

If you require any assistance or advice in relation to any aspect of the breakdown of your relationship or want assistance with drafting a Cohabitation Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement or Pet Ownership Agreement, do not hesitate to contact the team at Priestleys on info@priestleys.ky and we will be happy to assist you.

The Author

Nikue is an Associate Attorney and a member of the litigation and family law teams at Priestleys. Nikue joined Priestleys in July 2022, and her practice covers a broad spectrum of common law litigation, strata disputes, contractual claims and family law matters. Clients appreciate Nikue’s strategic, pragmatic approach and unwavering commitment to achieving favourable outcomes. As a dog owner, Nikue knows and understands how important pets are to people and has undertaken a number of dog related cases.

Nikue Assarpour

2 April 2025

References:

1.      www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56362987

2.      www.caymancompass.com/2013/03/15/online-poll-dog-ownership-high-in-cayman

3.      Section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (2005) Revision

4.      www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7893943/Cat-loving-psychotherapist-wins-20-000-court-battle-feeding-Ozzy

The article can be downloaded below:

https://priestleys.ky/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/From-Property-to-Paws-itivity.pdf