Desanctis v. Pritchard case brief
803 A.2d 230
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
803 A.2d 230
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
former husband appealed the order of the Chester County Court of
Common Pleas (Pennsylvania), dismissing the former husband's
complaint and appellee former wife's counterclaim. The husband
requested injunctive relief mandating shared custody of the wife's
dog.
FACTS: The husband and wife were divorced. During their marriage, the wife bought a dog. Pursuant to their divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement dealing with the dog's future. The agreement stated that the dog was the wife's property, and the wife was to have full custody of the dog. Furthermore, the agreement provided for an arrangement allowing the husband to visit the dog. Afterwards, the wife moved away and no longer made the dog available for the husband's visits. The husband filed a complaint in equity. The appellate court found that any terms set forth in the agreement were void to the extent that they attempted to award custodial visitation with, or shared custody of, personal property. Because the dog was the wife's personal property, the wife could eliminate the husband's access to the dog.
CONCLUSION: The order was affirmed.
FACTS: The husband and wife were divorced. During their marriage, the wife bought a dog. Pursuant to their divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement dealing with the dog's future. The agreement stated that the dog was the wife's property, and the wife was to have full custody of the dog. Furthermore, the agreement provided for an arrangement allowing the husband to visit the dog. Afterwards, the wife moved away and no longer made the dog available for the husband's visits. The husband filed a complaint in equity. The appellate court found that any terms set forth in the agreement were void to the extent that they attempted to award custodial visitation with, or shared custody of, personal property. Because the dog was the wife's personal property, the wife could eliminate the husband's access to the dog.
CONCLUSION: The order was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment