Month: May 2018

Pet Custody in a Divorce

pet custody in a divorceTo the delight of pet lovers across the state, last year the Illinois legislature passed a new pet custody in a divorce law that allows judges to consider the well-being of a pet when allocating sole or joint ownership in an Illinois divorce. Much like child custody, the new pet custody law allows a judge to take the best interest of the pet into consideration instead of just treating pets as marital property to be divided.

Although many in Wisconsin also have strong emotional ties to their pets, often considering them a member of the family, Wisconsin courts do not expressly recognize pets as being more than property. Unfortunately, when it comes to divorce, Wisconsin law treats pets just like any other marital property such as furniture or a car, subject to division based on their monetary value.

When trying to determine what is best for the pet and the family in a Wisconsin divorce, reaching a compromise is ideal. Parties will need to decide who will keep the pet after a divorce and whether the other party will be allowed visitation. If you find that and your spouse cannot agree, it may be worthwhile to work with a third party mediator to help you reach an arrangement.

If all efforts fail and you decide to have the issue decided in court, it is important for you and your attorney to present a strong argument as to why a pet should remain under your care. Factors may include who has taken primary responsibility for feeding and caring for the pet during the marriage, whether being awarded the pet serves the children’s best interests in a primary placement household, or if one of the parties owned the pet prior to the marriage. These and other considerations will help strengthen your argument to maintain your relationship with a cat, dog or other family pet.

Concerned about Pet Custody in a Divorce?

Contact Experienced Wisconsin Marital Property Division Lawyers For Help

Until Wisconsin law catches up to take a more compassionate view of what is in the best interests of the family pet in a divorce, it remains a contentious issue. If you have concerns regarding marital property division with regard to a beloved pet, contact the family law attorneys at Probst Law Offices for immediate help.

Attorney Manuel Galang Joins Probst Law Offices

Probst Law Offices, S.C is pleased to announce that attorney Manuel R. Galang is joining our firm June, 1st.  Attorney Galang brings decades of legal experience to our firm in personal injury, family law and divorce, business litigation and criminal defense.  Attorney Galang has been practicing law since 1990 and has handled hundreds of personal injury, family law and criminal defense cases. Many of his criminal defense cases resulted in a reduced charge or dismissed charge, or an outright acquittal after a jury trial.

We welcome attorney Manuel R. Galang to the Probst Law Offices legal team. Please give us a call at 414-210-3135 for a free consultation regarding your family law, personal injury or criminal defense matter.

Riding Stable’s Immunity From Lawsuit

Probst LogoRecent decision affirming riding stable’s immunity from lawsuit for injury sustained while riding horse.

In this case (Brown v. COUNTRY VIEW EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INC., Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2017) the Plaintiff sought to recover for injures she sustained while riding her own horse at the facility. Plaintiff had informed the facility riding instructor that her horse was not well trained. Plaintiff temporarily relinquished control of the reins and direction of the horse to an instructor of the facility and the horse eventually collided with one of the stable horses after attempting a maneuver it was not prepared for. The equine immunity statute recognizes an exception for liability where a plaintiff can prove the facility was the “provider” of a horse for use in that the facility is the owner or controller of the horse.

Wisconsin Equine Immunity Statute

The plaintiff argued that the facility had “control” over the horse and was therefore a “provider.” The Court disagreed and found the facility not-liable stating that despite the fact that the plaintiff had relinquished control over her horse to the instructor, that the plaintiff had provided the horse for use, was the primary provider of the horse, and, therefore, was the “provider” for the purposes of the immunity statute (Wis.
Stat. § 895.481).