Article as it originally appeared in the Mass Bar Association Animal Law Practice Group Newsletter by Deb Newman:
Tails are wagging in the Brett Lyman household now that Teddy Bear is coming home for two-week intervals. Two turns at the Massachusetts Appeals Court made Brett Lyman the first owner of a companion animal in Massachusetts to win a complicated dispute about a pet-sharing agreement. According to his lawyer, Jeremy Cohen of Boston Dog Lawyers, Lyman was the perfect candidate to be the face of a new era in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. “Brett Lyman had the necessary patience for the journey through the judicial system to get Teddy Bear back,” said Cohen.
In Lyman v. Lanser, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 787 (2024), Lyman sought a return to the status quo, where he shared possession with his former girlfriend and co-owner of Teddy Bear. When they lived together, both parties contributed to the responsibilities of caring for Teddy Bear. Both had paid equally to purchase Teddy Bear, and although ownership registration was in Lyman's name alone, that is not the sole indicator of ownership.
When Shared Pet Custody Plans Fall Apart: A Case for Boston Dog Lawyers
After three years, the couple split up, but they had always planned to share custody of Teddy Bear if their relationship ended. Lyman already was involved in a similar arrangement with another former girlfriend. As often happens after a break-up in pet custody cases, though, one person decides to renege on the originally planned custody arrangement. When Lyman found himself cut off from all contact with Teddy Bear, he reached out to Boston Dog Lawyers.
His attorneys filed actions in conversion and breach of contract, seeking equitable remedies only. Lyman was interested in sharing his dog's life, not money damages. After a hearing in Middlesex Superior Court for a preliminary injunction, shared custody was restored. Lanser challenged that decision and initially won her appeal before a single justice. However, Lyman sought further appellate review before a three-judge panel, which decided that the single judge had abused her discretion in reversing the order for shared custody. Proceeding through the case was unique in that, according to Attorney Cohen, “[w]e had to navigate the justices’ thought processes around the many obstacles that, historically, have prevented the type of order we sought.”
First to overcome was the fact that Lyman and Lanser had no writing to commemorate a meeting of the minds regarding Teddy Bear's custody. Next, to remind the Court that companion animals are special and unique personal property, Cohen built on the language in Irwin v. Degtiarov, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 224 (2014). In that case, the Court agreed that damages in the form of mere market value of a dog were an insufficient remedy where the dog's attacker had inflicted very costly wounds. Still, Cohen had to convince the judges that in custody disputes, market value damages are not the answer, but that the only adequate remedy is in equity, namely specific performance to enforce Lyman's contractual right to share his dog with Lanser.
Cohen and his colleague, Attorney Rob Stewart, filed hundreds of pages of briefs. Then, with no precedent either for or against enforcement of an oral contract for specific performance to share the unique personal property known as Teddy Bear, Cohen enthusiastically argued, during his fifteen minutes before the Court, that the justices could now create just such a precedent.
Fearing that Cohen's arguments could be interpreted as analogous to children, the Court pushed back. In response, Cohen clarified his position: to advance the rights of pet owners, not to raise the status of companion animals to personhood or to afford them standing.
Clarifying the Legal Boundaries in Pet Custody: Advocating for Owners' Rights, Not Pet Personhood
Other concerns of the Court included the potential to overwhelm dockets with pet custody cases, along with the difficulty of enforcing the outcomes in such cases. Cohen responded that anecdotally, too many of these disputes result in physical threats and harm to one co-owner and that pet owners need to know there is a fair haven now in which to bring these issues. Lyman does provide some limiting language, but also specifically includes disputes between unmarried partners. The ruling could affect how courts in other jurisdictions approach pet custody contests. Cohen happily remarked that Lyman "extended the path on the roadmap to modernize how the law treats pet owners."
For more information on Pet Custody, or if you need help with your animal custody case in Massachusetts, click here.
コメント