Can dog rescue contracts be enforced? - Page 1

I have been looking at dog rescues lately and have seen many overbearing contracts.  Some are ok and others are downright intrusive.  I am not asking about the benefits or reasons why rescue use such agreements, I am asking how binding are they?  None seem to be written by lawyers and others violate some property laws. So I ask if someone were to break one of these agreements, would a court order in favor of the rescue?  Also some of these agreements look more like "dog leases" or like "fostering children" rather than taking possesion of the dog and becoming its new owner.  Any experiences?  Its almost as if they should have to say, that once adopted a person does not legally own the dog.  Here is a sample of one:

http://dobierescue.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28

Remember the Ellen DeGeneres case a couple of years ago?  She adopted a dog, found a better home for it, the rescue found out and yes, got the dog back and gave it to someone else.

Here's a link I found on a quick search, but forgot to check the date - maybe there's something more updated around:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21336607

I am aware of the Ellen issue.  If I recall it didn't go to court.  Also there was never enough info released about the negotiations between the lawyers to know what really happened.  As far as I recall she anounced her intentions on TV so she may have incriminated herself, in any other situation a rescue wouldn't have such evidence.  It would be a "he said, she said" issue if it went to court.  Did Ellen not push it because of bad PR or because she had no recourse?  I don't think we will ever know.  Has anyone gone to court and had a judge make a ruling?  My question isn't limited to California, so if anyone has experienced otherwise I would like some examples if possible.  How do rescue/shelter dogs related to property laws, they are not cars and people are not signing anything like a lease agreement, so its difficult for me to understand how a judge would settle such an issue?

Different rescues have different policies and standards. I volunteer for 5 different dog rescues and two equine rescues and they're all different.

I read the link, that's a fairly standard contract for the most part (unprofessionally written though) except the part about doing spot checks after adoption. None of the rescues I volunteer for does this but I know some others do. One equine rescue I volunteer for does require adopters to submit a report from their vet stating the animal is in good condition and current with all required vaccines every six months for two years. After that, ownership of the animal is signed to the adopter. During that two year period, the rescue retains ownership of the animal has does have to right to come repossess it at any time if the animal is not taken care of. Every dog rescue I volunteer for spays/neuters before the animals are placed for adoption unless its a puppy or not medically feasible at the time. Pups are adopted on a spay/neuter clause and it is enforced.

Enforcement of contracts is strictly up to the rescue. Some will enfore them, some won't. One of the reasons rescues adopt to limited areas is so they can enforce contracts. If it comes down to going to court, the resuces usually win. An adoption contract is still a written contract agreed to by the adopter. Bottom line, if you don't like the terms, choose another rescue or adopt from the pound.

mobjack, the two year process that you described sounds very reasonable.  Also I was just using the posted terms as an example, there are some I have seen that are much more intrusive.  As for the court issue, have you been privy to the outcome of a courts case involving a failed adoption?  I have been to arbitration for contracts worth quite a sum of money that were written by lawyers, so in my experience in the business world I find it hard to belive that these amatuer contracts would be enforcable if someone took the fight seriously.

In the case of the dog I placed last weekend, the chump who adopted her two years ago called me casually and asked me if I knew of anyone who might want her. When I asked why, he informed me he was looking for a new home for her. I reminded him he had signed a contract that stated he had to return her to ME if he couldn't keep her. He had a freaking fit. I said fine, buster, go ahead, but her microchip is in my name, and whoever you give her to is going to be in hot water as soon as they take her to her first vet visit. They are going to have to explain who gave her to them, and it's going to be YOU, and then I'm going to accuse YOU of stealing her. So NOW WHAT?

He returned her. I gave her to an appropriate home, and I retain control over her.

They are absolutely enforceable and I have successfully enforced ours every time it has become an issue.
(I do have a legal background)
Any contract is enforceable (both parties signed it) unless it does violate the law or the demands placed upon one party are so difficult to maintain that there would be no way to fulfill the terms of the contract.
Will all of them be enforced?
Depends on the circumstances. Each situation is decided on its own merits, and, of course don't forget the human elements. (Who the judge is; who the attorneys are, if any; and the rescue and adopter.)
A judge can also throw out certain parts of a contract that violate the law, but, enforce the remaining contract.
There are a lot of "if's" in each and every situation.
Poorly written, or not, these adoption contracts are written to protect the animal, not the adopter.
If you enter in to an adoption agreement knowing that you won't abide by the terms of the contract you're basically just a trouble maker that is more concerned with yourself than the animal.
If you don't like what is proveded for by the law concerning these types of agreements contact your state representative and speak to that person about it. Maybe they can change the laws in your state.
Best advice is, if you aren't comfortable signing the agreement, go elsewhere.

VM, CHEERS!! Good for you!

momosgarage,
I've found a few rescues really are unreasonable and won't have anything to do with them. I think the unreasonable groups believe they are acting in the dog's best interests but some stuff really is unenforceable and asinine. Like what kind of food you have to feed or that Fido and Fluffy sleep in your bed every night and are only allowed outside on a leash to pee. Every group I volunteer for requires home checks, vet and personal references and that all current animals be current on vaccines, heartworm preventative and spayed or neutered. Not unreasonable considering the point behind rescue is to place adoptable dogs in good homes. Some allow exceptions, some don't. People that show for example can get an exception for having unaltered animals depending on the rescue.

I've been on all ends of the scene. I have been to court and testified a few times and been out on seizures or repossessions. I've also been called to do welfare checks prior to any action being taken. Even with badly written contracts, the contract still holds up. You have to remember, it's small claims court and the dog's value is the adoption fee average around $200-$350.00. In most cases, a simple reminder is all that's necessary (like delayed spay/neuter). Very few repossessions are actually necessary. If someone is willing to go through the adoption process, they''re usually just looking for a family pet and will do what's required anyway. Not many get turned into the pound or rehomed later. A few do, but if they hit the pound the dog's microchip will identify them as one of ours and we get a phone call.

Thanks mobjack for mentioning: "Like what kind of food you have to feed or that Fido and Fluffy sleep in your bed every night and are only allowed outside on a leash to pee"

This is what I meant, some of you immediately jumped into the "Ellen style unlawful surrender".  I should have been more clear about what I meant.  I meant surprise home vists, specific food type, no training colars etc.  These are the things that I can imagine the rescue losing if it went to court after a controversial repo.  However even with the experienced input, it doesn't raise my spirits in wanting to support "vigilante style dog rescues" that some of these rescues seem to be practicing.

What on earth does that last sentence MEAN? That you want to support the dogs ending up ANY old where????