## Facts

- Anthony DeSanctis and Lynda Hurley Pritchard married in 1991 and divorced in October 2000.
- During the marriage, Pritchard obtained a dog, Barney, from the SPCA.
- In August 2000, the parties signed an agreement anticipating divorce that stated Barney was Pritchard’s property and gave her “full custody,” while granting DeSanctis specified “visitation.”
- The agreement was not incorporated into the divorce decree.
- After Pritchard moved away, she stopped making Barney available for DeSanctis’s visits.
- DeSanctis filed a complaint in equity seeking an injunction for “shared custody,” a declaration of breach, reformation of the agreement to require “shared custody,” and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court sustained Pritchard’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissed the equity complaint; it also dismissed Pritchard’s counterclaim.
- DeSanctis appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement granting post-divorce “visitation” or “shared custody” of a dog is enforceable, given that dogs are treated as personal property under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the equity complaint on preliminary objections, without leave to amend or transfer, where the requested relief depended on enforcing pet visitation provisions.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held that a dog is personal property, and courts will not enforce a continuing visitation or shared-custody schedule for personal property.
- The agreement was effective only to the extent it confirmed Pritchard’s ownership of Barney; provisions purporting to create continuing visitation/shared custody were void and unenforceable.
- Because all requested equitable relief depended on enforcing the void visitation/shared-custody arrangement, the demurrer was properly sustained and amendment would not cure the legal defect.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, dogs are classified as personal property.
- Courts may enforce contractual provisions allocating ownership of property in divorce-related agreements, but will not order or supervise ongoing “custody” or visitation regimes for property.
- A settlement agreement may be enforceable as a contract, but contractual enforcement does not extend to terms that attempt to create child-custody-like visitation rights in personal property.
- On preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, dismissal is proper where, accepting pleaded facts as true, the law permits no recovery and the defect is incurable by amendment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the ex-husband’s equity action because, although the parties could allocate ownership of the dog, Pennsylvania courts will not enforce or supervise post-divorce pet visitation or shared-custody arrangements treated like child custody.


Desanctis v. Pritchard, 803 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)