Ohio: Roommate given Marital property over surviving spouse

[SheilaRene]

Jurisdiction

Ohio

My abusive husband died mid-divorce. Our female Shih-tzu was purchased in March 2018. He beat me twice, the 2nd time,he stole her. So, he died November 22, 2023, but he gave her to one of his roommates. I have her microchipped which means neither monster or female monster ever got her shots and I'm going to have to take the ditz and her boyfriend to court over marital property that should have been mine. That's a messed up law if that's what it is, especially if it's not in writing. I paid on her Wellness Plan for the past 4 years and he did the damage and of course he didn't take responsibility for it. But I don't understand why, since I'm the surving spouse. Why I have to take them to court to get back what should have been mine to begin with.

Where would I look for it if it is a law and how do I go about changing it so that the surviving spouse takes precedence over roommates, especially when there is nothing in writing

 

[zddoodah]

But I don't understand why, since I'm the surving spouse. Why I have to take them to court to get back what should have been mine to begin with.

Because the general presumption in the law is that the person in possession of a piece of property is the owner. If A possesses a widget, and B claims the widget belongs to him, and A doesn't want to give the widget to B, then B's recourse is to take the matter to the court.

 

[Zigner]

Our female Shih-tzu was purchased in March 2018.

So, the dog was his too.

...he stole her.

No, it sounds to me like he took his property.

... he gave her to one of his roommates.

So, the roommate now owns the dog.

...I'm going to have to take the ditz and her boyfriend to court over marital property that should have been mine.

You already acknowledged that your husband, the joint owner of the dog, gave her the dog. It's her dog.

Why I have to take them to court to get back what should have been mine to begin with.

You don't have to...from your description, you no longer own the dog.

 

[adjusterjack]

He died during the divorce. They were still married. He had no right to give away joint property any more than he could give away a house or a car that was joint property.

I think SheilaRene could make a case for ownership.

At least it would be worth a try.

 

[Zigner]

The dog is no different than an old TV or an old pair of shoes.

 

[welkin]

The dog is no different than an old TV or an old pair of shoes.

Unless it's your dog!

 

[adjusterjack]

The dog is no different than an old TV or an old pair of shoes.

TV and shoes, also marital property.

If fact, divorce petitions often have an injunction, attached to the summons, against disposing of marital property while the divorce is pending.

Unless it's your dog!

My dog? Meh. I like my TV and old shoes better. Just kidding. Gee, I hope he didn't see that. LOL.

 

[Zigner]

TV and shoes, also marital property.

If fact, divorce petitions often have an injunction, attached to the summons, against disposing of marital property while the divorce is pending.

True - so I guess that brings up two questions. Was the dog given away after the divorce suit was filed, and, if it was, then what cause of action would the OP have against the folks who received the dog? The second question is important, because it would seem that the OP would need to pursue some sort of contempt hearing against the ex, which is obviously not possible now.

 

[adjusterjack]

A few questions occur to me, too. Why didn't OP call the police when the two beatings occurred? When the dog was taken, the police might have recovered it during an arrest.

And when exactly was the dog taken? Certainly before the death. Depending on the when, there could be a statute of limitations there. I think it's two years for tort in most places.

The other thing that doesn't make sense is the lost dog attachment that says the dog was last seen on Nov 23 2023 in Ohio and Washington. Pretty remarkable dog, able to be in two places on the same date. Teleportation maybe.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The dog is no different than an old TV or an old pair of shoes.

Under the law of most states, that's true. And the same principle applies, the presumption is the person possessing it is the owner of it. The spouse died, so that ended the marriage. Depending on the law of the state involved, it may well be the case that either spouse may make a gift of personal to some third party without the consent of the other spouse. Unless the couple is in a community property state the laws regarding maritial division of property only come into play in deciding the divorce action. In short, the husband may well have had the right to give the dog to some other person under the laws of Ohio as Ohio is not a community property.

In most non community property states the main restriction would be giving property away that is jointly titled, like on a deed or car title. Most personal property has no ownership documents for them specifying who has record title to the property. The other non titled personal property they have typically either spouse can deal with without the consent of the spouse. This is why in non community property states a party petitioning for divorce typically immediately seeks an order from the court that freezes the property in place and prevents either party from selling it, giving it away, etc. So here, as the other spouse died mid-divorce, the OP would want to check the orders entered in their divorce case to see if any such order was entered.

The OP may well have a superior claim to the dog when all is said and done. But since the deceased spouse's friend is now in possession of the dog, if the friend doesn't want to give up the dog the OP will have to go to court to decide the matter. The OP can't simply go over and snatch the dog away from the person in possession of it.

 

[welkin]

The OP can't simply go over and snatch the dog away from the person in possession of it.

Why not? OP had the dog chipped and it is her name on the chip certificate (although she doesn't say so). Let the girlfriend go to court and try to get the dog back.

Over the years that I have been reading your responses to posts, they read like a textbook on the law; the way it should be with very little commentary on real-life battles that people go through in their legal fight. That is in no way an insult or criticism but rather an observation. If you were a politician, you would be a quintessential one for sure.

Too bad Jack closed the thread on the Colorado Supreme Court. I was looking forward to your reply.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Why not? OP had the dog chipped and it is her name on the chip certificate (although she doesn't say so). Let the girlfriend go to court and try to get the dog back.

Because (1) it's not clear that it is her dog, chipped ear notwithstanding, and if she gets it wrong, she's guilty of theft and (2) in order to take the dog back that way, she'd likely either have to commit trespass or a breach of the peace, either of which could get her in legal trouble too. That's why her better option is to sue for replevin - the return of her property. Remember that if the dog was jointly owned between the spouses her late husband may have had the right to give the dog away, in which case the friend is now the legal owner. That's something she can argue in court, but I wouldn't suggest she employ her own legal self-help in this case because there is that risk she may get it wrong and things turn out even worse.

Over the years that I have been reading your responses to posts, they read like a textbook on the law; the way it should be with very little commentary on real-life battles that people go through in their legal fight.

I'm not here to give legal advice; that would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addition, most posts have too little personal information to give them much in the way of advice anyway. I can tell them what the law says; they can then decide what to do with that given their situation. Real life circumstances certainly enter into my advice to clients, but I don't know nearly enough about the circumstances of the people posting. All I'd be doing is guessing, and since there can be a large range of circumstances, my guesses might be wrong. What would work for one person given their personal reality might be really bad for another. And without more details, I can't tell which it is.

You often give answers that appear based how you'd handle it based on your circumstances and point of view, but the OPsmay be in a quite a different situation and need some other way to deal with it. It's not logical to assume everyone is in the same exact situation with the exact same resources. Moreover, you don't have a very complete knowledge of the law. I wouldn't expect you to. You didn't go to law school and you are not a lawyer. But without that knowledge you won't know the full range of things that the person may, or may not, legally do. The idea of just going there and snatching the dog back is one example of that, for the reasons I explained above What you'd do may be useful for the OP to think about but it's not always going to be the right way, or even necessarily the legal way, for the OP.

The bottom line is that these boards are for legal information, not legal advice. I provide the legal advice. If the OP needs legal advice based on her exact circumstances, she needs to see a lawyer in her state and pay the fee for that advice.

 

[welkin]

Moreover, you don't have a very complete knowledge of the law. I wouldn't expect you to. You didn't go to law school and you are not a lawyer. But without that knowledge you won't know the full range of things that the person may, or may not, legally do.

Its true that I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. Nor are 90% or more of the volunteers that post on this legal board and other legal boards. They rely on their self-knowledge and experience.

I have never tried a case in court. I have been a plaintiff and I have been a defendant in numerous cases pertaining to municipal and land use law, and state sanitary law over a 13 year period quite a long time ago. I have served on and have written reports for Federal study commissions in the area of identifying environmentally sensitive lands and ways to preserve them. Those studies now reside in libraries as reference materials.

I have a bookshelf full of the Rules Governing The Courts of the State of New Jersey starting with the 1991 edition through to the 2004 edition along with loose leaf binders containing the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 5 for the same years. All are well read and dog-eared.

And you are correct in that I do not have a complete knowledge of the law. And I dare say that neither do you or does any attorney. Clearly, your knowledge is far more complete than mine. I don't know crap about tax law other than to know that I have to pay my taxes when they are due or Uncle Sam gets very angry. But you don't know much about land use law (from previous posts of yours). I doubt you would take on a land use case.

Going to law school and passing a bar exam in of itself, does not give an attorney a complete knowledge of the law. It gives them a very broad understanding of the law. It is the experience over time that will make him/her an expert with a complete understanding of the field of law they choose to practice. An attorney that has been doing real-estate closings for 30 years isn't going to take a complicated tax case, is he?

By the way, chipping a dog doesn't mean clipping their ear. It means implanting a micro-capsule under the skin that contains a registration number to specific owners in the registry when the capsule is scanned. So depending on how the ownership was registered, OP may well have claim to the dog.

 

[Zigner]

By the way, chipping a dog doesn't mean clipping their ear. It means implanting a micro-capsule under the skin that contains a registration number to specific owners in the registry when the capsule is scanned. So depending on how the ownership was registered, OP may well have claim to the dog.

Not based on the chip registration. All the registration shows is that the person registered the chip in his/her name. It doesn't show that the person is the current owner of the dog. Could one use it as evidence? Sure. But it really doesn't offer anything evidentiary that couldn't be offered by testimony or other documents (such as an initial bill of sale). The existence of the chip doesn't give rise to a claim of ownership, it is merely a piece of evidence.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Going to law school and passing a bar exam in of itself, does not give an attorney a complete knowledge of the law. It gives them a very broad understanding of the law.

Correct, and that broad understanding of the law is something that most people in this country lack. They don't need it in their day to day lives. They may become well acquainted with the particular area law that relates to their profession or other activities. Some of them will know that particular area better than most attorneys who do not practice in that area. The difference is that the attorney's broad exposure to the law allows him/her to at least be alert to when issues under other areas of law are present and arrange for the client to get the representation/advice needed or provide a relevant referral. Those who are not lawyers and have not undertaken the kind of study of law that school students have will make the same kinds of mistakes on matters outside of whatever expertise they have in the law from their work or other activities. They won't know enough to have a basic understand of those areas and when it would be a good idea to get advice from a specialist in the area. And they may end up guessing at the law based on what they've seen on TV shows and movies, which are rarely very accurate representations of the law.

It is the experience over time that will make him/her an expert with a complete understanding of the field of law they choose to practice.

Yes, as with any profession, knowledge is a combination of structured learning and practice in the area(s) of competence they do. The same principle described above applies, though. I have a very thorough understanding of a medical condition I have had for over three decades, more than most doctors do other than those who are specialists in it. But I don't have a broad knowledge of medicine like any MD would have such that I could properly identify other issues and tell anyone which specialist to see or accurately give advice about that problem. Or, for that matter, to accruately diagnose myself with respect to other medical conditions. Most lay persons posting on medical message boards know they don't know most areas of medicine well enough to comment on questions posted about it and refrain from posting their guesses they have based on mass media. Yet for some reaons, a lot of non lawyers think they know a whole lot about the law and have no problem tossing in their opinions on it. They seem to think that what they see in the mass media about the law is 100% accurate. That leads them to give opinions that are wrong or miss something important.

By the way, chipping a dog doesn't mean clipping their ear. It means implanting a micro-capsule under the skin that contains a registration number to specific owners in the registry when the capsule is scanned. So depending on how the ownership was registered, OP may well have claim to the dog.

I understand what chipping the dog means. But a dog's chip is not absolute proof of ownership. It is, at best, evidence of a claim to ownership at the time the chip was implanted. While that's useful evidence for a court to consider, it doesn't account for events that occur after the chip was implanted, like later making a gift to of the pet to someone else. The OP may indeed have a good claim to the dog, but she'll need to go to court to make that case. Self help of taking the dog back herself has the risk of backfiring on her and making her guilty of one or more crimes. I get that it's aggravating to have to go to court over it if you're the true owner, but in life and particularly in the law, the easiest way for someone to solve their problem may not be the right way to do it.

 

[SheilaRene]

The dog is no different than an old TV or an old pair of shoes.

Actually the dog would be since it's a living breathing animal. And she was bought by the 2 of us together. Shoes and an old TV are things he could give the roommate as they were bought by each of us separately and to me are personal property.

 

[SheilaRene]

True - so I guess that brings up two questions. Was the dog given away after the divorce suit was filed, and, if it was, then what cause of action would the OP have against the folks who received the dog? The second question is important, because it would seem that the OP would need to pursue some sort of contempt hearing against the ex, which is obviously not possible now.

What I have against them is that like dead husband he hurt Baby Ruth and the recipients are the same, neglectful and abusive. I provided veterinary care and guarded her around the drug addicts when I lived there. The deputies asked about it, this I can't remember exactly what was said, but mention was said he gave them ownership. Now, does that have to be in writing and notarized or can they get away with saying, " It was his wishes " Which to me his questionable at best.

 

[Zigner]

Actually the dog would be since it's a living breathing animal. And she was bought by the 2 of us together. Shoes and an old TV are things he could give the roommate as they were bought by each of us separately and to me are personal property.

In the eyes of the law, a dog is property, just as shoes or an old tv. If the dog was bought by the two of you "together" then he would have the right to give the dog away (just as you would).

 

[SheilaRene]

A few questions occur to me, too. Why didn't OP call the police when the two beatings occurred? When the dog was taken, the police might have recovered it during an arrest.

And when exactly was the dog taken? Certainly before the death. Depending on the when, there could be a statute of limitations there. I think it's two years for tort in most places.

The other thing that doesn't make sense is the lost dog attachment that says the dog was last seen on Nov 23 2023 in Ohio and Washington. Pretty remarkable dog, able to be in two places on the same date. Teleportation maybe.

The first incident happened in another county. I filed domestic violence charges the next day. I thought the cops serving the warrant were going to cry. The second incident he got a court order to get hus personal possessions. He got her instead and beat me while the 2 cops watched. BTW they were let into the house by one of his drug addict tenants. Anyways, I called the cops and was laughed at, their saying there were already cops there . Retrieve her at an arrest? They were helping the bastard, and not help me. October 3, 2919 is when she was taken. He terrified the life out of me so I glad he's gone . As far as I know, it's been his verbally giving Baby Ruth to the roommate which to me is wishy washy. Trying to find out if verbal is legal or written and notarized is required.

 

[Zigner]

Now, does that have to be in writing and notarized or can they get away with saying, " It was his wishes " Which to me his questionable at best.

There doesn't need to be anything in writing, much less a notarized writing. They would need to prove that he gave them the dog with evidence. Their evidence can be testimony. You would need to prove he didn't give them the dog with evidence. Your evidence can be testimony. Can you truthfully testify that he did NOT give them the dog?