The Hawaii Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant case involving pet ownership, specifically a dog named Bigsby. In a decision issued on July 27, 2026, the court determined that a small claims court did not have the authority to resolve a dispute over Bigsby's ownership. This ruling directly affects the parties involved, Alexandra Miller and Wylan Faulk, and sets a precedent for how similar cases will be handled in the future.
The case arose after Miller and Faulk, who had been in a relationship, separated and shared custody of Bigsby. The couple had a rotating schedule for the dog's care, but things changed in January 2026 when Faulk refused to return Bigsby to Miller. This led Miller to file a claim in the small claims division of the District Court of the Second Circuit, seeking either the return of Bigsby or compensation of $3,000.
In her claim, Miller argued that she and Faulk had jointly acquired Bigsby and that she had been responsible for the dog's veterinary care. The small claims court, however, ruled in favor of Faulk, granting him ownership of the dog and ordering him to pay Miller for her share of the expenses. Miller later contested this ruling, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership of a pet.
The Hawaii Supreme Court examined the case under docket number SCPW-26-0000400. The court found that the small claims division is limited to specific categories of cases, such as small money claims and residential security deposit disputes. The court noted that determining the ownership of a dog does not fall within these categories.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The small claims division lacked jurisdiction to decide Bigsby’s ownership." The court vacated the lower court's ruling and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice. This means that Miller can pursue her claim in a different court that has the proper jurisdiction.
The ruling was significant not only for Miller and Faulk but also for future cases involving pet ownership disputes. The court clarified that ownership of a pet, considered personal property, cannot be litigated in small claims court. The court emphasized that such disputes should be handled in courts that have the authority to adjudicate ownership matters.
This decision could have wide-ranging implications for pet custody cases in Hawaii and potentially beyond. It establishes that individuals cannot use small claims courts to resolve ownership disputes over pets, which may lead to more formal legal proceedings in family or civil courts. This ruling also highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of small claims divisions, which are designed for specific types of disputes.
Moving forward, individuals involved in similar disputes over pet ownership will need to seek remedies in courts with appropriate jurisdiction. This case serves as a reminder of the legal complexities surrounding pet ownership and custody, particularly in situations involving separation or divorce.
As for what’s next for Miller and Faulk, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision opens the door for Miller to pursue her claim in a different court. However, it remains to be seen how this dispute will resolve in a more appropriate legal setting. The court also noted that Faulk may file a separate small claims action regarding any post-trial conduct by Miller, indicating that the legal battle may not be over.