Co-ownership of a dog

Discussion in 'Dogs - General Dog Chat' started by AdrianneIsabel, Mar 11, 2013.

?

Would you co-own a dog?

  1. Yes

    27 vote(s)
    58.7%
  2. No

    13 vote(s)
    28.3%
  3. Other - Please explain

    7 vote(s)
    15.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you're buying a pet from a breeder and the breeder requires their pets to be on co-ownership, there are only two things you have to worry about: 1) If you plan to sell the dog, you won't be able to sell the dog with its papers unless the co-owner signs off (which is where one would naturally have to ask why the dog wasn't going back to the breeder in the first place), and 2) If you decided to breed the dog, you wouldn't be able to produce a registered litter unless the co-owner signed the paperwork (again, a reasonable person would have to ask why you wanted to breed a dog that was deemed and sold as pet quality). Other than that, you have total control of your dog, because co-ownerships by themselves can not obligate you to do anything with your dog that you don't agree to.
     
  2. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, doesn't work that way as far as property laws and dogs are concerned. Registration papers are not legal proof of ownership. Contracts, physical ownership, and microchip identification, but not registration papers. In fact, UKC papers actually state point-blank that they are not proof of legal ownership. Without a contract to back up the co-ownership, the only thing the co-ownership does is help to discourage someone from attempting to sell the dog because they wouldn't be able to sell the dog with registration papers without the dog being signed off on.
     
  3. Laurelin

    Laurelin I'm All Ears

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    a lot
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Home Page:
    I would not co own a dog that wasn't intended to be bred.
     
  4. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    The contract is part of it, but not the whole thing. I know people who co-owned dogs with buyers that later sold them without asking permission. They went to small claims court and got their dogs back. They had a contract saying that ownership of the dog could not be transferred without their consent. However, I doubt that the contract would have had that much power in a court room if they didn't also retain partial ownership of the dog.
     
  5. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since registration papers are not considered proof of legal ownership, then yes, the legally binding contract that was signed by both parties would have been the only thing that made that outcome possible. The only thing the co-ownership did was prevent the person from selling the dog with its registration papers, unless the signature was forged, but that's another legal matter all together.
     
  6. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    you're one of those people that likes to argue the tiniest of details and ignore the reality of the situation aren't you? yes, a co-ownership only applies to registering puppies and breeding. In reality, people that enter in to co-ownerships sign agreements that have other stipulations. they may or many not be a part of a "co-own" agreement, but often times they are.

    I tend to think in the real world when someone signs a co-ownership contract, they consider everything in there to be a part of being the "co-owner" and a part of that contract.
     
  7. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I'm one of those people that co-owns darn near everything I have, or have sold/placed, and unlike some of the participants in this thread, I'm not pulling things out of my ass because I don't understand how co-ownership actually works.

    You gave your example and determined it to be a co-ownership issue, and I'm telling you that whatever that breeder is doing or requiring their buyers to do has nothing to do with whether or not the dogs are co-owned. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. "In the real world" as you put it, registration papers and co-owners are...once again...not proof of legal ownership nor rights to a dog and so "in the real world" 99% of the issues people attribute to being co-ownership issues are NOT.
     
  8. Laurelin

    Laurelin I'm All Ears

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    a lot
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Home Page:
    I have never personally seen a co ownership without other stipulations attached or at least other agreements. All I am saying is I'd want all that spelled out very clearly. No one is sayin co ownership is bad.
     
  9. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Then why does the name on the registration papers affect who gets the dog in division of property in a divorce case?
     
  10. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    my last 4 dogs have been co-owns, tell me all about them.
     
  11. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They're divided like any other property. The only time I've seen the actual registration papers come into play is with the registry themselves, who have special situational regulations involving removing co-ownership status from whichever party lost the dog in a divorce. Certainly didn't come into play at all in my divorce. I got all of the dogs.

    If you breed them, the co-owner will have to sign off on the forms in order for the litter to be registered. If you sell them and want their new owners to have their papers, the co-owner will have to sign off on them. Everything else is a contractual issue between you and whoever you're under contract with, and don't actually have much to do with whether they're under co-ownership. There you go.
     
  12. Raegan

    Raegan Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Giant Miniature Schnauzer & International Toller o
    Location:
    Fond du Lac, WI
    I think the biggest danger in a co-own is ambiguity. I am open to the idea for myself, but it's not something I would either seek out or avoid.

    I would require a solid contract that details each party's rights and responsibilities, and perhaps a clause that says in the case of irreconcilable differences, the ultimate decision is mine. Possibly terms for ending the co-own as well.
     
  13. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    this reminds me of an Anthrax song.

    someone wants to change the argument to fit what they want to argue. Meanwhile the rest of us are on something else. A co-own is one thing, a co-ownership agreement is another. If stipulations are added into the agreement they become part of the co-ownership agreement. Is it really that hard to understand

    you're stuck on co-owner while the rest are talking about co-own agreements, which is a contract with very little restriction of what can and can not be placed in that contract.
     
  14. Maliraptor

    Maliraptor Bite me.

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2012
    Messages:
    820
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    11
    Location:
    Southern California- The Desert Part
    Home Page:
    I've had some good co-owns, and some not so good. My BIG issue is, how much control do you have? I raised and showed a dog to her championship. We had a deal with a litter back.

    Before the litter, I got a lot of pressure for shows. She showed as much as I could afford, but the co-owner wanted her out more. I said I just afford the time off/sending her with a handler every weekend, the co-owner was upset. There was NOTHING about needed to show her AT ALL in the contract.

    Second issue was, co-owner wanted her bred. I was not a fan of her temperament, really did not want to breed her. Understood we had to, she was Champion and OFA H/E, I had NO choice in stud dog. She was bred to a dog who's temperament was WAY WAY WAY below par IMO. I was horrified I was part of this, and actually ended up giving the female back to the breeder, at a loss of quite a bit of money and a pet we'd all loved.
     
  15. Saeleofu

    Saeleofu Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    9,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    There is definitely a difference between co-owning, and the contract that goes along with co-owning. Of course a contract can contain whatever, regardless of co-owning or not. But there are certain things that tend to go into co-owner contracts that aren't common in others.
     
  16. frostfell

    frostfell Kung Pow Fish

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Albany, New York
    i will do it for most of my puppies, and I would consider doing it with other breeders. Everything has to be spelled out very clearly, however, so theres no misunderstanding, and everyone has to be happy with it. You cant just halfass a contract/agreement and expect everyone to magically be on the same page and comfortable with it.

    I think if done correctly, it can be a great situation, for whatever reason.

    I personally dont trust my breed farther than I can throw them, so ALL my dogs will be co owned with their buyers, but my involvement will simply be a name on the papers so I can keep "tabs" on people and what theyre doing with my bloodlines. I will not actually be a busybody in anypuppies lives, unless its asked for
     
  17. Flyinsbt

    Flyinsbt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    3
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Tully was co-owned, and Pirate is co-owned, so clearly, I would. ;) I think it depends on why, and who you're co-owning with. I've heard of situations in which it's gone really badly, and obviously, in my case it's been great.

    I'm wary of contractual obligations towards breeding, whether it be a co-ownership or not, and many co-ownerships are about breeding. Breeding is a huge undertaking, it can be really tough on the breeder, and I don't like to see people pressured into it. Plus, there's considerations about how it's decided if the dog is even worth breeding. I know someone who got a bitch from one of the "puppy back" pyramid scheme people (sell bitches, require the bitch be bred and that a certain amount of puppies come back, take bitch puppies, sell those under the same agreement....) When my friend decided the bitch didn't really have anything to offer the breed, she had to pay for her again to allow her to not breed the bitch.

    In my case, Tully was co-owned because her breeder sells all her pups on a co-ownership, until they are altered, to avoid indiscriminate breeding. I wouldn't have had a problem with that, though in fact, I also didn't pay for Tully, her breeder gave her to me. There were no other real stipulations. She asked me to put a title on her, but that was kind of a joke, because she knew I would anyway. I thought she might not want me to breed Tully, but when I started considering it, I discussed it with the breeder, and she was fine with it. Provided mentorship.

    So, obviously an ideal co-ownership from my standpoint, all the benefits were really to me.

    I put Tess into a lease in both our names when she was bred, because the original idea was that we'd each get a pup from the breeding, and she wanted to be able to show in bred by. As it happened, there were only the 2 pups, and my co-breeder decided Eva wouldn't suit her purposes (I had tried to get her to take first choice, but she insisted that 1st choice should be mine). I felt bad that she didn't get her pup, and I hadn't even paid a stud fee, so I offered to co-own Pirate with her. That's why he is co-owned. As with his grandma Tully, he's basically my dog, but he has someone else's name on him as well.

    It all works, because we're friends, and we have similar goals and beliefs about the breed. We don't agree on everything, but our points of disagreement are relatively minor. We don't have a contract, which is generally not advised, but I'm not expecting any issue from it, and since I have physical possession of the dog, the power is all mine. (though it's not impossible I'd send him to her to be shown. I trust her, though.)
     
  18. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because what you're referring to as a "co-ownership agreement" doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not a dog is co-owned. Using the term "CO-OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT" implies that the dog being co-owned has some bearing on the enforceability of the agreement. In nearly all cases, the fact that a dog is co-owned doesn't actually matter when it comes to what you agree to in a contract. Not really my fault that people can't seem to grasp that simple concept.

    Let me give you an example. If I were to sell Paige for $5 to a home who wanted to keep her intact so that they could continue showing her, my contract would stipulate that she is not to be bred, amongst other things, and that if the contract was breached in whole or in part, the buyer would incur a penalty of $5000 per incident. A couple of these points are important in a legal sense...

    That is something that most people commenting would consider a "co-ownership agreement." But it's not. The only parts of that agreement that give me more or less "power" are that I created a legal exchange by asking for a small amount of money rather than giving the dog away for free, and that I stipulated a specific penalty for breaching that portion of my contract. I could sell the dog with or without a co-ownership, and that agreement would be just as legally binding.

    On the reverse side of the coin, my co-breeder and I are the ONLY ones on Cartman's papers, who is actually legally owned by a friend of ours. I have no right or claim to that dog, even as the dog's breeder, even as the "owner" on his registration papers. What was written and agreed to in my contract is the extent of my right to the dog, I can not legally walk up and take the dog unless a portion of my contract is breached that specifically allows me to repossess him. That said, I could transfer that dog solely into his legal owner's name, and that would have no effect on the contract I have between myself and his owner.

    So, yeh, I'm stuck on "co-ownership" because so many people seem to be misinformed and believe that it is synonymous with contracts or agreements.
     
  19. release the hounds

    release the hounds Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    7
    Location:
    Midwest
    no that is something YOU want to consider a co-ownership agreement and then point out that it is WRONG and you're right it is wrong.

    I and everyone else seems to be talking about being an actual co-owner and having agreement that will have other stipulations regarding stud fees, puppies, prices, who sells them, who cares for bitch in whelp, when signatures are to be given, who shows, who trains, health tests, and any other number of stipulations two owners of a dog might come to agree on.

    I can buy a dog with my friend from anywhere and we can split that cost however we want and we can stipulate what each others responsibilities are as co-owners. to register puppies, we have to both sign paperwork as well. We can agree to pretty much anything else we want in a co-ownership contract, as happens with almost every single co-ownership agreement I've ever heard of.

    we can grasp it, that co-ownership doesn't automatically give you or take away all these rights, but signing that agreement sure does and that's what Adrianne has asked about
     
  20. SevenSins

    SevenSins APBTs & One Crazy Banana

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do any of those things have to do with co-ownership? You can agree to do any or all of those things, or not, with or without another party co-owning the dog. So why not just call it what it is? An agreement. Civil court really doesn't give a flying quart of hydrogenated wombat snot if your contract says "John Smith, hereinafter referred to as Co-Owner" or "John Smith, hereinafter referred to as Buyer."

    Dingdingdingdingding! You found the part where co-ownership actually matters. Congratulations. :)

    That's signing a legal agreement. Not a co-own. Adrianne asked, "Do you like Co-owns?" I'm just answering the question as it was written. ;) If she meant to ask "Do you like to own dogs that come with legal stipulations?" that's an entirely different situation and a bit of a broad or open-ended question.
     

Share This Page