Ownership and Visitation of Dogs

[JJC6210]

Jurisdiction

Massachusetts

I am going through a break up and have possession of two dogs that were bought together. We have always split vet bills and food costs, however, they have always been licensed in my name and micro-chipped in my name, something the other party now wishes to change. I work at home and have spent every day with the pups since the day they were brought home. They are now 5 and 8 yrs old. I also do their grooming and all of their training and exercising. We also own a home that is due to be sold. The other party has presented me with an agreement about visitation and states that if I do not sign this, they will refuse to sell the home. Going for Petition to Partition would take a long time and result in massive losses. I am also being forced to agree to the sale price of the home. This person is basically coercing me into signing an agreement stating that I will hand over the dogs at 5 pm on Friday and have them returned at 5 pm on Monday. These dogs are an esential part of my daily life and are also prescribed ESA dogs per a physician. I am not in agreement in turning them over every weekend or the other things in this agreement and would be signing this under extreme duress. However, I am being forced to do so in order for the house to be listed for sale. I am looking for any advise as the other party is threatening lawsuits if I do not agree and I cannot afford to pay those costs or have the real estate tied up for over a year in court. Again, I am being forced to agree to their terms, not my own.

 

[army judge]

Do I have any ability to breach the agreement once the house is sold and retain my dogs?

If you breached a contract, it would be unethical for any lawyer (myself included), to advise you to do anything disingenuous or unsavory in order to prevail today before breaking the law (or breaching a lawful contract) tomorrow.

As far as breaking any laws, or breaching any contracts, your moral compass dictates all that you do; or refrain from doing.

Making any major purchases with anyone you are not wedded to is best avoided.

 

[zddoodah]

I am going through a break up and have possession of two dogs that were bought together.

I assume that you and the person with whom you are breaking (or have broken) up is not your spouse.

The other party has presented me with an agreement about visitation and states that if I do not sign this, they will refuse to sell the home.

"They"? Are we talking about multiple people, or are you somehow in doubt about this person's gender?

In any event, your ex-boy/girlfriend is free to condition his/her agreement to sell the home on whatever he/she wants.

I am also being forced to agree to the sale price of the home. This person is basically coercing me into signing an agreement stating that I will hand over the dogs at 5 pm on Friday and have them returned at 5 pm on Monday.

It's not coercion; it's called negotiation.

I am not in agreement in turning them over every weekend or the other things in this agreement and would be signing this under extreme duress.

It's not legally duress.

I am looking for any advise as the other party is threatening lawsuits if I do not agree and I cannot afford to pay those costs or have the real estate tied up for over a year in court.

Proper legal advice cannot be obtained from anonymous strangers on the internet.

The bottom line here is that you (and your ex) created this situation when you chose to own a home together without (presumably) any written agreement that would dictate the disposition of the home in the event of a break up. Your ex is under no obligation to cooperate with the sale of the home and, as I mentioned previously, is free to condition his agreement on your acquiescence in whatever he wants as concerns the dogs. You cannot force him to walk away from the dogs and agree to the disposition of the home in the way you want. If the dogs are so important to you, you might consider offering an unequal split of the proceeds of the sale of the home in order to get him to walk away from the dogs. Or let him have the dogs and get new dogs.

 

[mightymoose]

The other party has presented me with an agreement about visitation... This person is basically coercing me into signing an agreement stating that I will hand over the dogs at 5 pm on Friday and have them returned at 5 pm on Monday.... I am looking for any advise as the other party is threatening lawsuits if I do not agree

It seems the dogs are yours. Do with them as you choose.
The dogs are not children subject to visitation. They are property.

Even if you agreed to this visitation plan it would likely not be enforceable, though your best option is to not agree.

Threatening lawsuits? What for? It sounds like this other party is simply trying to manipulate you with the dogs.

 

[zddoodah]

Even if you agreed to this visitation plan it would likely not be enforceable

No reason to believe it wouldn't be enforceable. "JJC6210 agrees to allow visitation with the dogs according to the terms set forth herein in exchange for his/her ex's cooperation in the sale of the jointly owned home." There's no question that is an enforceable contract supported by consideration flowing both ways.

 

[mightymoose]

And the consequence is what?

 

[zddoodah]

Even if you agreed to this visitation plan it would likely not be enforceable, though your best option is to not agree.

No reason to believe it wouldn't be enforceable. "JJC6210 agrees to allow visitation with the dogs according to the terms set forth herein in exchange for his/her ex's cooperation in the sale of the jointly owned home." There's no question that is an enforceable contract supported by consideration flowing both ways.

And the consequence is what?

The typical consequence of breaching a contract is a lawsuit for breach of contract. In this case, the OP's clearly vindictive ex could sue for breach and seek the remedy of specific performance. Then the OP would be under a court order to allow visitation with the dogs, and the consequence of not complying with such an order would be fines and/or incarceration.

How likely is it that the OP's ex would sue? I don't know. However, as noted, the ex seems awfully vindictive, but the OP certainly can take that chance. Of course, entering into a contract without the intent to perform is civilly actionable as fraud, so that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do.

As I mentioned before, all of this is unfortunate -- although completely foreseeable -- as a consequence of buying property with a non-spouse.

 

[mightymoose]

Well I just don't buy visitation with the dogs as a valid chip on the table.
I've never heard of anyone being awarded or otherwise having contracted visitation rights to an animal.
Is that really a thing?
The whole thing sounds like empty threats to me.

 

[zddoodah]

Well I just don't buy visitation with the dogs as a valid chip on the table.
I've never heard of anyone being awarded or otherwise having contracted visitation rights to an animal.
Is that really a thing?
The whole thing sounds like empty threats to me.

A court won't order visitation -- as that term is commonly understood as it relates to children -- with an animal any more than it will order visitation with a toaster. However, people can and do contract for all sorts of crazy things, and this isn't really all that crazy.

Think of it slightly differently. Let's say that Bob starts dating Mary. At the time the relationship starts, Bob owns a cat, and Mary owns a condo in Mammoth. Bob and Mary date for two years, during which time Mary grows very attached to the cat. Bob and Mary break up amicably, and Mary proposes to Bob that the cat spend two weekends every month at Mary's place. In exchange, Mary will let Bob use the condo in Mammoth for two weekends every year between December 1 and April 30, until the cat dies. They put their agreement in writing with all of the necessary details. That's a perfectly valid contract because there is consideration flowing both ways: Bob's consideration is allowing Mary to have "visitation" with his cat; Mary's consideration is allowing Bob to use the condo. This isn't substantively different than what his/her ex are talking about. The only real difference is that, in the case of the OP, the ex's consideration is one-time cooperation in the sale of the jointly owned home, whereas in my example, both parties' consideration is a continuing obligation.

In both cases, the "visitation" obligation is something that a court certainly could enforce through an order of specific performance. Have I ever actually heard of something like this? No, but it is certainly a legally valid thing.

By the way, I agree with you that the OP's ex is probably just being a manipulative jerk. I doubt he really cares about "visitation" with the dogs. That's why I suggested to the OP that one solution to the problem would be to give the ex a greater than 50% split of the proceeds of the sale of the home.

 

[army judge]

People always seem to be fighting, squabbling, arguing, bullying, abusing, and scamming.

Oops, I forgot lying, conning, scheming, and thieving.