Should Pets Inherit?

Abstract

This Article argues that pets should inherit. For many Americans today, their pets, not their human family members, are their nearest and dearest. In earlier work, I have argued that American inheritance law is trapped in an outdated family paradigm. That paradigm assumes that the decedent's closest relatives by blood, adoption, or marriage are the most deserving recipients of the decedent's estate, the so-called “natural objects of the decedent's bounty.” Using a humanistic approach, I have shown that this abstract vision of “natural” wealth distribution permeates law and decisionmaking and creates significant human costs. By ignoring the actual relationships between decedents and survivors, the family paradigm excludes the very people a particular decedent may have valued most — those connected by affection and support rather than by family status. This Article extends my critique. It argues that the family paradigm also fails to recognize survivors many Americans regard as their closest companions, friends, and even family — their pets. I conclude that reformers must look beyond the family paradigm's abstractions and develop more individualized approaches that encompass a decedent's actual natural objects ― be they human or nonhuman.

Keywords: Inheritance, pets, family, animals, friendship