This is the biggest mistake you can make during a divorce and it could end up costing you tens of thousands… our legal expert reveals how to avoid this pitfall and save a fortune

Ask me one of the biggest mistakes you could make when you file for divorce and I’ll say, ‘forget your pets at your peril’.

In my many years at a divorce and family practice, the issue of who keeps the pet constantly comes up in pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements, divorce and cohabitation cases.

I’ve witnessed the cost of making that decision when both parties contest – it runs into tens of thousands of pounds.

That’s because your adored pet – your cat, dog or hamster –may mean the world to you, but unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, they’re just chattels, with no more status than a fridge freezer. We’ve seen how attached clients are to their pets, which is often heightened if a couple do not have children and so the pain of losing a pet to their ex is even more difficult to deal with.

The courts do not have the power to make orders relating to how a pet is treated or housed. But they can decide who owns the pet, return the pet to the rightful owner if it’s unlawfully detained, order the pet be sold, or decide on shared ownership.

There is no law of custody in England and Wales, of where a pet should live or how much contact a pet can have to their ‘distant’ owner, which can lead to couples arguing over issues where the court will be powerless to intervene.

Now the court can step in when couples argue over which one of them is best placed to look after the pet but must rely on expert witnesses.

Couples can spend a fortune arguing over pets but it is exceedingly difficult for the courts to decide who should look after it. However, they tend to look at who bought it and who has spent the most on care.

In one case the court was asked to consider, who the dog wanted to live with.

Let’s call this lovely eight-year-old black labrador Brewster. When called into the courtroom, Brewster immediately ran over to husband Michael. ‘Impossible!’ exclaimed Claire, soon-to-be ex-wife. An expert then inspected both parties and found Michael had smeared his hand in sausage meat, prior to entering to the courtroom, so that Brewster would catch a whiff and make a beeline for him. Claire claimed if Michael had behaved, this would have never happened and Brewster would have gone to her.

Michael and Claire spent more than £40,000 arguing about their dog, but in the end, foul play meant Michael lost and he was ordered to pay Claire’s costs as well.

Now if a couple decides to breed their beloved pet, rows may follow about the value of the litter. In one case, a woman was breeding cockapoos, and at home had a litter valued at around £50,000. She and her husband of 25 years argued in court for nearly a week – he insisted because he had purchased the initial dog he was entitled to the money.

In the end, the judge decided, in view of the length of their marriage, the money be divided equally. Yet both the couple lost out as the court costs outweighed the £50,000.

We’d seen so much pet litigation that my firm, Lloyd Platt & Company, drew up the world’s first Pet Nuptial Agreement, a contract setting out a binding agreement between couples about what would happen if they breakup.

This Pet Nup was drawn up in conjunction with the Blue Cross Animal Charity, and was intended to cover every possible contingency that we had seen in matrimonial cases but also to deal with animal welfare issues. What was really important was that the court could recognise this document as a contractual agreement.

Where one party could give rise to financial liability as a result of their actions in relation to the pet, they could be responsible for this and it would be enforceable. Further, if the care of the pet isn’t to standard the agreement would allow the ownership to revert in part or full to the other party.

In some cases a mother may argue that the pet should remain with the children. Which some husbands argue isn’t fair, that perhaps when the children visit the pet should too. However, not all accommodation is suitable. Some pets will prefer a garden space, which the previous home might have, over a small flat. These are decisions couples try to make the judge decide upon.

I urge couples who are divorcing to consider mediation above litigation, it’s by far the cheapest choice.

Oh, but pets can be the root of a break-up too. In one case holidays were a downfall – David, the husband, refused to pay for their spaniels to be put into kennels and insisted they only go on local holidays. Elaine, his wife, said it’s time they went abroad, it was David’s stubbornness that prompted her to start divorce proceedings instead.

In another case, husband Jamie insisted tarantula, Tommy, stayed next to the bed in a glass case which led wife Gemma, to indicate ‘either the tarantula goes or I do’. She lost.

• Have you spent a fortune on winning your pet in a divorce? Email [email protected]