FL 4th DCA: Interspousal Gift & Pet Are Property (2026)

Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court in Crossen v. Feeley (Feb. 11, 2026), holding that an interspousal gift does not bar unequal distribution and that a divorcing couple's dog is property that must be awarded to one spouse, not shared. The ruling turns on F.S. 61.075, Florida's equitable-distribution statute.

The Story: Crossen v. Feeley

On February 11, 2026, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Crossen v. Feeley, 4D2024-3024, reversing parts of a trial court's final judgment of dissolution. The case packed two recurring divorce problems into one short marriage: how courts treat property that one spouse gifts to the other, and what happens to the family pet.

The marriage lasted roughly 19 months. The wife owned a condominium her parents had gifted her before the marriage. About two months in, the husband's name was added to the property, which converted what had been a non-marital asset into marital property subject to division. The trial court divided the marital estate and addressed the couple's dog by effectively leaving the parties as joint owners.

The appellate court took issue with how the trial court reasoned through both points. On the property, it held that the interspousal gift did not lock the court into an equal split. On the dog, it reaffirmed a principle Florida courts have repeated for nearly three decades: pets are personal property, and trial courts have no authority to create shared custody or visitation for an animal.

Legal Implications for Florida Divorce

The headline takeaway for Florida divorces is that an interspousal gift does not automatically dictate an equal distribution. Once an asset becomes marital, F.S. 61.075 governs how it is divided, and that statute starts with a presumption of equal distribution but lets a court order unequal distribution after weighing the statutory factors.

F.S. 61.075(1) lists those factors, and two were central in Crossen v. Feeley:

• The duration of the marriage, expressly named in F.S. 61.075(1)(b). A 19-month marriage is short, and the court treated that brevity as relevant to whether an equal split was actually equitable.
• The catch-all in F.S. 61.075(1)(j), which lets a court consider any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. The court used this provision to justify a distribution favoring the wife, given how recently and how little the husband had contributed to an asset that originated with her family.

The practical signal is that gifting your spouse an interest in property, or adding their name to a deed, does not guarantee they walk away with half. Courts can still look at where the asset came from, how long the marriage lasted, and what each spouse actually contributed.

Reimbursement and Donative Intent

The court also reversed the denial of reimbursement for certain post-petition expenses. The wife's parents had made payments to prevent liens from attaching to the property. The trial court had treated those payments as gifts to the husband; the appellate court disagreed, noting there was no direct evidence of the parents' donative intent. The lesson is that whether money is a gift turns on proof of intent, not on assumptions a court finds convenient.

Florida-Specific Analysis: Pets Are Property

The pet portion of the ruling is the part that surprises most people. Florida does not recognize pet custody. Under F.S. 61.075, a pet acquired during the marriage is a marital asset, the same legal category as a car, furniture, or a bank account. The court must assign the animal a value and award it to one spouse as part of equitable distribution.

This is settled Florida law. The Fourth District drew on a line of cases going back to Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), where an appellate court reversed a trial judge who had set a visitation schedule for a divorcing couple's dog. The appellate court held there was no authority to grant visitation for personal property. Later decisions addressing emotional support animals reached the same conclusion: a special designation under housing or disability law does not convert a pet into something other than property in a dissolution case.

Crossen v. Feeley reaffirms that a Florida trial court cannot order shared ownership or a time-sharing-style schedule for a dog. The terms Florida reserves for children, time-sharing and parenting plans under F.S. 61.046 and F.S. 61.13, simply do not exist for animals. If the parties want a shared arrangement for a pet, they have to build it into a private settlement agreement; a judge will not impose one.

Note that this is a different debate from the 2023 alimony reforms in SB 1416, which reshaped F.S. 61.08 and ended permanent alimony. SB 1416 did not touch how property or pets are divided. Equitable distribution under F.S. 61.075 has been the governing framework throughout, and Crossen v. Feeley is a reminder that the statute's factors, not rigid assumptions, control the outcome.

Practical Takeaways for Florida Residents

• Adding your spouse to a deed has real consequences. Once a non-marital asset becomes marital, it is on the table under F.S. 61.075, and you may not get it back in full even after a short marriage.
• An equal split is a starting point, not a guarantee. A court can order unequal distribution based on marriage length and the equity factors in F.S. 61.075(1)(j).
• The family pet will be awarded to one of you. Plan for it. If you and your spouse both want the dog, decide it between yourselves rather than asking a judge to split time, because the judge cannot.
• Document gifts and the intent behind them. Whether a payment counts as a gift depends on provable donative intent, so keep records.
• These fights are expensive when contested. The path to avoiding them is agreeing on the terms before you file.

This is precisely where an uncontested divorce protects you. When you and your spouse agree on how to divide property and who keeps the pet, you write those terms into a marital settlement agreement and the court adopts them. You never gamble on how a judge will apply F.S. 61.075. Our firm handles uncontested Florida divorces for a flat $750 attorney fee. You can start with our property division guide, see how an amicable divorce works in Florida, or ask Victoria whether your situation qualifies.

If alimony is also on your mind given the 2023 reforms, our Florida permanent alimony ban explainer breaks down the new F.S. 61.08 caps. For couples who agree on everything, the final hearing guide shows what to expect on your court date.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Florida allow pet custody or visitation after divorce?

No. Florida treats pets as personal property under F.S. 61.075. Crossen v. Feeley (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) reaffirmed that a court cannot order shared custody or visitation for a pet. The animal is assigned a value and awarded to one spouse, unless the parties agree otherwise in a settlement.

If I gift my spouse part of my property, do they automatically get half in divorce?

Not necessarily. Once the asset becomes marital, F.S. 61.075 governs. The statute presumes equal distribution but allows unequal distribution after weighing factors like the length of the marriage and the catch-all equity provision in F.S. 61.075(1)(j). Crossen v. Feeley upheld an unequal split favoring the spouse who originally owned the asset.

What is equitable distribution in Florida?

Equitable distribution under F.S. 61.075 is how Florida divides marital assets and liabilities. It starts from a presumption of equal division but permits an unequal result when the statutory factors justify it. Non-marital property generally stays with the spouse who owns it, unless it has been converted to marital property.

Can I keep the family dog in my Florida divorce?

You can, but only if it is awarded to you. Because the dog is property, a judge must give it to one spouse. Courts weigh practical factors such as when the pet was acquired, who paid for it, and who has been the primary caregiver. The most reliable way to keep your pet is to agree on it in an uncontested settlement.

Does this ruling change the 2023 alimony reforms?

No. Crossen v. Feeley is about equitable distribution under F.S. 61.075 and the treatment of pets and gifts. The 2023 alimony reforms in SB 1416 amended F.S. 61.08 and ended permanent alimony, but they did not affect how property or pets are divided.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided by Antonio G. Jimenez, Esq. (Florida Bar No. 21022) for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court decisions and statutes change, and every case turns on its own facts. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed Florida attorney.