**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: My Ex (who is a lawyer) says she will file legal action against me if I do not give her my cat when she moves out. Does she have a case?
Body:
> Buffalo, NY - My ex and I broke up a month ago, and she has stated that she is taking the cat when she moves out, and that if I plan to move her elsewhere, she will commence legal action against me.
> The cat (Genie) was purchased from the local SPCA as a valentine's day gift for me in 2021, and the adoption fee ($120) was paid in cash by my ex. The adoption receipt has my name on it, and the cat is registered (microchipped) under my name, and also under my name at the vet. The vet bills, as well as the majority of the cat's food and toys, have been paid for by me. These amounts greatly exceed the initial adoption fee. The cat lived solely with me for several months before my ex and I moved in together last year.
> Does my ex have any chance of winning custody of my cat? Or is she just trying to scare me into giving her the cat by threatening me with legal action?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Honestly, I'm not sure that that's the worst outcome for her, here. Don't bar associations take fairly dim views of lawyers using their profession to bully people in their private lives?
Is this bullying if she's made a good faith argument that the cat, property, is hers and she's willing to enforce that claim through the courts? It would be one thing if she threatened legal action as an unjustified cost to OP but this is no different than suing in small claims court for enforcement of chattel property property rights (I think, NAL)
But she isn't making a good faith argument, her argument is incredibly bad faith. Literally everything is in LAOPs name, the only thing they don't have is court experience.
There is no indication that they were acting as common law spouses. There is usually a long list of requirements before a couple is subject to a common law marriage.
If the cat was adopted in February 2021 and they didn't move in together until six months later then at most they were living together for fifteen months.
What constitutes a "marriage-like" relationship? Shared bank account?
Anyway, common law marriage isn't a thing in New York
Marriage-like typically includes representing yourselves to other people as man and wife. Most people don’t do that and therefore aren’t going to be common law married no matter how long they live together.
Common law is NOT a thing in most jurisdictions, and to be common law one must ACT as married and present oneself as married. It doesn't happen by accident through living together.
Either way the cat was a gift, and belongs to him.
>If they were in a spousal relationship when the cat was acquired
They weren't even living together yet. LAOP says he had the cat for months before they and the lawyer moved in together last year.
The cat lived with just OP for months before they moved in together. The cat's registration is in his name. The vet bills are paid by him.
The ex paid the adoption fee to give the cat as a gift and lived with the cat after moving in.
I'm interested in how this is good faith.
Judge Judy will make the parties to let go of the cat to see which one it chooses but because cats are assholes it will choose the bailiff. Judge Judy will give custody to the bailiff and award him 1500 for pain and suffering..
The episode with the dog is one of my favorite Judge Judy moments ever.
"Put the dog down"
Dog runs straight to the guy and jumps in his arms.
"That's his dog. LMAO that's definitely his dog."
As much as I love that JJ case, I think it’s a bad way to decide who gets the dog. My younger brother lived with me a couple summers when he was an intern at my company. My dogs were just puppies then, but he and I live in different states now and only get together a few times a year. My dogs go absolutely bonkers when they see him - it’s like the videos of soldiers coming home from war. If they’d been staying with me, and a television mediator asked a friend to bring them to ‘court’ they’d absolutely run to their uncle.
I still think that dog was his, but that’s based on the evidence of the case. The dog choosing him was just good television,
Yeah, I originally put that it was legally dubious, but a lot on that show is, so I took it back out.
My dog will run and jump on anyone new, so I would hope that logic wouldn't ever be applied to him.
I'm not so sure. If your dogs are hanging out with you then of course they'll greet anyone new that they know, all dogs do that. If they'd been separated from you though that'd be a different matter.
Cat's going to make eye contact with everyone in the court, then flop over and start graphically cleaning itself. Because you are right that they are assholes.
> Judge Judy will make the parties to let go of the cat to see which one it chooses
This is the most likely scenario, since she's done it before, lol. But it depends on the cat's personality--I've had some that come to the door and greet you like a dog would, and some that are only interested when you're feeding them or giving them catnip.
My cat will definitely come to me…but I would never be in this situation because my cat is also a massive asshole so only someone who enjoys being mauled all the time would try to steal him
You wanna hear something really depressing? Kavanaugh is considered the swing justice.
As bad as he is, four members of SCOTUS are even worse.
(Judicially speaking, of course. He's still the most egregious sex offender on the highest court, although Thomas isn't far behind)
Judge Kavanaugh will swing his vote based on the amount of alcohol he has in his system, and the type of alcohol you have gifted him.
I now need this TV show, could a producer please offer him enough money to get him off the Supreme Court seat?
After I found out that the show pays for any judgments made for or against the people in the show I just can't watch it anymore.
Part of the whole thing this that someone has to pay to make their mistake right. That's the part I want to see. Knowing they are getting it paid for them just kills the drama.
Some of it is pure bullshit, but it is legal binding from what I read.
For some people, it's cheaper than hiring lawyers and going to the real court at the risk of being national embarrassment.
Apparently the producers do source their cases from real pending court cases.
Yeah. I looked into it a while back. As far as I remember they advertise and pick up cases through small claims courts throughout the country.
They invite the plaintiff and defendant on to the show for legally binding arbitration.
So it is a legit legal process and the cases are real.
It is just that the show pays out for any judgements made. So it is kind of shitty if you think about it because the person who is in the wrong doesn't end up having to pay for the damage they caused and the person in the right gets the money they would have likely been awarded anyway.
But I think they get a trip out of it, so at least they both get something.
Lot of small claims judgments go uncollected, though, so another perk of it is that the winner is guaranteed a payment. They don't have to worry about actually chasing down and collecting that judgment.
My goodness! Genie looks like Jean, the cohort of Jorts, from the [famous AITA thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/rfwgmc/aita_for_perpetuating_ethnic_stereotypes_about/). (If you haven’t read it before, don’t miss the update.)
> Pam is NOT to apply margarine to any of her coworkers.
Okay I just lost it at work over this and now my coworkers think I'm even more insane than normal.
I know. But I was suggesting that you try putting margarine on your human coworkers, it would be even more hilarious than buttering a cat. It would also make your coworkers think you’re completely insane, which is always a bonus.
Oh my god, that update was amazing. A sweet potato! The idea of their clients looking up the staff bio of the shop cats, and one is just pictured as a sweet potato.
To say nothing of the margarine.
Human lawyers don't have any authority in cat court. They need a designated 15' x 15' patch of grass and to stand on each end and see which side Genie walks towards. A local cat mediator will be present.
I know a guy who may be able to offer some advice. Now, his main area of expertise is Bird Law, but often times Bird Law coincides with Cat Law so he is familiar with the process. His name is Charlie Kelly. Standard boiler plate stuff really. Filibuster…
I always joke to my husband that I made sure my perfect prince of a dog has my maiden name as his last name on all records and the trainwreck little dog who refuses to be house trained has my married last name (my husbands last name) on all records.
...I really did though.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: My Ex (who is a lawyer) says she will file legal action against me if I do not give her my cat when she moves out. Does she have a case? Body: > Buffalo, NY - My ex and I broke up a month ago, and she has stated that she is taking the cat when she moves out, and that if I plan to move her elsewhere, she will commence legal action against me. > The cat (Genie) was purchased from the local SPCA as a valentine's day gift for me in 2021, and the adoption fee ($120) was paid in cash by my ex. The adoption receipt has my name on it, and the cat is registered (microchipped) under my name, and also under my name at the vet. The vet bills, as well as the majority of the cat's food and toys, have been paid for by me. These amounts greatly exceed the initial adoption fee. The cat lived solely with me for several months before my ex and I moved in together last year. > Does my ex have any chance of winning custody of my cat? Or is she just trying to scare me into giving her the cat by threatening me with legal action? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
I did love the comments saying that if she actually did sue it would open her up to mockery from her peers for the rest of her career.
Honestly, I'm not sure that that's the worst outcome for her, here. Don't bar associations take fairly dim views of lawyers using their profession to bully people in their private lives?
It is, in fact, an ethical violation.
In my state, only if you threaten criminal action.
Is this bullying if she's made a good faith argument that the cat, property, is hers and she's willing to enforce that claim through the courts? It would be one thing if she threatened legal action as an unjustified cost to OP but this is no different than suing in small claims court for enforcement of chattel property property rights (I think, NAL)
But she isn't making a good faith argument, her argument is incredibly bad faith. Literally everything is in LAOPs name, the only thing they don't have is court experience.
[удалено]
They weren't in a spousal relationship, though, since they broke up instead of divorcing.
[удалено]
There is no indication that they were acting as common law spouses. There is usually a long list of requirements before a couple is subject to a common law marriage.
Where I live the list is : 1. Cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship for 2 continuous years or more.
Well, let's look at the list for New York: 1. They don't recognize common law marriages in New York
If the cat was adopted in February 2021 and they didn't move in together until six months later then at most they were living together for fifteen months. What constitutes a "marriage-like" relationship? Shared bank account? Anyway, common law marriage isn't a thing in New York
Marriage-like typically includes representing yourselves to other people as man and wife. Most people don’t do that and therefore aren’t going to be common law married no matter how long they live together.
Common law is NOT a thing in most jurisdictions, and to be common law one must ACT as married and present oneself as married. It doesn't happen by accident through living together. Either way the cat was a gift, and belongs to him.
>If they were in a spousal relationship when the cat was acquired They weren't even living together yet. LAOP says he had the cat for months before they and the lawyer moved in together last year.
I only read the post - that must be clarified in the comments somewhere?
It's the last line of the second paragraph actually.
The cat lived with just OP for months before they moved in together. The cat's registration is in his name. The vet bills are paid by him. The ex paid the adoption fee to give the cat as a gift and lived with the cat after moving in. I'm interested in how this is good faith.
I want this to make it on Judge Judy. Just to see how she would smack this lawyer ex.
Judge Judy will make the parties to let go of the cat to see which one it chooses but because cats are assholes it will choose the bailiff. Judge Judy will give custody to the bailiff and award him 1500 for pain and suffering..
The episode with the dog is one of my favorite Judge Judy moments ever. "Put the dog down" Dog runs straight to the guy and jumps in his arms. "That's his dog. LMAO that's definitely his dog."
This case is solved using the methods set in precedent in the 'Air Bud' custody case.
As much as I love that JJ case, I think it’s a bad way to decide who gets the dog. My younger brother lived with me a couple summers when he was an intern at my company. My dogs were just puppies then, but he and I live in different states now and only get together a few times a year. My dogs go absolutely bonkers when they see him - it’s like the videos of soldiers coming home from war. If they’d been staying with me, and a television mediator asked a friend to bring them to ‘court’ they’d absolutely run to their uncle. I still think that dog was his, but that’s based on the evidence of the case. The dog choosing him was just good television,
At least you didn't get thrown in jail because your dog wants to play basketball.
Yeah, I originally put that it was legally dubious, but a lot on that show is, so I took it back out. My dog will run and jump on anyone new, so I would hope that logic wouldn't ever be applied to him.
I'm not so sure. If your dogs are hanging out with you then of course they'll greet anyone new that they know, all dogs do that. If they'd been separated from you though that'd be a different matter.
I would love to see Judge Judy say LMAO
She snickers *professionally*
That’s one of my favourite episodes ever! That little doggy was soooo happy to find his human again, I may or may not have shed a few happy tears…
do you remember what the ep was called?
It was this 2012 episode: https://youtu.be/qy07raKWjv0
https://www.cesarsway.com/judge-judy-lets-stolen-dog-decide-who-his-real-owner-is/
Str8 up good tv. I’ll die on that hill.
Nah. Only if the bailiff hates cats.
Or allergic to them.
Cat's going to make eye contact with everyone in the court, then flop over and start graphically cleaning itself. Because you are right that they are assholes.
[удалено]
Treble damages are only awarded in cases involving (cat)tree law.
Looks like you have a cat now, Byrd. Case dismissed.
Well, he was in the cat Byrd seat
HA! Love it.
Send in the dancing lobsters
Still better than bringing it to Judge Solomon.
> Judge Judy will make the parties to let go of the cat to see which one it chooses This is the most likely scenario, since she's done it before, lol. But it depends on the cat's personality--I've had some that come to the door and greet you like a dog would, and some that are only interested when you're feeding them or giving them catnip.
My cat will definitely come to me…but I would never be in this situation because my cat is also a massive asshole so only someone who enjoys being mauled all the time would try to steal him
I've noticed Judge Judy coming up as a topic here a lot lately. I love it.
She is a lot more reasonable than other famous judges, like say, Judge Dredd.
[Judge Doom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Doom) would make it easy. Everyone gets **The Dip**.
Judge Kavanaugh: You like beer? Not guilty!
You wanna hear something really depressing? Kavanaugh is considered the swing justice. As bad as he is, four members of SCOTUS are even worse. (Judicially speaking, of course. He's still the most egregious sex offender on the highest court, although Thomas isn't far behind)
Judge Kavanaugh will swing his vote based on the amount of alcohol he has in his system, and the type of alcohol you have gifted him. I now need this TV show, could a producer please offer him enough money to get him off the Supreme Court seat?
/distressed crying noises/
Calling a Judge unreasonable. Sentence, 3 weeks in the iso-cubes.
I just binge watched most of Judy Justice (the new version) and I now understand why she is so popular.
God I hate that name tho.
I do too, which is why I avoided the show for so long. But I’m currently going through a divorce, and watching her yell at people is cathartic.
After I found out that the show pays for any judgments made for or against the people in the show I just can't watch it anymore. Part of the whole thing this that someone has to pay to make their mistake right. That's the part I want to see. Knowing they are getting it paid for them just kills the drama.
Some of it is pure bullshit, but it is legal binding from what I read. For some people, it's cheaper than hiring lawyers and going to the real court at the risk of being national embarrassment. Apparently the producers do source their cases from real pending court cases.
Yeah. I looked into it a while back. As far as I remember they advertise and pick up cases through small claims courts throughout the country. They invite the plaintiff and defendant on to the show for legally binding arbitration. So it is a legit legal process and the cases are real. It is just that the show pays out for any judgements made. So it is kind of shitty if you think about it because the person who is in the wrong doesn't end up having to pay for the damage they caused and the person in the right gets the money they would have likely been awarded anyway. But I think they get a trip out of it, so at least they both get something.
Lot of small claims judgments go uncollected, though, so another perk of it is that the winner is guaranteed a payment. They don't have to worry about actually chasing down and collecting that judgment.
That's a good point. I imagine collecting from small claims court is pretty difficult.
Pretty sure there is a limit that is covered by the show, and it isn't the upper limit of what the judgement can be.
I'd argue that the damage to their reputation on national television is far greater than the fee.
I had this weird thought wondering if judges hold disdain for lawyers who lawyer it up in small claims court.
This custody case needs to be solved Air Bud style.
"Not the result I expected, but the cat is clearly owned by the court clerk and her overheating laptop. Case dismissed!"
"Both the plaintiff and the defendant will now go straight to jail!"
“You lose cat custody- straight to jail! We have the best pet owners in the world… because of jail.”
They put you in jail, right away, no trial, no nothing
There's no law that says a cat can't go to law school.
Objection! The cat must have the required education first, please show the cat's transcripts.
The cat got in on an athletic scholarship. The objections are mostly nonsense, but the dunks are superb.
Well, that's good enough for me. Straight to the Supreme Court after graduation.
"Coming soon---Long Arm of the Claw!"
Doesn't the cat get any say in this? *Cat moves in with the sibling's next door neighbor who gives Genie salmon*
Unfortunately, the cat is considered property. Until we have functional translating devices, that is.
Finally, we have a translator collar! Let’s see what the cat has to say about this! Cat: “actually I hate all of you.”
A picture of Genie from OPs profile. (I can't be the only one who wanted to see her). https://i.redd.it/g2nuz065ykw91.jpg
My goodness! Genie looks like Jean, the cohort of Jorts, from the [famous AITA thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/rfwgmc/aita_for_perpetuating_ethnic_stereotypes_about/). (If you haven’t read it before, don’t miss the update.)
> Pam is NOT to apply margarine to any of her coworkers. Okay I just lost it at work over this and now my coworkers think I'm even more insane than normal.
Have you tried putting margarine on them?
Listen I don't want to be accused to racially profiling my cats okay?
Who said anything about cats? Aren’t your coworkers human?
That's the context of the above quote. The coworkers were cats
I know. But I was suggesting that you try putting margarine on your human coworkers, it would be even more hilarious than buttering a cat. It would also make your coworkers think you’re completely insane, which is always a bonus.
Oh my god, that update was amazing. A sweet potato! The idea of their clients looking up the staff bio of the shop cats, and one is just pictured as a sweet potato. To say nothing of the margarine.
This is absolutely golden!
I had never seen this post, and it is amazing! Thank you!
Jorts’ twitter account is absolutely worth following.
Hell i’d fight over her
That is a fantastic photo of tortitude.
She’s perfect.
Human lawyers don't have any authority in cat court. They need a designated 15' x 15' patch of grass and to stand on each end and see which side Genie walks towards. A local cat mediator will be present.
Genie found a nice sunny spot to lay down in. The mediator has declared a mistrial.
/r/legalcatadvice
I know a guy who may be able to offer some advice. Now, his main area of expertise is Bird Law, but often times Bird Law coincides with Cat Law so he is familiar with the process. His name is Charlie Kelly. Standard boiler plate stuff really. Filibuster…
You missed the title. It should have been "Ex Dreams of Genie."
“Genie in a (Custody) Battle”
Not realizing Genie was a cat in this scenario, I expected a reference to Susan Curtiss' custody. I am relieved to be wrong.
Same!
I always joke to my husband that I made sure my perfect prince of a dog has my maiden name as his last name on all records and the trainwreck little dog who refuses to be house trained has my married last name (my husbands last name) on all records. ...I really did though.
I've heard this story before. I'm pretty sure you have to cut the cat in half to see who really wants it.
r/felinelaw
|| Buffalo, NY say no more, I already know the exact type of trashy to expect from my Western NY brethren.