Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence
When a Florida domestic violence injunction is entered, a court can restrict a party’s access to animals residing with the parties. According to the Florida Statutes, a court can award “to the petitioner the temporary exclusive care, possession, or control of an animal that is owned, possessed, harbored, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or respondent. The court may order the respondent to temporarily have no contact with the animal and prohibit the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal. This subparagraph does not apply to an animal owned primarily for a bona fide agricultural purpose, as defined under s. 193.461.” Fla. Stat. 741.30(5)(a)4. This was an issue in the case Kollman v. Caudill, 2D22-3442 (Fla. 2d DCA December 27, 2023).
The parties to this case were animal trainers and one was a circus performer. They possessed many animals as part of their occupation. They were in a relationship which deteriorated. Both sought injunctions against each other which were granted. In the order granting the injunction, the court ruled that the former girlfriend would retain certain animals after payment to the former boyfriend for their value. The boyfriend appealed, arguing the animals were not “family pets” as described in Fla. Stat. 741.30(5)(a)4.
The appellate court considered the definition of “bona fide agricultural purpose” under Fla. Stat. 741.30. It reviewed related case law and concluded “Here, the trial court erred by classifying the kangaroo, three zebras, and four camels as ‘family pet(s).’ [The girlfriend] is a circus performer and zoo or petting zoo owner. [Both parties] have extensive histories owning and training performing animals. The parties and their performing animals participated in circuses, fairs, and educational shows. Like in McLendon, the kangaroo, three zebras, and four camels are animals that were used for bona fide agricultural purposes as defined in section 193.461(5). Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred by determining that those animals were family pets and by including them in the injunctive provisions of the final judgment. We reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence solely as to the court's disposition of the kangaroo, three zebras, and four camels and remand with directions to strike this language.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.