Small claims court for dog maintenance?

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

...For illustration purposes... based on the timeline it seems fairly certain that they got the dog whilst they were together, rather than the OP's Ex bringing it in. Maybe the OP was the one that really wanted it and the Ex just agreed. They split up, Ex says for the OP to take the dog but the OP says work/new home etc it isn't suitable and so the Ex has to take it. Ex says they dont really want the expense of it etc so the OP says they'll contribute if the Ex takes the dog. In which case there is offer, acceptance and consideration so a properly formed contract...

Why is any illustration necessary?  The one thing the OP has been clear about from the start is that the dog belongs to the ex:  "Truth is, he owns the dog, its in his name and I've not seen him or the dog for years... "

That seems fairly unequivocal and clear to me.  I can understand "What ifs" in those circumstances where what the OP has said is either unclear or ambiguous, but not where they've clearly stated something.  If you are going to doubt what a poster has clearly said, you might as well question everything else they claim, which would make the forum sort of pointless.

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

As is so often on forums there are more unanswered questions than answered ones. Even the OP seems a little foggy on the details these days and even if they weren't we are unlikely to get a blow by blow recounting of the full story of their relationship and its breakdown.

For illustration purposes... based on the timeline it seems fairly certain that they got the dog whilst they were together, rather than the OP's Ex bringing it in. Maybe the OP was the one that really wanted it and the Ex just agreed. They split up, Ex says for the OP to take the dog but the OP says work/new home etc it isn't suitable and so the Ex has to take it. Ex says they dont really want the expense of it etc so the OP says they'll contribute if the Ex takes the dog. In which case there is offer, acceptance and consideration so a properly formed contract.

As to keeping texts? Dunno what the norm is but certainly my phone keeps all messages in perpetuity and with online backups they survive phone upgrades. I don't think its because I have a particular axe to grind or that I am not over my last conversation with a recruitment agent but it can be useful to be able to be able to check prior conversations. With storage now in GB its not as if a few bytes for a text is going to dent your storage. 

As has been explained by others, dogs are no different to any other property. If you don't like the expense of the upkeep of an item of property then you are free to give it away, or even destroy it (and unfortunately, some people do that with dogs rather than rehoming them). 

Plus, if the dog was jointly owned then they'd be jointly liable for its upkeep. Consideration can't be past. So no, a valid contract wouldn't be formed even if what you said was accurate. 

Again, unless it was part of a formal financial settlement then the ex would appear to be SOL. 

Offer - Ex says they'll take the dog in exchange for payments
Acceptance - OP texted to say that's fine
Consideration - OP made monthly payments until recently...

There's no consideration from the ex in offering to look after his own dog.  (I know I suggested this earlier, but I'd have thought it was clear I was joking... )

user1977

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

As to keeping texts? Dunno what the norm is but certainly my phone keeps all messages in perpetuity and with online backups they survive phone upgrades. I don't think its because I have a particular axe to grind or that I am not over my last conversation with a recruitment agent but it can be useful to be able to be able to check prior conversations. With storage now in GB its not as if a few bytes for a text is going to dent your storage.

As we've seen from this news story, even the government can't be bothered archiving WhatsApp messages of (arguably) national importance:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60837166

unholyangel

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

As is so often on forums there are more unanswered questions than answered ones. Even the OP seems a little foggy on the details these days and even if they weren't we are unlikely to get a blow by blow recounting of the full story of their relationship and its breakdown.

For illustration purposes... based on the timeline it seems fairly certain that they got the dog whilst they were together, rather than the OP's Ex bringing it in. Maybe the OP was the one that really wanted it and the Ex just agreed. They split up, Ex says for the OP to take the dog but the OP says work/new home etc it isn't suitable and so the Ex has to take it. Ex says they dont really want the expense of it etc so the OP says they'll contribute if the Ex takes the dog. In which case there is offer, acceptance and consideration so a properly formed contract.

As to keeping texts? Dunno what the norm is but certainly my phone keeps all messages in perpetuity and with online backups they survive phone upgrades. I don't think its because I have a particular axe to grind or that I am not over my last conversation with a recruitment agent but it can be useful to be able to be able to check prior conversations. With storage now in GB its not as if a few bytes for a text is going to dent your storage. 

As has been explained by others, dogs are no different to any other property. If you don't like the expense of the upkeep of an item of property then you are free to give it away, or even destroy it (and unfortunately, some people do that with dogs rather than rehoming them). 

Plus, if the dog was jointly owned then they'd be jointly liable for its upkeep. Consideration can't be past. So no, a valid contract wouldn't be formed even if what you said was accurate. 

Again, unless it was part of a formal financial settlement then the ex would appear to be SOL. 

Offer - Ex says they'll take the dog in exchange for payments
Acceptance - OP texted to say that's fine
Consideration - OP made monthly payments until recently

Duly formed contract with no retrospective aspect to the consideration

its clearly highly speculative as even the OP cannot remember the background from what they've said and didn't keep a record of it.

It seems the OP cannot remember any duration of payment being agreed so it'll come down to the better record keeping of the Ex or if its not mentioned in the exchanges then what the Judge determines the implied terms were. Small claims where one party has kept information and the other party hasn't are always going to be more of a roll of the dice until disclosures. 

I don't think you understand what I meant by consideration cannot be past. 

If the OP has any ownership of the animal, they would already be liable for its upkeep. Therefore any promise to help towards the upkeep cannot amount to consideration. 

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

...For illustration purposes... based on the timeline it seems fairly certain that they got the dog whilst they were together, rather than the OP's Ex bringing it in. Maybe the OP was the one that really wanted it and the Ex just agreed. They split up, Ex says for the OP to take the dog but the OP says work/new home etc it isn't suitable and so the Ex has to take it. Ex says they dont really want the expense of it etc so the OP says they'll contribute if the Ex takes the dog. In which case there is offer, acceptance and consideration so a properly formed contract...

Why is any illustration necessary?  The one thing the OP has been clear about from the start is that the dog belongs to the ex:  "Truth is, he owns the dog, its in his name and I've not seen him or the dog for years... "

That seems fairly unequivocal and clear to me.  I can understand "What ifs" in those circumstances where what the OP has said is either unclear or ambiguous, but not where they've clearly stated something.  If you are going to doubt what a poster has clearly said, you might as well question everything else they claim, which would make the forum sort of pointless.

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Most salient points have been covered I think - contract requires consideration, unless you're in Scotland. Could potentially be an issue if no financial order was obtained at divorce. Though possibly not as marriage would normally stop the one remarried having a claim on the other (but wouldn't stop the other claiming on the one who is remarried, unless they also remarried). He can claim it was in settlement but unless it was formalised, I think he might out of luck on that front. 

But gifts can be enforceable, if made by deed btw.

Burden will be on ex to prove his claim. OP if it does does get to court, bring up the failure to follow preaction protocol (you said first notification was court email, meaning ex didnt try settle with you without involving the courts) when it comes to costs. 

If ex does still have the WhatsApp convo from 5-6 years ago, indicates ex has not so happily moved on. Either has axe to grind or still has feelings imo. 

As is so often on forums there are more unanswered questions than answered ones. Even the OP seems a little foggy on the details these days and even if they weren't we are unlikely to get a blow by blow recounting of the full story of their relationship and its breakdown.

For illustration purposes... based on the timeline it seems fairly certain that they got the dog whilst they were together, rather than the OP's Ex bringing it in. Maybe the OP was the one that really wanted it and the Ex just agreed. They split up, Ex says for the OP to take the dog but the OP says work/new home etc it isn't suitable and so the Ex has to take it. Ex says they dont really want the expense of it etc so the OP says they'll contribute if the Ex takes the dog. In which case there is offer, acceptance and consideration so a properly formed contract.

As to keeping texts? Dunno what the norm is but certainly my phone keeps all messages in perpetuity and with online backups they survive phone upgrades. I don't think its because I have a particular axe to grind or that I am not over my last conversation with a recruitment agent but it can be useful to be able to be able to check prior conversations. With storage now in GB its not as if a few bytes for a text is going to dent your storage. 

As has been explained by others, dogs are no different to any other property. If you don't like the expense of the upkeep of an item of property then you are free to give it away, or even destroy it (and unfortunately, some people do that with dogs rather than rehoming them). 

Plus, if the dog was jointly owned then they'd be jointly liable for its upkeep. Consideration can't be past. So no, a valid contract wouldn't be formed even if what you said was accurate. 

Again, unless it was part of a formal financial settlement then the ex would appear to be SOL. 

Offer - Ex says they'll take the dog in exchange for payments
Acceptance - OP texted to say that's fine
Consideration - OP made monthly payments until recently...

There's no consideration from the ex in offering to look after his own dog.  (I know I suggested this earlier, but I'd have thought it was clear I was joking... )

Its 6 years since they broke up, they were married so its unlikely to have been a relationship of just a few months. I suspect that the OP says its "his dog" because he took it in the separation, either the dog is elderly because they brought it into the relationship and then took it away after or it was originally "their dog" as they got it whilst together and OP has change ownship based on possession so it wasn't "his own dog" at the point of striking the agreement.

At the end of the day the dog would have been chattel with a theoretical value, most likely to be negative as cost of future care is much less than what you can sell an old pet for, and the parties in theory have agreed how to deal with its ownership and upkeep.

sheramber

I have had 7 dogs in over 50 years of marriage.

I wanted the dogs, I decided what breed, I  sourced them and paid for them, they were registered in my name at the vet and on the microchip. I decided what vaccinations , wormers, flea treatment they would or would not have.
I decided what insurance to buy.

I decided what to  feed them, I fed them, trained them and exercised them. I checked out local kennels and decided which to use.

They were very much MY dogs.