Houseman v. Dare
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
405 N.J. Super. 538, 966 A.2d 24 (2009)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Doreen Houseman (plaintiff) was engaged to Eric Dare (defendant). Houseman and Dare jointly owned a house and a dog. The couple separated before marrying, and Dare purchased Houseman’s interest in the house. Houseman claimed that they orally agreed that Houseman would keep the dog. The dog moved out with Houseman and lived with her, but Dare periodically visited the dog and took the dog out. Houseman later left the dog in Dare’s care while she went on vacation. When Houseman returned, Dare refused to return the dog. Houseman promptly sued Dare, demanding specific performance of the alleged oral agreement. At trial, Houseman testified about the parties’ oral agreement and the dog’s importance to her. The trial court found sufficient evidence of an oral agreement. However, in a pretrial ruling, the court concluded that pets were not personal property so unique as to make specific performance an appropriate remedy. Consequently, instead of requiring Dare to return the dog to Houseman, the trial court awarded Dare possession and ordered him to pay Houseman $1,500, the stipulated purchase price of the dog. Houseman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
