## Facts

- A husband and wife dissolved their marriage and stipulated to all issues except who would receive possession of their dog, Roddy.
- The trial court awarded the husband possession of Roddy and granted the wife scheduled visitation (including alternating weekends and alternating Christmases).
- The husband sought rehearing and post-judgment relief, asserting Roddy was a premarital asset.
- The wife moved to strike the husband’s amended rehearing motion, sought contempt, and requested transfer of “custody” because the husband allegedly refused to comply with the visitation provisions.
- After a hearing on pending motions, the trial court denied the husband’s rehearing request and modified the final judgment to increase the wife’s visitation rights while keeping the husband as Roddy’s “custodian.”
- The husband appealed the provisions granting and expanding the wife’s visitation with the dog.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court in a dissolution proceeding has authority to order “visitation” with a family pet.
2. Whether the trial court may modify a dissolution judgment to increase pet “visitation” based on post-judgment disputes over compliance.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the portions of the dissolution judgment and subsequent modification that ordered and expanded visitation with the dog.
- The court held that the trial court lacked authority to order visitation with personal property.
- The court remanded for the trial court to address the dog through equitable distribution, awarding the animal as property.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida law, a dog is personal property for purposes of dissolution proceedings.
- A court may not create or enforce a “visitation” regime for personal property in a divorce case.
- Disputes over allocation of a pet must be resolved through equitable distribution rather than ongoing custody/visitation-style orders.
- Continuing enforcement and supervision problems associated with custody and visitation weigh against extending such remedies to pets.

## Conclusion

The appellate court eliminated pet “visitation” as a remedy in dissolution proceedings, requiring trial courts to treat pets as personal property to be awarded under equitable distribution rather than through custody or visitation orders.


Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So. 2d 109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995)