Start with what does not exist. Minnesota’s marriage dissolution chapter contains no companion-animal provision — no best-interests-of-the-animal standard, no pet visitation, no statutory factors for deciding which spouse the dog goes home with. The section number people occasionally circulate for this, Minn. Stat. § 518.582, is titled “PROCEDURE FOR VALUING PENSION BENEFITS OR RIGHTS.” Its neighbor § 518.583 was repealed in 2000. Nothing in the chapter’s table of sections between § 518.001 and § 518.7125 addresses animals at all.
What Minnesota does have is stranger and more useful than the law people expect. The statutory language authorizing a court to “direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal” does exist in Minnesota — it is just not in the divorce chapter. It is in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, where the legislature put it in 2010. It is available in a full order for protection and in an ex parte order issued without notice to the other party. And its companion clause makes hurting the animal a violation of a court order, enforceable by mandatory warrantless arrest.
So the honest answer to “who gets the dog” has two halves. In a dissolution, the dog is property, and property is divided — awarded to one spouse, not scheduled between two. In a domestic abuse proceeding, the dog is something closer to a protected member of the household, and the court’s power over it is express.
Is there a Minnesota pet custody law?
No. The operative provision is Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1, which supplies one standard for everything the parties own:
Upon a dissolution of a marriage … the court shall make a just and equitable division of the marital property of the parties without regard to marital misconduct, after making findings regarding the division of the property.
The same subdivision lists the factors — “the length of the marriage, any prior marriage of a party, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, needs, opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets, and income of each party,” plus each spouse’s contribution to acquisition, preservation, depreciation, or appreciation of the marital property and “the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.” Nothing in that list is about the animal. Every factor is about the humans.
Subdivision 1 also fixes the valuation date: marital assets are valued “as of the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable.” That applies to the dog the same way it applies to the car.
What is a dog, legally, in Minnesota?
Personal property, and the Court of Appeals has said so in exactly those words. In Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App. 1994) — a suit by an owner whose dog was shot and killed by Minneapolis police — the court held:
Under Minnesota law dogs are personal property. Corn v. Sheppard, 179 Minn. 490, 492, 229 N.W. 869, 870 (1930). The proper measure of compensatory damages for destroying an animal is the fair market value of the animal. Harrow v. St. Paul & D. R.R., 43 Minn. 71, 72, 44 N.W. 881, 881 (1890).
Soucek, 524 N.W.2d at 481. The owner argued Minnesota should recognize the pet’s “intrinsic value” to him. The court acknowledged the argument’s force — “Unlike other personal property, pets provide companionship to their owners. When a pet is lost, its owner frequently cares least about the amount of money it will cost to replace the pet” — and declined: “But Minnesota law treats pets as property,” and “[i]ntrinsic value of a pet to its owner is not currently included in damages that may be recovered for intentionally killing a pet.” Id.
Soucek is a tort case, not a dissolution case. But the classification it states is the classification a family court starts from, and it explains the mechanics that follow. A property item gets a value. It gets awarded to one party. The other party gets offsetting value elsewhere in the division. Whether the dog is “worth” the adoption fee, the breeder price, or the replacement cost is a valuation question, and it is generally the only number in the case.
Is the dog marital or nonmarital property?
This is where most pet fights are actually won, and where the statutory text produces a result almost nobody predicts.
Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b defines marital property as property “acquired by the parties, or either of them … at any time during the existence of the marriage relation,” and provides that “[a]ll property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and before the valuation date is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually…” Nonmarital property is property that:
- (a) “is acquired as a gift, bequest, devise or inheritance made by a third party to one but not to the other spouse”;
- (b) “is acquired before the marriage”;
- (c) “is acquired in exchange for or is the increase in value of” property described in (a), (b), (d), or (e);
- (d) “is acquired by a spouse after the valuation date”; or
- (e) “is excluded by a valid antenuptial contract.”
Two consequences worth stating plainly.
A dog you had before the wedding is nonmarital. Clause (b) does not care whose name is on the license, who paid the vet bills, or who walked it. If one spouse acquired the animal before the marriage, it is that spouse’s nonmarital property, subject only to the hardship apportionment in § 518.58, subd. 2 — under which a court may reach up to one-half of property excluded under clauses (a) through (d) if a spouse’s resources “are so inadequate as to work an unfair hardship.” A court reaching a dog on unfair-hardship grounds is not a realistic scenario. Nonmarital classification is close to dispositive here.
A dog your spouse gave you for your birthday is marital. Clause (a) exempts a gift “made by a third party.” An interspousal gift is not a third-party gift. The puppy with the bow on it, given by one spouse to the other during the marriage, is marital property acquired during the marriage and is divided under § 518.58, subd. 1 like anything else. The card that says “he’s yours” changes nothing about the classification.
The practical upshot: if the animal matters, adoption records, purchase receipts, and the date on the shelter paperwork are the evidence that decides it — and they matter most when they predate the marriage. The broader marital/nonmarital framework, including how appreciation and tracing work, is covered in marital vs. nonmarital property in Minnesota.
Who has the dog while the divorce is pending?
Whoever the court says, under the temporary relief statute. Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subd. 1(e) authorizes a temporary order to “[a]ward the temporary use and possession, exclusive or otherwise, of the family home, furniture, household goods, automobiles, and other property of the parties.” That is the hook. The dog is other property, and “exclusive or otherwise” is broad enough to accommodate an alternating arrangement if the parties propose one.
Subdivision 1(f) is the other half: the court may “[r]estrain one or both parties from transferring, encumbering, concealing, or disposing of property except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, and to account to the court for all such transfers, encumbrances, dispositions, and expenditures.”
And subdivision 3 makes both of those available without notice. “A party may request and the court may make an ex parte restraining order which may include any matter that may be included in a temporary order except” two things: excluding a party from the family home (which requires a finding of immediate danger of physical harm), and denying parenting time or granting child custody (same). Neither carve-out touches personal property. An ex parte order restraining a spouse from rehoming, selling, or moving the animal out of state is squarely within § 518.131, subd. 3.
What if the other spouse already gave the dog away?
Then you are in § 518.58, subd. 1a, which imposes a fiduciary duty between spouses and supplies a remedy keyed to putting the wronged party back where they would have been:
During the pendency of a marriage dissolution … or in contemplation of commencing a marriage dissolution … proceeding, each party owes a fiduciary duty to the other for any profit or loss derived by the party, without the consent of the other, from a transaction or from any use by the party of the marital assets. If the court finds that a party … has in contemplation of commencing, or during the pendency of, the current dissolution … proceeding, transferred, encumbered, concealed, or disposed of marital assets except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, the court shall compensate the other party by placing both parties in the same position that they would have been in had the transfer, encumbrance, concealment, or disposal not occurred.
The burden is on the party claiming dissipation, and the remedy is potent: “the court, in dividing the marital property, may impute the entire value of an asset and a fair return on the asset to the party who transferred, encumbered, concealed, or disposed of it.” The subdivision closes two defenses expressly — neither a power of attorney nor the absence of a restraining order is available as a defense.
Note the timing language: the duty attaches “in contemplation of commencing” the proceeding, not just after filing. Rehoming the dog the week before the petition is served is inside the statute.
Can a decree give the parties a shared schedule?
The parties can agree to one, and courts routinely incorporate stipulated property terms into a decree. What they cannot do is convert it into something modifiable.
Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(g) is explicit that property terms are of a different character than support and custody terms:
Except for an award of the right of occupancy of the homestead, provided in section 518.63, all divisions of real and personal property provided by section 518.58 shall be final, and may be revoked or modified only where the court finds the existence of conditions that justify reopening a judgment under the laws of this state, including motions under section 518.145, subdivision 2.
That is the whole difference between a dog and a child in a Minnesota decree. A parenting time schedule can be modified on a change in circumstances. A pet-sharing clause is a property division: final, revisable only on the narrow reopening grounds of § 518.145, subd. 2. If the arrangement stops working in three years — someone moves, someone’s landlord says no, someone stops returning the dog — there is no modification motion. There is enforcement of a judgment.
Draft accordingly. A workable clause names one party as the owner of record for licensing, veterinary authority, and liability purposes; states the schedule as a contractual obligation with a stated remedy on breach; allocates veterinary and boarding costs in fixed shares or dollar amounts; and specifies what happens on relocation, incapacity, or the animal’s death. A clause that says only “the parties shall share Bailey” is a clause that will be litigated as a contract, in a division that is already final.
One liability trap belongs in that clause. Minnesota’s dog-bite statute, Minn. Stat. § 347.22, provides that “the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained,” and then defines the term broadly: “The term ‘owner’ includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable.” A former spouse who has the dog every other week is harboring or keeping it. Strict liability under § 347.22 does not stop at the person named in the decree — a point developed in Minnesota’s dog-bite statute. Renters insurance and an indemnity provision belong in any shared-possession clause.
Can a prenup decide who gets the dog?
Yes, and it is the cleanest available tool — because the dog is property, and property is exactly what an antenuptial agreement is authorized to allocate. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(b)(1) provides that an antenuptial agreement made in conformity with the section may “determine what rights each party has in the marital and nonmarital property, as those terms are defined in section 518.003, subdivision 3b, upon a dissolution of marriage or legal separation.”
That does two things a decree cannot. It can classify a future-acquired animal as one party’s nonmarital property in advance — § 518.003, subd. 3b, clause (e) makes property “excluded by a valid antenuptial contract” nonmarital by definition. And it can be drafted before anyone is angry.
The formalities are not optional. Under § 519.11, subd. 1b(b), an antenuptial agreement is procedurally fair only if there is “full and fair disclosure of the current income and property of each party” (a requirement the statute says a party “must not waive”), each party had “a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel of the party’s choosing,” the agreement is “in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged by the parties before a person authorized to administer an oath under the laws of this state,” it was entered into “voluntarily and free of duress,” and it was “entered into and executed no less than seven days before the marriage.” Clear the seven days and the agreement is presumed enforceable with the burden on the challenger; miss them and the proponent carries the burden. § 519.11, subd. 1b(c).
Postnuptial agreements can do the same work under subdivision 1d, with two additional constraints that matter to anyone thinking about papering a pet arrangement mid-marriage: “A postnuptial agreement is valid and enforceable only if at the time of its execution each spouse is represented by separate legal counsel,” § 519.11, subd. 1d(c), and it “is presumed to be unenforceable if either party commences an action for a legal separation or dissolution within two years of the date of the agreement’s execution,” unless the proponent establishes it is fair and equitable, subd. 1d(d). The seven-day rule does not apply to postnuptial agreements. § 519.11, subd. 1d(a)(1).
The current version of § 519.11 “applies to all antenuptial and postnuptial agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024.” § 519.11, subd. 6. Older agreements are governed by the prior law. The full architecture of the statute, including the substantive-fairness test in subdivision 1c and the interaction with elective-share waivers, is in a Minnesota prenup can satisfy § 519.11 and still not waive the spouse’s rights at death.
The Minnesota order that says “care, possession, or control”
Now the part of Minnesota law that actually treats animals as more than chattel — and it is in the Domestic Abuse Act, not the dissolution chapter.
Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a) lists the relief a court may grant in an order for protection. Clauses (14) and (15) read:
(14) direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or respondent or a child of the petitioner or respondent; and
(15) direct the respondent to refrain from physically abusing or injuring any pet or companion animal, without legal justification, known to be owned, possessed, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either party as an indirect means of intentionally threatening the safety of such person.
The same two powers appear in subdivision 7(a), the ex parte provision, as clauses (6) and (7) — available “[w]here an application under this section alleges an immediate and present danger of domestic abuse,” and, per subdivision 7(b), “[a] finding by the court that there is a basis for issuing an ex parte order for protection constitutes a finding that sufficient reasons exist not to require notice under applicable court rules governing applications for ex parte relief.”
Four things follow.
This is newer than people assume. The clauses were added by 2010 Minn. Laws ch. 299, §§ 4–5 — the session law shows both as new underlined text. Neither section carried its own effective-date clause, so both took effect August 1, 2010 under the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02. The 2009 edition of § 518B.01 contains no reference to companion animals; the 2010 edition contains four.
It is criminally enforceable. Violating an order for protection is a misdemeanor where the respondent “knows of the existence of the order,” and on conviction “the defendant must be sentenced to a minimum of three days imprisonment and must be ordered to participate in counseling.” § 518B.01, subd. 14(b). It is a gross misdemeanor within ten years of a previous qualified domestic violence-related offense, with a ten-day minimum, subd. 14(c), and a felony punishable by up to five years and a $10,000 fine within ten years of two or more such convictions, or where the violation occurs “while possessing a dangerous weapon,” subd. 14(d). Subdivision 14(b) also makes a violation contempt of court under chapter 588.
Arrest is mandatory, not discretionary. “A peace officer shall arrest without a warrant and take into custody a person whom the peace officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order granted pursuant to this section … even if the violation of the order did not take place in the presence of the peace officer, if the existence of the order can be verified by the officer.” § 518B.01, subd. 14(e). A person arrested under that paragraph “shall be held in custody for at least 36 hours, excluding the day of arrest, Sundays, and holidays,” absent earlier judicial release.
It runs on the OFP’s clock, not the divorce’s. “Any relief granted by the order for protection shall be for a period not to exceed two years, except when the court determines a longer period is appropriate.” § 518B.01, subd. 6(b).
There is also a separate, general property hook in the same subdivision: clause (8) permits the court to “award temporary use and possession of property and restrain one or both parties from transferring, encumbering, concealing, or disposing of property except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.”
What about a harassment restraining order?
An HRO cannot do this. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, the harassment restraining order statute, contains no reference to pets or companion animals anywhere in its text. That is a real difference between the two orders, and it belongs on the list of considerations that decides which petition to file — a choice governed by the relationship between the parties, not the severity of the conduct. See order for protection or harassment restraining order?.
Threatening a pet is its own crime
Independent of any order, Minn. Stat. § 343.21, subd. 1 provides that “[n]o person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal … whether it belongs to that person or to another person.” Subdivision 2 separately prohibits depriving an animal in one’s charge “of necessary food, water, or shelter,” and subdivision 7 — headed “Cruelty” — provides that “[n]o person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal or animals, or any act tending to produce cruelty to animals.”
The penalty subdivision contains two enhancements written for exactly the domestic context. Under § 343.21, subd. 9(g), a person who intentionally violates subdivision 1 or 7 “where the violation results in substantial bodily harm to a pet or companion animal, and the act is done to threaten, intimidate, or terrorize another person,” may be sentenced to up to two years and a $5,000 fine. Under subdivision 9(i), where the same conduct “results in death or great bodily harm to a pet or companion animal” and is done to threaten, intimidate, or terrorize another person, the exposure is up to four years and a $10,000 fine. Without the threaten-intimidate-terrorize element, the same results carry up to 364 days and $3,000 (substantial bodily harm, subd. 9(b)) and up to two years and $5,000 (death or great bodily harm, subd. 9(d)). The ordinary violation is a misdemeanor, and a second violation of subdivision 1 or 7 within five years is a gross misdemeanor. § 343.21, subd. 9(a).
The legislature’s judgment is visible in the arithmetic: harming an animal to get at a person doubles the exposure.
Unmarried couples: it is a replevin action
Everything above about §§ 518.58, 518.131, and 519.11 requires a marriage. An unmarried couple splitting up has no dissolution court and no just-and-equitable division. Their remedy is the possessory action in chapter 565.
The mechanics are covered in Minnesota lets you take the property back before anyone proves anything, but two features are worth flagging because they show what the property classification actually costs. A motion to recover possession before final judgment must be supported by an affidavit that includes “a good faith approximation of the current market value of each item of property being claimed.” Minn. Stat. § 565.23, subd. 1(f). And the bonding provisions are pegged to that number: an order for seizure is contingent on the claimant filing a bond “in an amount which is 1-1/2 times the fair market value of the property seized,” § 565.25, subd. 1, while the respondent may retain or regain possession by filing a bond “in an amount 1-1/4 times the fair market value of the property or 1-1/2 times the amount of the claimant’s claim, whichever is less,” subd. 2(a).
Translated: a court may order a dog seized on a bond keyed to the price of a comparable dog, and the person the dog lives with can buy it back by posting a slightly smaller one. That is what it means, operationally, for Minnesota to have no pet custody law.
Do pet trusts help?
They solve a different problem — the animal outliving its owner — and Minnesota’s statute is unusually generous about it. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0408, subd. 1:
A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the trust may not be enforced for more than 90 years.
Three operative details. The animal must be alive during the settlor’s lifetime — the trust cannot be written to cover animals acquired after the settlor dies. Enforcement runs through “a person appointed in the terms of the trust or, if no person is appointed, by a person appointed by a court,” and “[a] person having an interest in the welfare of the animal may request the court to appoint a person to enforce the trust or to remove an appointed person.” § 501C.0408, subd. 2. And overfunding is corrected rather than forfeited: trust property “may be applied only to the trust’s intended use, except to the extent a court determines that the value of the trust property exceeds the amount required for the intended use,” with excess or unexpended property passing under the trust instrument or, failing that, to the settlor’s heirs at law “determined as if the settlor died intestate domiciled in this state at the time of distribution.” § 501C.0408, subd. 3. Subdivision 4 was repealed in 2022. 2022 Minn. Laws ch. 98, art. 2, § 16.
What § 501C.0408 does not do is resolve a dispute between two living spouses. It says nothing about dissolution, and nothing in it removes assets used to fund such a trust from the marital estate as defined by § 518.003, subd. 3b. A pet trust is the right instrument for “what happens to the dog when I die.” It is not a workaround for “what happens to the dog when we divorce.”
The short version
- There is no Minnesota pet custody statute. § 518.582 is about pensions.
- The dog is personal property. Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d at 481.
- Acquired before the marriage, it is nonmarital under § 518.003, subd. 3b(b). Given by one spouse to the other during the marriage, it is marital — clause (a) requires a third-party gift.
- Pending the divorce, § 518.131, subd. 1(e) and (f) control possession and disposition, and subdivision 3 makes both available ex parte.
- Rehoming the animal triggers the fiduciary duty and imputation remedy in § 518.58, subd. 1a.
- A shared-possession clause in a decree is a final property division under § 518A.39, subd. 2(g) — enforceable, not modifiable. Draft it as a contract.
- A prenup or postnup can allocate the animal in advance under § 519.11, subd. 1(b)(1), on the formalities in subdivisions 1b and 1d.
- An order for protection can direct the “care, possession, or control” of a pet, including ex parte — § 518B.01, subds. 6(a)(14) and 7(a)(6) — and has been able to since August 1, 2010. An HRO under § 609.748 cannot; that statute says nothing about animals.
- Unmarried couples litigate it as replevin under chapter 565, on bonds keyed to fair market value.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC handles Minnesota dissolution and property division matters, including the temporary-relief and dissipation motions that decide where an animal lives while a case is pending, and drafts antenuptial and postnuptial agreements that classify property before there is anything to argue about. The firm also handles orders for protection and harassment restraining orders, where the statutory difference on companion animals is not academic. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. ch. 518, table of sections (no companion-animal provision; § 518.582 titled “Procedure for Valuing Pension Benefits or Rights”; § 518.583 repealed by 2000 c 372 s 3), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518 and revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.582. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (just and equitable division; enumerated factors; valuation date), subd. 1a (fiduciary duty; dissipation; imputation of entire value; power-of-attorney and no-restraining-order defenses barred), subd. 2 (unfair-hardship apportionment of up to one-half of nonmarital property under § 518.003, subd. 3b, clauses (a)–(d)), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.58. Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (definitions of marital and nonmarital property; clause (a) third-party gift requirement; clause (b) pre-marriage acquisition; clause (e) antenuptial exclusion), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.003. Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subd. 1(e)–(f) (temporary use and possession of other property; restraint on transfer or disposal), subd. 2 (impermissible temporary orders), subd. 3(a)–(b) (ex parte restraining orders; only two carve-outs, neither concerning personal property), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.131. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(g) (property divisions under § 518.58 are final; revocable only under § 518.145, subd. 2), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518A.39. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(b)(1) (antenuptial agreement may determine rights in marital and nonmarital property on dissolution), subd. 1b(b)(1)–(5), (c) (procedural fairness; nonwaivable disclosure; two witnesses; acknowledgment; seven-day rule and burden shift), subd. 1d(a)(1), (c), (d) (postnuptial agreements; separate counsel required; two-year presumption of unenforceability; seven-day rule inapplicable), subd. 6 (applies to agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/519.11. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(8) (temporary use and possession of property), subd. 6(a)(14)–(15) (care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal; refraining from abusing a pet), subd. 6(b) (relief not to exceed two years absent contrary determination), subd. 7(a)(6)–(7) (same relief ex parte), subd. 7(b) (ex parte finding substitutes for notice), subd. 14(b)–(e) (misdemeanor with three-day minimum; gross misdemeanor and felony enhancements; mandatory warrantless arrest; 36-hour hold), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518B.01. 2010 Minn. Laws ch. 299, §§ 4–5 (adding the companion-animal clauses to § 518B.01, subds. 6 and 7, shown as new underlined text; no section-specific effective date), at revisor.mn.gov/laws/2010/0/Session+Law/Chapter/299/; compared against Minn. Stat. 2009 § 518B.01 (no companion-animal reference) and Minn. Stat. 2010 § 518B.01 (four references), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2009/cite/518B.01 and /2010/cite/518B.01. Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (default August 1 effective date), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/645.02. Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (harassment restraining orders — full text contains no reference to pets or companion animals), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.748. Minn. Stat. § 343.21, subd. 1 (torture; applies whether the animal belongs to the actor or another), subd. 2 (nourishment and shelter), subd. 7 (cruelty), subd. 9(a)–(b), (d), (g), (i) (misdemeanor baseline; five-year gross misdemeanor repeat; 364 days/$3,000 and two years/$5,000 tiers; two years/$5,000 and four years/$10,000 threaten-intimidate-terrorize enhancements), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/343.21. Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (dog-bite liability; “owner” includes any person harboring or keeping a dog, with the owner primarily liable), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/347.22. Minn. Stat. § 565.23, subd. 1(f) (affidavit must state a good faith approximation of current market value), § 565.25, subd. 1 (seizure bond at 1-1/2 times fair market value), subd. 2(a) (redelivery bond at 1-1/4 times fair market value or 1-1/2 times the claim, whichever is less), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/565.23 and /565.25. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0408, subd. 1 (animal alive during settlor’s lifetime; termination; 90-year limit), subd. 2 (enforcement and appointment of an enforcer), subd. 3 (application of trust property; excess and unexpended property), subd. 4 (repealed, 2022 c 98 art 2 s 16), at revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/501C.0408. Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Minn. App. 1994) (dogs are personal property; fair market value is the measure of damages; intrinsic value not recoverable), quoting Corn v. Sheppard, 179 Minn. 490, 492, 229 N.W. 869, 870 (1930) and Harrow v. St. Paul & D. R.R., 43 Minn. 71, 72, 44 N.W. 881, 881 (1890), at static.case.law/nw2d/524/html/0478-01.html. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it promises no particular outcome in any matter.