Co-ownership of a dog

[Equinox]

Yep. Hopefully in the very near future actually

DETAILS?

I have nothing to actually contribute to this thread

 

[release the hounds]

I've already told you what co-ownership is according to UKC and AKC, and what co-ownership entitles you to, also according to UKC and AKC. What other definition are you looking for?

No, you gave us your interpretation of what YOU consider to be a legal definition, now could you point me to the source of YOUR definition.

can you show me where it says this?

This was printed by the AKC and written by an attorney from NJ
http://www.lawfordogs.com/assets/PDFs/lmc coownership.pdf

The types of consideration involved in a co-ownership contract usually include a combination of:
(a) money, (b) promises to do various things, and, of course, (c) a share of ownership in the dog.

There are virtually no restrictions, under the law or the AKC Rules, as to the specifics of
the contract that co-owners can make in dividing up the duties and benefits of dog co-ownership.
They are free to decide among themselves how to divide up the various rights and
responsibilities (such as housing the dog, financing its health care and show career, choosing
breeding partners and placing the offspring).

So if you have something else that says something different, I'm going to continue to use Co-ownership in the context that I always have.

 

[PWCorgi]

I mean, I trusted her enough to get a dog from her after all lol

So. Much. This.

I co-own Siri with Lynn. But I absolutely trust her 100% and don't have even the slightest worry about the contract that I signed.

I would not sign a co-own with someone that I didn't trust, which is....pretty much everyone

Yep. Hopefully in the very near future actually

WUT?! MORE INFORMATION NEEDED!

 

[SevenSins]

There are virtually no restrictions, under the law or the AKC Rules, as to the specifics of
the contract that co-owners can make in dividing up the duties and benefits of dog co-ownership.

OF COURSE there are no restrictions on what you can put in a contract according to AKC rules. That's because AKC doesn't HAVE rules about WHAT people choose to put in their private agreements that are outside of the boundaries inherent to what co-ownerships were actually designed to do: Prevent someone from selling a dog with its registration papers, and prevent someone from registering a litter.

This person has a clue:
http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/co-owning-a-registered-dog/

 

[momto8]

Our puppy will be co owned. I am perfectly fine with it, you don't find many beezers that are not co owned.

 

[Toller_08]

I don't have a problem with co-owns at all, but in the future I'd be more careful and less naive than I was when I signed Dance's co-own contract. Thankfully it never affected me negatively at all, and I was given permission to spay her, but I don't have a relationship with her breeder at all due to lack of communication despite trying. To me, that's not what a co-ownership should be with the stipulations that were in Dance's particular contract. It made me uncomfortable to 1) think of Dance's temperament being passed on when she was bred and 2) have her live with her breeder and raise a litter.

I co-own Journey as well. I don't feel like I do and there is nothing attached. I forgot I co-owned her actually until I saw this thread. Her breeder just wanted her name involved to protect herself because Journey's staying intact for a while, which is fine by me. We discussed it first and I trust her breeder and really like her, so didn't have a problem with it at all.

I almost co-owned Ripley with his breeder. But eventhough I actually am good friends with her, I didn't want to co-own with her because she's the type of person who already can sometimes involve herself too much and try to make people do things with their dogs her way (very strong personality). So I felt like maybe if I co-owned with her that she'd be even more apt to do that. Maybe not. Either way, we're friends so I told her I didn't want to and she was fine with that.

So yes, I would co-own and have. But after Dance, I'm just more picky about what the co-own involves and whom it's with.

Or, instead of saying all of that, I could have just quoted Sizzle haha.

To echo what others have said... as long as there's a good contract in place and it's fair to all parties, I see no problem with co-ownerships.

I agree with this.

 

[release the hounds]

OF COURSE there are no restrictions on what you can put in a contract according to AKC rules. That's because AKC doesn't HAVE rules about WHAT people choose to put in their private agreements that are outside of the boundaries inherent to what co-ownerships were actually designed to do: Prevent someone from selling a dog with its registration papers, and prevent someone from registering a litter.

This person has a clue:
http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/co-owning-a-registered-dog/

ahh, the internet blogger has a clue, yet the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC doesn't. and again, you cherry pick.

The types of consideration involved in a co-ownership contract usually include a combination of:
(a) money, (b) promises to do various things, and, of course, (c) a share of ownership in the dog.

Does she call that a co-ownership contract? hmmmm, i wonder who would have a co-ownership contract? co-owners perhaps? I wonder what they would put in that agreement? maybe the 3 things listed above, and when they signed it, I wonder what they would call it?

 

[Shai]

What would turn you, or anyone, off of a co-own?

There are a lot of situational particulars and really I just go over any potential contract with a fine toothed comb and ask for clarifications/adjustments as needed, but since my brand of co-ownership revolves around breeding particulars, my absolutes are that I need to have veto rights for any/all breeding and the ability to act for the health of my dog even if I can't get in touch with the co-owner, and even if those actions impact the potential reproduction of that dog.

 

[Romy]

ahh, the internet blogger has a clue, yet the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC doesn't. and again, you cherry pick.



Does she call that a co-ownership contract? hmmmm, i wonder who would have a co-ownership contract? co-owners perhaps? I wonder what they would put in that agreement? maybe the 3 things listed above, and when they signed it, I wonder what they would call it?

RTH I've also heard, not seen it happen first hand, but heard that co-owners can be held liable for damages if a co-owned dog bites someone or destroys property (think livestock) even if they aren't the custodial owner.

That's a little scary if so. And if that is the case, it would indicate that co-ownership involves more legal responsibilities than just breeding rights.

 

[Upendi&Mina]

I co-own Mercy, her contract was very straight forward and I like her breeder. Co-owning her allowed me to keep her intact.

 

[Saeleofu]

Co-owning her allowed me to keep her intact

I'm pretty sure this is all Logan's co-own boils down to, and that's fine with me, and will be fine with me in the future. If I breed dogs in the future, I will probably want to co-own any dogs that are going to remain intact, especially with people new to the breed or new to the purebred dog world, with very few exceptions.

Also it was brought up earlier what happens if a dog doesn't finish? I'm pretty sure Logan's contract says something along the lines of me having to keep him intact until he finishes or is unable to finish...I'd have to dig it up and reread it to get the exact wording. He's still showing, and I don't doubt he'll finish eventually (not being able to show has made it take a long time ) but it's not like he's suddenly not mine if he doesn't finish. I REALLY REALLY want to finish him this year (in both AKC and UKC), though. Get conformation out of the way, then focus on sports again, with just specials and stuff in between.

Basically how my co-own works is I say "Hey, I want to try xxxxxxx" and his breeder says "Cool! Go for it!" I mean, I'm sure if I came up with something crazy she'd say "WAIT, what? You're nuts!" or something along the lines, lol. There were many times I wanted to neuter Logan, and his breeder encouraged me to work through it and keep him intact, and I'm VERY grateful for that. If it wasn't for her he would have been neutered already, and in hindsight it would not have been the best for him. I'm now solidly of the opinion that I'll keep dogs intact as long as possible, or forever.

 

[Raegan]

I co-own Siri with Lynn. But I absolutely trust her 100% and don't have even the slightest worry about the contract that I signed.

I would not sign a co-own with someone that I didn't trust, which is....pretty much everyone

In my perspective, contracts are for people you DON'T trust 100%. (This is not a character assassination on Lynn! Who I like very much and have zero bad things to say about and often find myself in agreement with )

But contracts protect both parties (and the dog) when you don't agree. To me this is the fundamental purpose of a contract, to resolve otherwise irreconcilable disagreements. If the dog was purchased for a reduced or eliminated price, I would probably include the ability to "buy out" the other owner's share to nullify the contract.

 

[SevenSins]

ahh, the internet blogger has a clue, yet the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC doesn't. and again, you cherry pick.

Or why don't you just call the AKC yourself and ask what rights or privileges that co-ownership entitles you to? You and a whole lot of others seem to have some romanticized ideas floating around in your heads. Ask the registry itself. If you genuinely believe that your co-ownerships entitle you to anything more than what they were intended for when they were implemented by the registry, I don't really know what to say to you.

RTH I've also heard, not seen it happen first hand, but heard that co-owners can be held liable for damages if a co-owned dog bites someone or destroys property (think livestock) even if they aren't the custodial owner.

That's a little scary if so. And if that is the case, it would indicate that co-ownership involves more legal responsibilities than just breeding rights.

Yeh, that's also not true and again, a romanticized view of what entitlements or responsibilities inherently come with co-ownership.

I also feel bad for whatever poor sod lost a dog in court over whose name was on the AKC registration papers. That never should have happened unless the judge was completely unfamiliar with how dog registration works (then he should have done some research), because legally, AKC registration is not a "title" to a dog. It is absolutely nothing like your car's registration. A registration certificate for a dog is as much legal proof of ownership of the dog as property, as this car club certificate is legal proof of ownership of this car:

Heck, if I wanted to, I could register the same dog with three different registries and have a different "sole owner" or an entirely different group of co-owners for the same dog in each and every one of those registries. Love to see the incompetent judge try to work that one out.

If the dog was purchased for a reduced or eliminated price, I would probably include the ability to "buy out" the other owner's share to nullify the contract.

I'd have to wonder about the motivation of someone who allowed for another party to "buy their way out" of an entire contract, provided that part of the contract was put in place to protect the DOG, which any contract worth more than the paper it's written on should.

 

[Romy]

Or why don't you just call the AKC yourself and ask what rights or privileges that co-ownership entitles you to? You and a whole lot of others seem to have some romanticized ideas floating around in your heads. Ask the registry itself. If you genuinely believe that your co-ownerships entitle you to anything more than what they were intended for when they were implemented by the registry, I don't really know what to say to you.



Yeh, that's also not true and again, a romanticized view of what entitlements or responsibilities inherently come with co-ownership.

I also feel bad for whatever poor sod lost a dog in court over whose name was on the AKC registration papers. That never should have happened unless the judge was completely unfamiliar with how dog registration works (then he should have done some research), because legally, AKC registration is not a "title" to a dog. It is absolutely nothing like your car's registration. A registration certificate for a dog is as much legal proof of ownership of the dog as property, as this car club certificate is legal proof of ownership of this car:

If it makes you feel better, the breeder blew $10,000 going after the "poor sod" because the dog was kept on a three foot chain outdoors 24/7, and had open sores on its hips from being forced to lay in the same position (it was a zoi). She told me that ultimately it was the co-ownership that cinched the judge's decision to return the dog to her hands vs. leave it with the scuzzbag.

 

[SevenSins]

If it makes you feel better, the breeder blew $10,000 going after the "poor sod" because the dog was kept on a three foot chain outdoors 24/7, and had open sores on its hips from being forced to lay in the same position (it was a zoi). She told me that ultimately it was the co-ownership that cinched the judge's decision to return the dog to her hands vs. leave it with the scuzzbag.

Does it make me feel better that the dog didn't end up going back to a bad owner? Yes. Does it make me feel better that a judge potentially pulled his own idealistic "law" out of his ass and bent it to suit the situation? No, not really.

 

[release the hounds]

we get it, you can't get past that co-ownerships extend far beyond the AKC. NO **** the AKC doesn't care anymore than what it means for registrations, because all they are is a registry. All they have control over are registrations, but co-ownership extends far beyond registering puppies. As it was asked in the very first post and clarified again by the OP.

It involves money, it involves stud fees, puppy contracts, who lives where, who trains, how long, what happens when issues arise, training isn't finished, it's finished early, someone dies etc.

But can you point it out for me again, what did the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC for it's members call that agreement again??? I could have swore she called it a co-ownership contract, much like everyone else in the dog world.

http://www.lawfordogs.com/assets/PDFs/lmc coownership.pdf

 

[SevenSins]

we get it, you can't get past that co-ownerships extend far beyond the AKC.

I don't even own AKC dogs, smart one.

co-ownership extends far beyond registering puppies.

There's a difference between a "co-ownership contract" and a "contract between people who also happen to co-own the dog."

It involves money, it involves stud fees, puppy contracts, who lives where, who trains, how long, what happens when issues arise, training isn't finished, it's finished early, someone dies etc.

I have all of those things in the contract for a dog that lives in another home and I co-own with someone other than the owner of the dog. The owner of the dog isn't even on his papers. It still isn't a co-ownership contract, because co-ownership of the dog has no bearing on the legality or enforcement of the contract.

Co-ownership contract: Person A agrees to sell Person B a bitch. Person A requires that they remain on the bitch's papers as co-owner (or sole signatory in the case of UKC) until Person A breeds the bitch and retains her first litter, at which time Person A will sign over full registered ownership to Person B. Just an example of ONE situation where co-ownership actually matters here.

Not a co-ownership contract: Person A sells a puppy to Person B. Person A requires that the puppy be shown X amount of times per year until it obtains X title, requires that Person B perform X health tests on dog at X age, and further requires that Person B have semen collected from the dog at X age for Person A's sole use. Co-ownership does not matter here, whether the dog also happens to be co-owned at the time is irrelevant.

That first example...is NOT what "most dog people" seem to think a co-ownership agreement IS. More than one person in this thread have expressed hangups they have about doing nothing more than having another person listed AS a co-owner on a dog, regardless of whether or not the dog is even under contract, because they seem to have mixed/uninformed ideas of what the simple act of having someone signed onto the registration papers as a co-owner actually DOES.

Which is why I stated in my original reply to this thread that the actual CO-OWNERSHIP doesn't matter nearly as much as the CONTRACT the dog is under, and the wording of the contract. The OP said, "I have friends who co-own and friends who've walked away when offered only a co-ownership." THAT sort of misunderstanding about what co-ownerships are and what entitlements and responsibilities are attached to them is why I think there is a very important distinction that should be made between a CO-OWNERSHIP, and a legal agreement. Because most people seem to be just fine with contracts, and than balk at the mention of the ACTUAL, literal, co-ownership, because they're misinformed and think that co-ownership BY ITSELF gives the co-owner more rights to the dog than it really does.

But can you point it out for me again, what did the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC for it's members call that agreement again??? I could have swore she called it a co-ownership contract, much like everyone else in the dog world.

I can point out all kinds of situations where lawyers have misused terminology. Point?

 

[ZillyAPBT]

Ok I'm not really sure what is so hard to understand here. There are a ton of common mis-conceptions surrounding "co-ownership"

All a co-ownership does is give multiple people a say in the registration activities of the dog, NOT the dog itself. It controls registration of puppies and selling of the registration papers. And gives credit to everyone on the papers for whatever accomplishments the dog itself achieves. Thats it people, NOTHING more!

The CONTRACT that goes with the dog, or lack of one, is what controls the person physically in possession of the dog. A Co-owner ship can be done with or without a contract. The TERMS in the contract are what gives a person restrictions on what they can or cannot do, what they must or must not do, and the consequences of breaking those rules.

You either agree to the contract and it's terms, or you negotiate a new one, or you don't buy from that breeder. It's that dang simple people. There isn't anything convoluted or difficult to understand here.

If you co-owned a dog with me for instance, with no contract, and chose to go off an neuter it, or sell it with no papers, there wouldn't be a dang thing I could do to stop you, because I have no contract. I am at that point the very proud co-owner of a piece of useless paper. All I can do is refuse to sign over the papers to whoever you sold the dog to. Period end of argument.

If you bought a dog outright from me, on a contract that stated you had to do X, Y and Z before you could breed the dog, And you only did X and Y, I would be fully within my rights to take you to court to enforce the contract and remove the dog, the puppies, the papers, or force compliance on stipulation Z that wasn't completed. No co-ownership required.

 

[release the hounds]

It isn't that hard to understand, what is so hard to understand that when two people co-own a dog there is almost always an agreement that goes along with it, and that agreement is usually always called a co-ownership agreement or contract.

What is so hard to understand that the person came in asking questions about things to look for when making an agreement with someone else. We all know that contract can come with or without being a co-owner. She didn't come here asking" gee, how do you feel about signing puppy registrations with someone else".

There are elements beyond a registry that a co-ownership can cover and that is exactly what she was asking about, and what she clarified she was asking about.

 

[SevenSins]

She didn't come here asking" gee, how do you feel about signing puppy registrations with someone else".

Do you understand just how many people ask about co-ownerships and actually mean the literal co-ownership, because they don't think that it's "just about signing litter registrations," and were misinformed to believe that the actual act of co-owning a dog in and of itself gives the co-owner(s) rights beyond what a co-ownership actually does? Like a right to come take the dog whenever they please, or the right to have decision making power over the dog's medical issues, or what to feed the dog, etc, without having an additional contract.

As a breeder, I've HAD people who have looked over my entire, extensive contract and have been fine with all of it, and then balk when they figure out that I co-own every dog I produce. Why? Because they think that the actual act of co-owning the dog gives me some sort of right to the dog above and beyond what it says in my contract. So, people concerned with and questioning "co-owns" are not always people who are talking about contracts.

I'm glad that Adrianne specified what she was asking, but several people in THIS thread still have those unfortunate misconceptions I mentioned above.