In the event of a separation between cohabiting partners, the dog remains with its owner even if the owner does not visit it for years
Failure to exercise the ‘right of access’ does not constitute a waiver of ownership of the animal if this is due to a conflict with the ex-partner with whom the dog has remained
Key points
If cohabiting partners separate, the dog remains with the owner even if he has not visited it for two years. Failure to exercise the ‘visitation rights’, in fact, cannot be regarded as a tacit waiver of ownership of the animal that has remained with the ex-partner, if this is solely due to a desire not to see the latter. Among the frequent disputes that arise when couples part ways after a long-term relationship, there may also be one over ownership of the dog, with legal proceedings continuing right up to the highest court. And it was precisely at the Court of Cassation that the man won his case.
The row over the dog Argo
The decision to leave the verdict to the judges had been initiated by the ex-partner, who complained that she had been deprived of custody of the dog Argo. After nine years of living together, the dog was perhaps the only one to have retained the affection of both of them, to the extent that it triggered a dispute, which had required the intervention of the local police, who had awarded the dog to the claimant in accordance with the dog registry records. The Court, in a Solomonic ruling, had instead affirmed joint ownership, leaving everyone dissatisfied, and the Court of Appeal had done the same. The dog had remained in the ex-partner’s home, but the man had continued to look after it until he disappeared for two years due to the dispute with the woman, which had led to mutual legal proceedings. However, his failure to visit cannot be interpreted as a waiver of his rights, given the reason behind his absences.
The dog registration scheme is not sufficient proof of ownership
It is up to the Supreme Court to settle the dispute. The judges of the Supreme Court, having first stated that ‘the registration of the dog in the dog registry does not constitute proof of ownership, as the animal falls within the category of unregistered movable property’, but is merely a relevant piece of evidence for the purposes of identifying the owner. Specifically, the Court of Appeal erred in finding joint ownership.
The relevant provision was Article 925 of the Civil Code, which concerns so-called ‘tame animals’. And, in particular, the second paragraph, according to which ‘such animals belong to the person who has taken possession of them, unless they are claimed within twenty days of the owner becoming aware of their whereabouts’. A deadline which the lady, whilst aware that the animals had been entrusted to her ex-partner, had allowed to lapse. It was only one year after the alleged removal that the appeal for the restoration of joint possession was lodged. It is true, the Court of Cassation admits, that before bringing the appeal to protect her possession, the woman had sought an interim order as part of her complaint, following the Court’s refusal. This initiative had been unsuccessful because the legal system in force at the time did not provide for any right to the custody of pets following the dissolution of a cohabiting relationship.
Two factual elements are therefore decisive: the registration of the dog in the dog registry and the ex-partner’s delayed reaction. These circumstances are sufficient to presume that the elderly dog Argo, who is nearing the end of his life – as the judges point out – belongs to the claimant.
