Skip to main content

A Dog’s Day in Court

Andrea, a white woman with wavy brown hair, wears a white shirt and black suit.
Hannah, a white woman with brown hair wears a black blouse and plaid suit.
Andrea Renegar-King & Hannah Litty

A Great Dane named Roxy is at the center of a new Court of Appeals opinion that every family lawyer in this state should read before the next client asks, “but who is going to keep the dog?”

Brief Overview of Facts 

Neils Moore (Plaintiff) and Laura Volastro (Defendant) began dating, moved in together and decided to purchase a puppy. Together, the couple visited a breeder, where Moore placed a deposit on a puppy, and the parties agreed to pick up the dog at a later date. When Moore and Volastro picked up the dog, Moore paid the remaining $500 balance. The bill of sale from the breeder identified Moore as the buyer, but Volastro’s contact information was listed. On Christmas Day, Volastro also made a Facebook post which stated: “Introducing Roxy Rose . . . Thank you Honey. She’s beautiful.” 

Procedural History & Holding

The parties’ relationship deteriorated over the following months. On August 24, 2024, Volastro obtained an ex parte DVPO against Moore, which awarded her possession of the dog; a full DVPO on August 29, 2024, granted her “the care, custody, and control” of Roxy.

After Moore was accused of violating the DVPO in December of 2024, he filed a small-claims Complaint to Recover Possession of Personal Property, seeking return of an engagement ring, rent reimbursement, Christmas decorations, kitchen items and Roxy (valued at $1,000). Volastro responded that Roxy was a Christmas gift from Moore and belonged solely to her, though she agreed to return everything else.

The magistrate awarded Moore all items except the dog. Moore appealed to the District Court, which, following a hearing on June 30, 2025, found and concluded the dog was a gift from Moore to Volastro and that Volastro had provided the dog’s care since acquisition; the court awarded possession of Roxy to Volastro. Moore appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, holding sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s findings and conclusion that Moore intended to gift the dog to Volastro and effected delivery of that gift, satisfying both elements of an inter vivos gift.

Analysis

The Court relied on Swindell v. Swindell, 153 N.C. 22, 68 S.E. 892 (1910), a more than century-old North Carolina Supreme Court decision involving a dispute over whether a husband had gifted a horse to his wife.

In Swindell, the horse, after being given to the wife, was subsequently kept in the husband’s stable and used by the husband. The Supreme Court held this subsequent possession and use by the husband did not divest or impair the wife’s title, reasoning that it was no different than if the husband had used property the wife had independently purchased or owned before the marriage —continued use by the donor does not undo a completed gift.

The Court of Appeals quoted that reasoning directly and extended it to an unmarried couple who continued to jointly interact with the gifted dog after the gift was made. The Court of Appeals reasoned that because Moore and Volastro lived together with the dog, it was “impossible” for Moore to wholly and physically divest himself of possession, so his continued engagement with and partial care for the dog (walks, the dog park, obedience classes) was simply an unavoidable incident of shared living arrangements, not evidence that he retained ownership or failed to deliver the gift.

Evidence Checklist 

Moore argued that the evidence did not show he had the intent to “immediately divest himself of all right and title to and control of the dog.” As intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the “gift,” it’s a fact-intensive inquiry. The Court of Appeals, which did not reweigh the evidence that was heard by the trial court, overruled Moore’s argument regarding intent. However, if you’re litigating or trying to prevent a pet possession dispute, the Court’s opinion makes it clear that you should build your case around these points:

Paperwork

In Moore’s argument that he lacked intent to gift the dog to Volastro, he pointed to paperwork — namely, a bill of sale. Moore noted that the bill of sale listed his name, not Volastro’s, and did not indicate “co-ownership.” Based on that, Moore asserted that he never intended Volastro to care for the dog. 

This argument sets up groundwork for paperwork to become relevant in future cases where gifting of a pet is at issue. Think: adoption forms, vet records, receipts, insurance records — the list goes on. 

Caretaking

Moore also pointed to his efforts to care for the dog as further evidence of his lack of intent to gift the dog to Volastro. He noted that he purchased dog food, took the dog out and paid for and attended puppy obedience classes. Importantly, Moore also mentioned that the dog resided at Moore’s apartment — not Volastro’s — and Moore never told Volastro that she could take the dog with her when she was not at Moore’s apartment. 

Similar to child custody, facts regarding who actually cares for the dog seem to be relevant in the Court’s analysis. However, where the dog physically resides does not seem to be a crucial indicator of who receives custody of the dog. A dog can seemingly still be considered a gift from Partner 1 to Partner 2, even if the dog still lives with Partner 1. 

Statements of Intent

In the opinion’s recitation of the trial court’s findings of fact, there are several findings referencing a direct statement of intent. Several witnesses at a dog park testified at the trial court level that they had heard Volastro refer to the dog as a Christmas gift from Moore, with Moore gesturing his agreement. One witness stated that Moore told her that he gifted the dog to Volastro. The Court of Appeals also noted a Facebook post by Volastro, which thanked Moore for the dog on Christmas Day. 

The lesson here is that statements made before the relationship sours carry considerable weight and, as we already know, social media can be a great source to find them. 

Conclusion

Moore v. Volastro tells us that North Carolina still treats pets as property. However, Moore may also be treated practically as a playbook on how to litigate a pet dispute. As family law attorneys, we should point the court to paperwork, evidence of caretaking and statements of intent as to ownership of the pet in question. Moore should also be treated as a cautionary tale, as it took a magistrate, a district court trial and an appeal to settle the fate of one Great Dane. Given how taxing these disputes can become, consideration of a provision in a premarital agreement or cohabitation agreement may be a conversation worth having with clients before the relationship’s bark turns into a bite.