Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Custody of Pets
You may have heard of the story about singer/actress Mandy Moore and her estranged husband Ryan Adams. She recently filed for spousal support to cover the cost of caring for their eight pets. It's a very unique approach, but not one that Pennsylvania recognizes. As a matter of fact, Pennsylvania considers pets as personal property
A 2002 Pennsylvania Superior Court case involved a property settlement agreement giving custody of the couple's dog, Barney, to the wife. Believe it or not, the agreement provided that the husband have visitation. Unfortunately, the wife moved and she no longer made their pet, Barney, available for visits. The husband then filed for shared custody of the dog. After a hearing in which the court did not enforce the agreement, the court explained that, “Despite the status owners bestow on their pets, Pennsylvania law considers dogs to be personal property.” In other words, the court said, any terms set forth in the property settlement agreement that provide for custodial visitation with or shared custody of personal property, are void. It's known as the “Barney rule.” A dog is personal property.
Then the court wrote the sentence that is most often quoted in articles on pet custody and that has angered animal advocates everywhere: “Husband is seeking an arrangement analogous, in law, to a visitation schedule for a table or a lamp.” How is this possible? Dog and cat lovers, unite. This is the status in most states around the country.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?