Skip to main content

Couple Will Bid for Their Furbaby as Delaware Judge Orders Private Auction To Settle Canine Partition Process

Kit Yona, M.A.

Article by: Kit Yona, M.A.

Legal Writer

Reviewed by Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on

It’s often said that a dog is a man’s best friend. In the case of Tucker, a dog is also a woman’s best friend.

That’s the issue that brought the determination of the ownership of the beloved goldendoodle to the Delaware Chancery Court. A former couple couldn’t come to an agreement over their beloved pet, leaving it up to a judge to navigate uncharted legal waters to figure out the fairest option for deciding how to grant Tucker’s ownership through partitioning.

Perhaps fitting for a business court that typically rules on mergers with billions of dollars at stake, Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David chose to make it all about the money. She was certain that the 5-year-old dog was undoubtedly a “very good boy” and that having either Joseph Nelson or Karen Callahan as his owner would be in Tucker’s best interest. Under Delaware law, a pet carries the same legal status as an autographed first edition of a book or a piece of art, carrying a set value to be equitably distributed. Judging by her opinion, she decided to settle who his rightful owner was in the same way.

On November 14, 2025, Vice Chancellor David ruled that Tucker’s co-owners would determine who ends up with Tucker the Goldendoodle through a private auction between the pair. Ownership of the beloved companion animal is awarded to the highest bidder, with the losing bidder receiving the bid amount in cash as a monetary award. A partition trustee will oversee the process once Nelson and Callahan agree on an auction date.

No, They Didn’t Consider Cutting Him in Half (Probably)

Nelson and Callahan moved in together in 2019. When a very young and ill Tucker was left at her veterinarian clinic, Nelson’s daughter thought he’d make a good pet for her father. She was correct, with both Nelson and Callahan falling in love with the pup. When their relationship cratered in 2022 and Nelson moved out, the canine version of “Kramer vs. Kramer” sprang to life.

It may seem odd that a dispute over who gets a dog would end up in the Delaware Court of Chancery, but it’s (hopefully) the final step in a years-long legal journey. Both carried elements of ownership. For example, Callahan made the original purchase of Tucker from the clinic, but the dog’s rabies certificate bears Nelson’s name. This further muddled the question of who should end up with Tucker.

In 2022, Callahan won an initial victory in the Justice of the Peace Court. Nelson’s appeal to the Court of Common Pleas ruled that Tucker was jointly owned, putting the dog’s ownership back into question. Callahan was also thwarted in Superior Court before taking the case to Chancery Court in May 2025. With the ex-couple apparently unwilling to share custody, Vice Chancellor David was tasked with supplying a solution somewhat less drastic than what King Solomon proposed.

Stay Golden, Tuckerboy

While Vice Chancellor David had no concerns that Tucker’s well-being was in danger regardless of which parent he ended up with, she had to determine how to apply the concept of partitioning to a living, breathing creature. Under Delaware law, Tucker is legally considered no different from a set of silverware when it comes to assets. However, his emotional value to both Nelson and Callahan was impossible for Vice Chancellor David to to a price tag on. So instead, she decided to let them do it.

Reasoning that a public auction was unwarranted, Vice Chancellor David ruled to settle Tucker’s fate by having Nelson and Callahan face off as the only bidders in a private auction. This, she reasoned, provided an objective way to see which person wanted Tucker more. It’s uncertain if there’s a financial imbalance between Nelson and Callahan or, if there is, whether some mechanism will be employed to level the playing field.

Vice Chancellor David’s opinion begins with Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “The Power of the Dog.” However, the lovely sentiment will likely be lost on the person who loses the auction, who may wonder if the money spent on the lengthy legal process might have been better used elsewhere.

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard