The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Moore v. Volastro, affirming a lower court's decision that awarded ownership of a Great Dane dog to Laura Volastro. The court's decision, filed on September 16, 2026, affects both parties involved in a tumultuous relationship and highlights the complexities of pet ownership disputes in domestic situations.
The case stemmed from a dispute between Neils Moore and Laura Volastro, who began dating in 2020 and moved in together in November 2021. During their relationship, they decided to adopt a dog, leading to the purchase of a Great Dane puppy named Roxy. Moore placed a $500 deposit for the puppy on December 8, 2023, and the couple agreed to pick her up after their vacation on January 2, 2024. However, their relationship soured, leading to legal battles over the custody of Roxy.
As their relationship deteriorated, Volastro obtained a domestic violence protective order against Moore in August 2024, which included a provision for her to retain possession of the dog. Following this, Moore filed a complaint in December 2024 to recover possession of Roxy, along with other personal items, claiming the dog was his property. Volastro countered that Roxy was a Christmas gift from Moore, and the dispute escalated to the Dare County District Court.
In a hearing on June 30, 2025, the District Court ruled in favor of Volastro, stating that the evidence supported her claim that Roxy was a gift. Moore appealed this decision, arguing that he had not intended to gift the dog and that the bill of sale indicated he was the sole buyer. The case was then taken to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where it was heard on August 26, 2026.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge John Tyson, upheld the lower court's ruling. The court found that sufficient evidence indicated that Moore had indeed intended to gift Roxy to Volastro. The opinion stated, "Sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s findings and conclusion the dog was intended as a Christmas gift from Plaintiff and delivered to Defendant." The court emphasized that the intent to gift does not need to be explicitly stated but can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the gift.
Key findings from the trial included testimony from both parties and witnesses who confirmed that Moore had referred to the dog as a gift for Volastro. The court noted that Volastro had taken on the majority of Roxy's care, including veterinary visits and daily walks, further supporting her claim of ownership. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated Moore had divested himself of control over the dog, despite his arguments to the contrary.
The ruling in Moore v. Volastro is significant as it clarifies the legal standards surrounding pet ownership disputes, particularly in cases involving domestic relationships. The court's decision reinforces the idea that intent and evidence of care play crucial roles in determining ownership of pets in similar situations. This ruling could have implications for future cases involving pet custody, as it sets a precedent for how courts may interpret the intent behind pet ownership during relationship disputes.
Going forward, this ruling may affect how couples approach pet ownership and the importance of clear communication regarding ownership intentions. It also highlights the need for individuals in domestic relationships to consider legal agreements regarding shared property, including pets, to avoid similar disputes in the future.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, it is common for parties to seek further review in higher courts, depending on the circumstances surrounding the case.