Dividing Tucker

The Delaware Court of Chancery held that a dog is property subject to partition but assured readers that the dog will not be split in half

“You get a dog on your mind, it seems to fill up the whole space. Everything you do reminds you of that dog.”  The petitioner and respondent in this partition action suffer that affliction. The parties acquired a Goldendoodle named Tucker while they were dating. After their relationship ended, a years-long legal battle over Tucker’s ownership ensued—first in the Justice of the Peace Court, next in the Court of Common Pleas, then in the Superior Court, and now in the Court of Chancery. Prior court rulings determined that the parties jointly own Tucker.

In this latest action, the petitioner seeks to partition Tucker. The respondent has moved to dismiss, arguing that the relief sought is “unprecedented” and that a companion animal should not be partitioned. This short memorandum opinion denies the motion to dismiss. “While dog owners and lovers may shudder at the thought,” the law recognizes dogs as property, even if many of us do not consider them so. If the parties had been married, the Family Court could determine ownership of Tucker under the framework of a recently enacted statute that takes into consideration the well-being of a companion animal.  But the parties were not married, and in equity, partition provides the remedy for co-owners wishing to sever their interests in jointly owned property.

This memorandum opinion does not decide how to partition a dog; only that the Court can, and should, do so here. Concerned readers may rest assured that Tucker will not be partitioned in kind (i.e., physically divided), nor will he be publicly auctioned. The right procedure will result in one party owning Tucker and the other receiving a monetary award. The parties will meet and confer, and submit supplemental briefing if necessary, on the appropriate procedure to govern the partition.

The glory of equity

Luckily, this Court can fashion another remedy in equity.  It seems clear that a partition process should result in one party owning Tucker, with the other receiving a monetary award. As one possibility, the parties could submit themselves to a blind bidding auction, where the highest bidder buys out the lower bidder’s interest. Or the Court could award ownership of Tucker based on his best interests and grant the other party a money judgment based on an appraisal. Or the parties could propose a better alternative. The parties should meet and confer to see if they can reach agreement on a proposed process, and if they cannot, they should submit briefing that describes their respective positions on next steps.

(Mike Frisch)