## Facts

- Shannon Louise Travis and Trisha Bridget Murray were spouses in a short, childless marriage.
- In 2011, Travis acquired a miniature dachshund, Joey, using premarital funds and later gave Joey to Murray as a gift; each later claimed ownership.
- During marital discord in 2013, Murray moved out of the marital residence and took Joey with her.
- Travis asserted Murray took Joey without consent while Travis was away and refused to return him.
- In the pending divorce action, Travis moved by order to show cause for an order compelling Joey’s return and for “sole residential custody” of Joey.
- Travis argued Joey was her separate property and that she provided primary financial support; Murray asserted Joey was a gift to her and that she provided primary daily care and emotional support.

## Issues

1. What standard should govern a matrimonial dispute over possession of a companion animal: strict property title, a child-custody “best interests” test, or another approach?
2. Under the proper standard, what procedure should be used to decide with which spouse the dog should live pending final resolution?

## Decision

- The court declined to decide the dispute solely through a property/ownership analysis.
- The court rejected importing a full child-custody “best interests” framework for a companion animal.
- The court adopted a “best for all concerned” standard for determining possession of the dog.
- The court granted the motion only to the extent of ordering a limited, one-day evidentiary hearing for each party to present proof relevant to the dog’s placement; the court did not award immediate permanent “custody” to either spouse.

## Legal Principles

- Although companion animals are classified as personal property under New York law, possession disputes in divorce may require consideration beyond formal title.
- Courts should not treat companion-animal disputes as full child-custody matters, given the doctrinal mismatch and the burdens of extended custody litigation.
- In matrimonial pet disputes, the “best for all concerned” standard governs, focusing on the animal’s well-being and lived experience, and the parties’ relationships with the animal.
- Relevant factors may include which party primarily met the pet’s daily needs (feeding, walking, grooming, veterinary care) and which party spent more regular time with the pet.
- The court may use a focused, time-limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the pet’s placement rather than prolonged custody-style proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that a divorcing couple’s dispute over a dog should be resolved under a “best for all concerned” standard rather than strict property title or a child-custody regime, and it ordered a one-day hearing to determine with whom the dog should live.


Travis v. Murray, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)