Delaware’s Elite Business Court Stumped by Goldendoodle Dispute

A dispute over the ownership of a Goldendoodle named Tucker has somewhat baffled Delaware’s elite business court, which effectively writes the rules for corporate America while also managing a caseload of local property problems.

Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David decided Wednesday to “partition” the dog, whose owners have been fighting over it since their breakup in 2022. Thankfully, she didn’t have to play the role of King Solomon, who in the Bible offered to cut a baby in half when two women each claimed to be its mother.

“Concerned readers may rest assured” that Tucker won’t be split in two “nor will he be publicly auctioned,” she said.

One party will own the dog, and the other will receive “a monetary award.” It will be up to the couple to decide how the partitioning will proceed, according to David’s eight-page opinion.

It’s not the first time the Chancery Court has been asked to sort out property once shared by a now-estranged couple, or what to do about an animal’s whereabouts. Divorce proceedings sometimes require the court to resolve deadlocks over management of entities registered in Delaware, and its chief judge recently had to balance public health risks with a horse owner’s demand to retrieve his Clydesdale’s remains from a landfill.

The couple got the Goldendoodle—a dog breed that’s a cross between a Golden Retriever and a Poodle—while they were dating. The dispute over Tucker’s ownership began when the couple broke up in 2022. Three other state courts issued split decisions over where the dog belonged.

Karen Callahan then asked the Chancery Court to partition the dog, which she hasn’t seen since the breakup. David denied a motion by Callahan’s ex, Joseph Nelson, to dismiss the case.

Nelson argued in a brief that Tucker had been a gift from his daughter, and that Callahan abandoned the dog when they called off their engagement. In response, Callahan said Tucker was her support animal during cancer treatments, and Nelson took the dog out of state to avoid sharing him.

If Callahan and Nelson had married, Delaware’s Family Court could have determined Tucker’s ownership under a 2023 law that enhanced protections for “companion animals.” Since they didn’t marry, a partition by the equity court is the option for “co-owners wishing to sever their interests in jointly owned property.”

“The law recognizes dogs as property, even if many of us do not consider them so,” David said. Without a partitioning, Callahan and Nelson might remain trapped in the dispute despite “what I assume is a mutual desire to go separate ways,” the judge said.

David’s opinion acknowledges that Tucker doesn’t easily fall under Delaware’s real property partition statute, which defaults to a physical “division” of property, or a public auction if the parties can’t agree.

“This begs the question of what comes next,” David said.

She suggests a few options: The former couple could agree to a “blind bidding auction,” where the highest bidder buys out the other’s interest. The court could award ownership based on Tucker’s “best interests” and grant a monetary award based on an appraisal to the other party.

“Or the parties could propose a better alternative,” she said.

Callahan is represented by Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP. Nelson is represented by Connolly Gallagher LLP.

The case is Callahan v. Nelson, Del. Ch., No. 2024-1099, opinion 5/7/25.