Ex-partner took the dog after breakup: is it possible to get it back through court

After a breakup, ex-partners often argue not only over the apartment, car, or other property but also over pets. If each considers the animal their own, resolving the conflict without court is not always possible. In the case reviewed by the Smila City District Court of Cherkasy region, former cohabitants could not agree on who should keep the Pomeranian Spitz. The court had to determine who documented ownership of the dog and whether there are grounds to reclaim it from unlawful possession.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff stated that in April 2024 he purchased a purebred dog of the GERMAN SPITZ TOY/POMERANIAN breed under a sales contract for 50,000 UAH. After the purchase, he began living with the defendant. However, after ending cohabitation in February 2026, according to the plaintiff, the woman took the dog and refused to return it. In correspondence, she admitted the dog belonged to the plaintiff but later offered to compensate its value, which he did not accept.

The defendant denied the claim. She asserted that the dog was gifted to her and referred to the veterinary passport, in which she was listed as the first owner of the animal, as well as written explanations from her mother.

The plaintiff, in turn, stated that no gift agreement exists, the veterinary documents were issued after the end of cohabitation, and he provided materials that, in his opinion, refuted the version of voluntary transfer of the dog.

What the court established

The court recalled that according to Article 180 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, animals are a special object of civil rights, but the legal regime of things applies to them. Therefore, the owner has the right to demand the return of property from unlawful possession under the rules of a vindicatory claim.

Examining the case materials, the court found that the plaintiff's ownership is confirmed by the sales contract dated April 1, 2024, under which he purchased the dog and received the relevant documents. At the same time, the defendant did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the animal was gifted to her.

The court also noted that the explanatory note from the defendant's mother is not evidence as defined by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and no petition to question her as a witness was filed by the party. The veterinary passport, in which the defendant is listed as the first owner, also did not confirm the legality of her ownership of the dog.

The court also considered that the plaintiff's appeals to law enforcement agencies indicate the absence of his voluntary intention to alienate the dog.

Court conclusion

The court specifically noted that in case 703/1972/26 it did not resolve the truthfulness of either party's version regarding the circumstances of the dog's transfer. The basis for reclaiming the animal was solely that the plaintiff confirmed ownership with a sales contract, while the defendant did not confirm the legality of acquiring ownership with proper evidence.

As a result, the court satisfied the claim, obliging the defendant to return the dog named "Lyalya" to the plaintiff and also recovered 1,331.20 UAH in court fees from her. The decision may be appealed to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.