What FI v DO Tells Us About Pet Ownership and Finances

There’s no denying it — pets are family. But in the eyes of the law, they’ve traditionally been treated very differently. The Family Court’s decision in FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), handed down in December 2024, has brought much-needed clarity (and sparked fresh debate) about how pets are handled when a relationship breaks down.

Background: Why FI v DO Matters

In FI v DO, the court was asked to decide on the usual financial issues following divorce — including the family home, maintenance and the division of assets — but also on something far more personal: who should keep the family dog.

Although pets are still legally classed as “chattels” (personal property), this case shows a clear shift in how the court approaches disputes involving companion animals. The couple’s golden retriever became the focus of detailed evidence about day-to-day care, attachment, routine and stability — not just paperwork or who originally paid.

The judge ultimately ruled that the dog should remain with the wife. A key reason was that, since separation, she had been the dog’s primary caregiver, the dog had lived with her and the children, and that home provided a familiar and stable environment.

Pets in Divorce: The Current Legal Position

Under English law, pets are still treated as property, and the court’s power to deal with them generally sits within financial remedy proceedings (as part of the overall division of assets). However, FI v DO shows that judges may look beyond the label of “property” when deciding what’s fair and workable.

• Who paid isn’t everything. The court may be less interested in who bought the pet and more interested in who has actually been caring for it.
• The animal’s living situation matters. Continuity of care, attachment to a particular household and day-to-day stability are increasingly relevant.
• Welfare is not a full “best interests” test (as in Children Act proceedings), but it can still influence how a judge uses their discretion within the property framework.

It’s important to add that FI v DO is not a binding precedent in the way a higher court decision would be — but it is highly likely to influence future negotiations and the way similar disputes are argued.

From Dogs to Horses: Broader Implications

For many clients — particularly in rural communities and among equestrian families — the implications go beyond dogs and cats. Horses, ponies and other animals can be deeply woven into family life, and sometimes into a family’s finances too.

If you’re separating, it’s worth thinking about:

• Are the animals central to daily life or income? Horses may have commercial value (competition, breeding, training or riding schools), which can complicate how they are treated within a financial settlement.
• Who actually provides the care? Evidence of feeding, mucking out, exercising, vet visits, farrier appointments and training can help show the reality of the caregiving role — just as it did in FI v DO.
• Do financial contributions reflect ownership? With horses, ongoing costs can be significant (livery, vet bills, insurance, transport, tack). But contribution alone may not determine who keeps the animal.
• Are children involved? For many families, pets and horses form part of a child’s routine and emotional wellbeing. While the court doesn’t make “child arrangements” for animals, this can still be persuasive when shaping an overall settlement.

In some cases, horses may be treated more like high-value assets than companion pets. Even so, the approach in FI v DO suggests the court is increasingly willing to look at the lived reality of the relationship between people and animals — not just paperwork.

Practical Steps for Clients

Whether you’re dealing with a family dog or a stable of horses, the best outcomes usually come from tackling the issue early and sensibly.

1. Encourage clarity early on.
   Discuss arrangements for pets and animals at the outset of separation — ideally before positions harden and conflict escalates.
2. Consider agreements in advance.
   A “pet-nup”, shared stewardship agreement or co-ownership document can help record your intentions. These aren’t binding in the same way as a nuptial agreement, but they can be persuasive evidence of what you both agreed.
3. Keep evidence of caregiving.
   Records of who provides day-to-day care (and who pays which expenses) can be crucial if the dispute becomes contested. Vet records, insurance documents, training invoices and livery agreements may all help.
4. Approach the dispute holistically.
   Just as with children and finances, animals should be part of the overall separation plan — not an afterthought.

Conclusion

FI v DO reflects how the law is evolving — slowly and pragmatically — to recognise the emotional and practical reality of pets in family life. While animals remain legally classed as property, the court is showing a willingness to look beyond strict ownership and towards the real-world bonds and caregiving arrangements that underpin modern families.

For anyone advising or going through separation, the message is simple: pets (and horses) matter. The way you handle those discussions — and how well you prepare — can affect not only the financial outcome, but also everyone’s emotional wellbeing.

As practitioners, we are seeing a growing cohort of clients in their 50s, 60s and beyond whose separations sit at the intersection of family law, pensions, estate planning and vulnerability. The law may be familiar, but the consequences of getting advice wrong are magnified. Outcomes that might be workable for a 40-year-old client can be actively harmful when applied later in life.

This is not simply a demographic shift. It is a structural change in the nature of the work.

Why conventional divorce frameworks fall short

Later-life divorce exposes the limits of standard assumptions about fairness, needs and future planning. These cases are rarely about rebuilding earning capacity or supporting dependent children. Instead, they focus on maintaining stability, income security and housing for the remainder of a client’s life.

Financial reality: pensions, income and illiquid wealth

In later-life divorce, pensions frequently eclipse all other assets. Defined benefit schemes, in particular, can dominate negotiations and introduce difficult moral and practical questions.

The emotional weight of accumulated lives

Later-life divorce carries an emotional density that is easy to underestimate. Homes, possessions and savings are not simply assets; they are repositories of memory and identity.

Adult children: invisible participants in the dispute

The absence of dependent children does not remove family dynamics from the equation. Adult children often become influential voices, particularly where one parent appears more vulnerable.

Practical challenges and evidential fragility

Later-life cases also present practical difficulties that affect how work must be delivered.

The unavoidable overlap with private client advice

Later-life divorce almost always necessitates a wider review: wills, powers of attorney, pension nominations and estate planning structures must all be revisited.

A recalibration, not an add-on

Later-life divorce is not simply mainstream family work with a longer timeline.

Lara Jayne Davies
Solicitor, OLS Solicitors

Standish v Standish Supreme Court Ruling: What It Means for Divorce Settlements in the UK

On 2 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down its final decision in Standish v Standish—a case that has become the definitive guide for dividing assets in a divorce involving pre-marital wealth and large transfers between spouses.

If you or your partner brought significant assets into the marriage, this case will shape how the courts assess what is included in your divorce financial settlement.

What was the case about?

Clive and Anna Standish married in 2005. Clive, a wealthy financier, brought substantial pre-marital assets into the marriage.

In 2017, he transferred £80 million to Anna as part of a tax planning exercise intended to benefit their children. The planned trust was never created, and the marriage later broke down.

Anna argued that the money should be treated as matrimonial property and split. Clive claimed it remained his non-matrimonial wealth.

 What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Clive’s favour. The Court confirmed:

• The source of the asset is the key factor: because the money came from pre-marital wealth, it retained its non-matrimonial status.
• The transfer was made for tax and estate planning, not to share ownership.
• Just because an asset is transferred or legally owned by the other spouse does not automatically make it part of the marital pot.

As a result, only £25 million of the £80 million was included in the divorce settlement. The remaining £55 million was ring-fenced as non-matrimonial.

 What does this mean for divorce law?

This ruling now sets a binding precedent in England and Wales for dividing finances after divorce.

Key takeaways:

• Pre-marital assets are not automatically split in a divorce.
• The sharing principle only applies to matrimonial property.
• Transferring money into a spouse’s name doesn’t turn it into shared wealth unless there’s clear intent to do so.
• The intention behind the transfer matters—not just the ownership on paper.

 What counts as non-matrimonial property?

Examples include:

• Wealth acquired before the marriage
• Inheritance received during the marriage, if kept separate
• Business assets or property owned before the relationship
• Large sums transferred for tax, estate planning, or children’s benefit

Unless there’s evidence these were intended for joint use, the court may exclude them from the divorce settlement.

Will every divorce follow this ruling?

Yes—this is now Supreme Court precedent. All courts must apply the same principles when deciding whether an asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial. This is especially relevant in high-net-worth divorces or where one party contributed significantly more financially.

Going through divorce with complex finances?

If you’re dealing with:

• Significant pre-marital wealth
• Inherited money or property
• Tax or estate planning arrangements
• Or you’re concerned about protecting your business or future investments…

You need expert advice.

At OLS Solicitors, we help clients protect what matters most in divorce. We can advise you on how to structure your settlement and secure a clean break—whether you’re the wealth creator or the financially dependent spouse.

📞 Contact OLS Solicitors Today

• OLS Solicitors
• ☎️ 01554 756952
• 📧 [email protected]
• 🌐 www.ols-solicitors.co.uk

This article is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored support, please contact our family law team directly.