Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 2

Not taking sides....but wouldn't the death of either the owner or the breeder (for arguments' sake) make the contract null & void? Unless there is a specific clause that covers the death of either party & disposition of the animals covered by the contract.

And what happens in the case of the breeder's death, should someone decide to return a dog...is there a surrogate set up to receive the animal?

I must give kudos to those who make arrangements for the care of their animals after their demise or incapacitation....that is true love & the ultimate in responsible ownership. I would think most would assign their animals to someone who would be caring & capable, anyone thoughtful enough to plan this is surely thoughtful enough to make certain the animals are well-placed.

It would be nice to know that the breeder would support the new handlers who may have questions or concerns. They are most likely grieving & trying to adjust to a new reality without their friend or loved one, whilst taking on a new responsibility themselves. That way the truly concerned breeder could over see the care of said animals, & ensure their well being, rather than adding stress by threatening a seizure-type scenario of animals that may be a survivors best link to the decedent.

Just after a loss of a dear friend or loved one is an awful time to suffer another loss. And not a good time to attempt to renegotiate a contract. Extreme sensitivity to the situation protects everyone involved, including the animals. A sympathy card, with a little note offering the breeders services to the bereaved might go further to protect the breeders interests in the animals, while opening the door to further discussions on the animals welfare.

Just a few thoughts on the subject from someone who assists the bereaved with issues routinely.

jackie harris

This is one of those "damned if you do & damned if you don't" topics....
Buyers cannot have it "both ways".....neither can breeders.

First...a buyer should read and agree to the seller's contract...period.
IF there are "clauses" that the buyer is unsure of, or does not agree to...that needs to be addressed BEFORE the puppy is bought.
No breeder "wants" their puppies or dogs returned in the future....but a good breeder will have a "provisional clause" stated within their contract, that requires the buyer to "notify, return or sell "....the original puppy/dog to the breeder.

Buyers want to see that "clause"....and have no problem "using" it when they choose to....so, same should be for the breeder...who cares about the welfare of their dogs, should one of their dogs be needing a re-home.
If a breeder "insists" on being a part of re-homing a buyer's dog....either by *buy back, take back or assisting in relocation/re-homing....the last thing they should be considered is "greedy".....

I am always stunned to see (buyers OR breeders) upset at their *agreed upon & signed* contracts, when something "happens".....
Communication before, during and after...could possibly halt much disappointment.

JMO...nothing more.
 

 If you don,t like the contract either don,t buy the dog or renegotiate it with the breeder. But don,t whine about it after the fact.

The agreements I have on my dogs are if for any reason the owner decides to rehome or sell the dog the dog will return to me or atleast I have the first right of refusal. Or they don,t get the dog.

Hopefully, Wanda, you've read these responses and now better understand that greed is not necessarily the underlying concern when a breeder attempts to enforce his/her contract.

Also, in order to be enforceable, there has to be a mechanism to compensate if the dog is worth more due to training etc.  A liquid damage clause is helpful and though most reputable breeders are only exercising the return clause due to concern over the dog and would likely agree to appropriate placement, so the dog not the damages is what is wanted returned, the clause can be enforced and is a powerful incentive to sell the dog back or return the dog.

I spend a lot of time dealing with property disputes, and there is no way in hell I would agree to terms providing the seller any future interest of any kind in any dog I purchase.  My property, my choice as to its disposition, end of story - when I buy pens at Staples I walk out with all possessory interests and there's no reason for the purchase of a puppy to be any different.  This is one of the reasons why my last two dog transactions involved importing pups from Germany - no muss, no fuss, no requirements to feed XYZ food for warranties to be good, no future interests remaining in the breeder - just simple commodities transactions.

That said, Bob is 100% correct about contracts.  Read them carefully, understand what the terms and conditions mean and get legal advice to explain the implications of any confusing terms and conditions, try to negotiate any terms or conditions you don't like out of the contract, and in the end if you don't like the terms or conditions then walk away and look elsewhere - after all, it's not like there's any shortage of pups or dogs out there. 

DD, I couldn't agree more.

Now because we are talking about 'property':

Are friends that keep the dogs now have any rights to the property of the diseased? Are they included in a will that gives them any rights to it?
Or they are just friends that took the dogs into their care and now want to keep them for themselves?

The law will not allow them to keep the dogs if they have no rights to them. Dogs are treated as a property and part of the estate – so if the owner dies – the dogs become a ‘property’ to be divided amongst the relatives. However, if there is a contract that specifies that the dogs have to be returned to the breeder if the owner cannot take care of them (in this case dies) – the executor of the estate will honor it and the dogs will not be a part of the estate to be divided.

If friends are not close relatives that will participate in the division of estate – they have no legal rights. They may ask to be paid for the care of the dogs, but they cannot ask for a ‘market value’ of the trained dogs for themselves.

Example: I have a friend who has a 911. He promised in writing that this car will go to another person if something happens to him. He goes to the hospital. I take his 911 to take care of it. Now, few months later my friend dies. I have his 911 in my garage. The person that has been promised that car contacts me – DO I HAVE ANY RIGHT to say that this car is mine now because I’ve been taking care of it for few months? Do I have any right to expect that person to pay me market price for this car – or only garage fee?

That would work only in case of abandonment of the animal, but that's definetely not a case in here. I think that in Court, breeder with the contract will get the dogs back after paying 'reasonable' boarding fees.
 

The only sticky point in Court would be if the person that takes over the estate wants to take over the agreement with the breeder (with all its earlier agreed clauses) as well and prove in Court that the dogs have a great financial value to the estate. In this case the Court would litigate it between breeder and his rights and a new owner of the estate (dogs in this matter). Only new legal owner as decided by Court would have any right in asking breeder for a ‘market value’ of the dog before giving him/selling him back to the breeder or whomever else.

By the way, if dogs have such great financial value – the friends that want to keep the dogs, may get in trouble for not paying taxes on capital gain if IRS gets a whiff of that… You talk two trained dogs – comparable, market value -  $10,000 each – means they would have to pay $7,000 to the IRS for a privilege of getting those dogs for free…
 

Niesa, your description is exactly what I assumed was the way things would turn out.  There was no will, at least not mentioning the dogs, as far as I know.  If there is a will, I'm sure it doesn't mention any specific names in it.  As far as I know, there is only one person mentioned in any document signed by the owner about the disposition of the dogs, and that is me in my contract signed by the owner.

The friends certainly mean well, and I'm sure they want to do "what the owner would have wanted" in their minds.  But their opinions are in fact anti-breeder, anti-schutzhund training, anti-kenneling, anti-breeding - and they are not persons who own this breed or should be owning working-bred GSDs.   They got a few very nice dogs for "free" and now they attack the breeder for wanting the dogs back?

Basically the dogs were left in the care of friends when the owner went to the hospital.  Owner was certainly not expecting to pass away after her surgery.  When she passed away in the hospital/nursing home, the friends took it upon themselves to continue to take care of the dogs "as she would have wanted", disregarding my wishes to get the dogs back, or my interest in them, or my signed contracts.  AND, they are disregarding what the owner would have really wanted for the dogs.  The dogs are working dogs, who want to work and enjoy working.  The owner worked them every day and accomplished many things with them.  The younger dog was on her way to Schh titles.  Now they are living in pet homes with pet owners who never owned or wanted to own, working GSDs.

The solicitor initially seemed interested in getting me the dogs back.  They requested my contracts which I provided for them, then they stopped communication and told my attorney that my contracts would not hold up in court.  I can only assume that the "friends" communicated with the solicitors about how the dogs should NOT go back to me, and how the owner would never have wanted that etc.

I sure wish I could be confident in my contracts or case holding up in court.  Because if there was any way I could get the dogs back (in a legal manner) I would certainly be taking steps to do that.  Because the best place for the dogs is with me, someone who has their best interests at heart, and someone who knows and understands the needs of this kind of breed and dog.

molly