Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 5

That is a good question 4pack about the registration switching over.  I would think if they explained to the akc and provided a death certificate maybe and something from the estate saying they were getting to keep the dogs that the akc would certainly be more than happy to help them get the registration in order.  Esp since we are talking from what I understand about well bred, trained and titled dogs, might be to the breeds best intrest not to take them out of the possibilty of breeding.  But that is a very good question, that I never thought about.  I agree Hexe there is a lot to be learned here, we tend to not always think about the loose ends if we die.  We could be hit by a bus tomorrow and how many of us have thought about things like the registration of our dogs, where they would go, etc? Even in my case I'm married so my husband would keep them but they are all registered in my name alone, so 4pack brings up a very good question that I had never even wondered about ... until now.

http://www.workinggermanshepherd.com/guaranatee.htm 

Well it doesn't say a whole lot about buy back price, it is left as to terms agreed upon...

Nothing about death or repossesing a dog unless neglect or abuse is apparent.

If buyer chooses to sell dog/bitch or otherwise place him elsewhere, Seller gets first chance to re-acquire dog/bitch according to terms agreed to by buyer and seller at that time. 

What were your terms at that time?

Buyer isn't choosing to sell or place the dogs, she is deceased. I would think a will would be more binding than this contract.

I'm still not understanding the urgency on Molly's part to get these dogs back if they are in a home that is caring for them and is happy keeping them. If this was in fact the will of the owner, why fight it?

By signing this contract, the buyer acknowledges they have been informed young bones do not properly calcify until 12 months of age. Buyer acknowledges we will guarantee the hips and elbows until 12 months of age, providing  the buyer agrees they will not allow environmental conditions to adversely affect the development of the hip and elbow structure. Buyer will provide a certified nutritionally complete food that will not promote excessive growth or obesity. Buyer will provide regular moderate exercise. The buyer is aware if they allow the dog to engage in activities that would stress the hips before the age of 10 months the hip and elbow guarantee becomes null and void. Activities include, but not exclusively, exercise on hard unyielding surfaces, continuous running, repetitive jumping, training in competitive dog sports, or any activity that may cause injury.
 

Just another question to the Highlighted part.  Would this include Schh, police training, some police training have dogs climb onto round hard pvc pipes, slippery floors, hard surfaces, climbing ladders etc.

 

 

 

Jenni, I think the fact that you are willing to stand behind your dogs and buy them back is terrific.  I would tell the breeder if I planned or had to sell the dog - without a contract, if they asked me too.  No problem with that at all.  I also love sending pics and keeping them updated.  I certainly understand some breeders really care about the pups they produce and want to see them develop.  I would be the same.

Wanda said:  It is good to know there are breeders out there with a conscience.  I have been devestated by the ruthlessness of the breeder of my dear, recently deceased, friend and training mentor as I continue to care for her dogs as she would.

I was alseep last night obviously because I totally missed this. 
Why are you saying Molly that the new owners know nothing about dogs?  That is not true, and Beetree sounds right on the money (pardon the pun) about this all being about monetary gain.

Your quote:

 Now the friends get two very nicely trained, titled and promising dogs they themselves paid nothing for? 



Also your quote:

They are not in familier homes now, they are with strangers who don't even know anything about the breed or the breed's needs and requirements to make the dogs as happy and content as they were with their owner.


Wow, it is a small dog world.

A lot of very interesting points have been raised by this thread. I, also, never considered the AKC registration on my dogs as being an issue in the event of my death. I think I shall revert to co-owning them with my husband once again. Another reason why you need so very many copies of the death certificate. There is a saying among those of us who work in this area, if you request 20 copies of the DC, you'll need 40. Always ask for twice the number you expect to need, the number of places that require them is staggering.

Also, I stand by what I said earlier. Unless a contract specifically mentions what happens in the event of the death of one of the parties, I do not believe that the estate has any obligation to uphold the contract. The contract was between the breeder & the buyer, the buyer has died...end of contract. You then enter into a whole new negotiation, with a different entity. And when dealing with newly bereaved persons, you must be as sensitive as possible. That animal that you are trying to retain an interest in may be the one thing that that bereaved person can hold & be reminded of their lost friend. You must understand they will be very determined not to lose another 'part' of their friend, & be willing to fight for that memory tooth & nail. Much better to offer condolences, offer a helping hand, be the mentor that they lost....if your intent is to assure the well-being of the dogs.

If your intent is to regain a lost asset, then proceed as you have been. You're assured a good fight, since you've already succeeded in pushing the 'friends' into defense mode, & probably, from how it sounds, into contacting an attorney to assist them in defending their friends bequest. And people can verbally bequest things to other people, & as long as they can produce someone who witnessed the conversation, it may stand up to a legal challenge.

I've only had 1 litter, I may never have another, but I do understand the worry about pups long after they become dogs. I am so very lucky that my puppy owners keep me in the loop. I love each puppy, know their personalities, & the grown up dogs still remember me when I visit, & come running with kisses. I've tried to help my older owners with planning for the future, they know I am available to them if they need me for any help, & that their 'pups' can always come home to me if need be. I remain the second contact on their microchip, should some unforeseen occurrence happen. But never, ever, ever would I consider removing a dog from a home where he/she was well cared for, loved, & where that dog had a handler that he/she was bonded to. I would rather assist an owner through hard times to the best of my ability than break up a bonded GSD from their person. That is the one perspective no-one has mentioned, & that is of the dogs. This friend says she was working the dogs prior to her mentor's demise, surely that means the dogs look to & trust her...? Would they choose to leave, or would they prefer to remain with those that have loved them, whether they have more expertise or not??

JMHO, jackie harris

First off Hexe, I SAID it was water under the bridge EXCEPT to show how MOLLY operates. That's my opinion, it shows a pattern and I left it there, as did she.  Now you brought it up, again, not me.

And the other point in general I would make is how many times have I read on here from the "concerned breeder"  who would put that, "controlling" (yes RS, I agree that is what it is) clause because they want to prevent dogs ending up in shelters. This is not the case with these dogs, just another opportunity for Molly to abuse loopholes for her benefit, $$$$. That is a pattern of hers, IMHO

For whats it worth, I bottle fed and raised a 3 day old orphaned singleton pup that I named Uno untill he was 11 months old. Needless to say I spent countless one on one hours with this pup in my home, not in a kennel, hardly comparable in time to an 8 week old puppy. I was the only mother he ever knew, his mother abandoned him on day 3. I placed him with distant family members on a farm at 11 months, I watched  him mature in pictures and emails.I gave the dog to them with no strings attached,he is loved,healthy and happy and I have no regrets about my decision.
    I recently had the opportunity to visit him,he is now 2 years old and doesn't know me from Adam. He is inside a fenced yard and made it very clear that I was not allowed to enter untill his owner invited me. As I said I named him, but no amount of calling his name and coaxing could convince him to accept me untill he was told that it was ok. Other friends and family members that the dog knew were allowed to enter the yard and were greeted with affection. Can any one say that if something were to happen to the owners of this dog that he would be better off with me rather then someone he knew and trusted. I find it hilarious to believe that an 8 week old puppy will remember you if you haven't been a part of his life as he matures.

Jenni, I wasn't talking about placing a dog you had to give up with a stranger although if you haven't been a part of the dogs life you are a stranger, being the breeder has no bearing on that fact. If the dog has been  trained in a sport and has accumulated monetary value I think it only fair the breeder pay a fair market value if they want the dog returned to them. In my opinion that would be the same price anyone else would pay for the dog, I don't feel the breeder is entitled to pay any less,especially if the breeder intended to resale the dog.                       Michael

Kalibeck is correct...a contract between two people, one of whom has died is void.  Unless there is a lien that can be enforced or a debt which can be levied against the estate (NOT against survivors) that death ends the contract.  Morally, also correct, if the dogs are being cared for what is the problem.  Whether friends, lovers, etc., are enriched by having something they did not pay for, be it stocks, a dog, a mansion, that is between the deceased and beneficiaries.  Unless the breeder is willing to pay for the added value of the dog, they too would be enriched unjustly.  Also even if friends are not beneficiaries of the estate, the executor and or the true beneficiaries probably has the power to place the dogs. 

One might be able to have a clause agreed upon that says upon my death or disability, if no other provisions have been made to care for _____(dog) , I authorize breeder to take possession of _____(dog). 

You might also have to make provisions to reimburse the estate for the added value of a trained dog just to be on the safe side, or at least return of the purchase price to the estate.  Without that, if no one wants or can handle the dog, it would work, but if people want to sell the dog, it won't without a provision to reimburse for the value. 

"At that point your not even dealing with the buyer, so you can't say the contract isn't being followed."

Ding ding ding!  We may have a winner!  

Google "privity of contract."  This is why lawyers who write contracts know to put in boilerplate language like "Buyer, including but not limited to Buyer's heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, agents, employees, successors and assigns..." to make sure that all bases are covered.  And the general rule is that ambiguities or uncertainty in contract language is held against the party who drafted the contract, which in most circumstances is the seller, on the theory that the seller is usually the more experienced businessperson and should thus be in a better position to make sure the contract protects their interests.

Also, the duty of the executor or administrator of the estate is to follow the wishes of the decedent, not necessarily to follow contract terms that could be construed as unfair.  There was also a comment made earlier that if seller prevailed then seller would get costs and attorney's fees.  Incorrect: unless that is spelled out in the contract, it is most likely that that seller pays his or her own litigation expenses.  

Frankly, in the described situation I could easily see a court denying any recovery for seller in any lawsuit to recover the dogs.  And the damage to the reputation of anyone seeking to yank dogs from a dead person would far outweigh any possible gain.  My advice would be to let it go.