Earlier this year, I blogged on the Houseman v. Dare case decided by the Appellate Division in a reported (precedential) opinion that held that  the special subjective worth of a pet to a party must be considered . Similarly, there were allegations there there was a specific agreement that one party would keep the dog, which was breached by the other party and Appellate Division remanded, as well, to consider whether there was an agreement. 

To see the prior post, click here.  To see the full text of the Appellate Division’s decision, click here.

During the remand that was recently decided, the trial court,  in a somewhat Solomonic fashion, decided that the dog was to spend equal time with each party.  This seems to ignore the contract aspect of the case.  If more facts come out about this, we will update this post accordingly.

Per news reports, the trial judge stated that this was not a "custody arrangement" because, dogs are not children and do not get the same consideration. Despite the Appellate Division ruling, the judge reiterated that the dog was really no more than property.