A 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Pennsylvania is threatening a person in Texas. Which state has jurisdiction?

[Melina_1222]

(I apologise for the the length of this, but it's a complicated and stupid matter.)

Several weeks ago, a local Texas shelter (not a nonprofit, a municipal shelter) asked all nonprofit animal rescues for help with a distemper epidemic so they would not be forced to euthanize 100% of the dogs in their care. One nonprofit in Pennsylvania said they would rescue three dogs if someone in Texas could help. My friend Rachel said she'd help, so the PA nonprofit contacted the Texas shelter. The shelter released the three dogs to Rachel after a Texas nonprofit provided discount medical care (the PA shelter paid for this).

The problem began when the dogs were scheduled to be picked up from Rachel to be transported to the rescue in Pennsylvania. The transporter person called Rachel and said she could only pick up the dogs if they were brought to another location some 50 miles away. Rachel could not leave her home as she is her parents' caregiver, and the original agreement stated that the dogs would be picked up from her home.

So the transport volunteer - who is an Ohio resident - told Rachel "I'll just tell the Pennsylvania rescue I couldn't find your house, and they can get someone else to pick them up." However, the transport volunteer told the Pennsylvania rescue a different, untrue story. She said that Rachel would not give her the dogs.

The PA rescue went on a Facebook rampage against Rachel, accusing her of theft and also publishing Rachel's parents' personal information. Other posters insisted that Rachel be arrested or even killed. The local police eventually were called, and they said that the dispute was a civil matter.

Rachel plans to consult an attorney but we want to know if the PA rescue group has any legal claim to these animals. This is because Rachel has gone into hiding after she saw that her personal information and various death threats were posted on Facebook for all to see.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Certainly the PA entity could sue in Texas for the animals if it chooses to do so. Whether it has a good claim to them depends on the details of the various communications that took place between all the various persons/entities involved and in particular what contracts, if any, were created. There is not enough information here to determine if it would have a good claim for that.

 

[HRZ]

To me as a layman, dogs are most likely property but as posted above there is insufficient information to determine just what is subject to jurisdiction where .

One view is that the parties intended for ownership to transfer upon pickup of the animals at Rachel's location by the transporter. ( unstated as to,who engaged the transporter ) but apparently the transporter unilaterally attempted to change the transfer location by some 50 miles. THere was no meeting of the minds as to the change and the deal fell apart. Personally the rotten smell seems to be coming from the " transporter ."

To go on a rage on line accusing another of a crime : theft may well be libel/slander but a suit against a 501c3 may be like adding gasoline to this fire. And the transporter may also be engaged in libel/slander if a false accusation was made to others.

501c3 s don't post things , people do ...and the person posting that message really deserves a serious attitude adjustment ...assuming your version is true .

 

[justalayman]

Given the pa shelter paid for medical care I suspect that was part of the bargain struck. If so, it does give the pa shelter a legal claim to the animals.


Regardless, in no case would Rachel have a claim to the animals if she was merely fostering them or assisting in the transport of the animals. The dogs either belong to the Texas shelter or the pa shelter.

 

[HRZ]

Odds are ownership rests with the Tx organization ...the foster care provider might be smart to arrange for the prompt return of animals to the Tx organization and let them deal with devious transporter.

 

[quincy]

Your friend Rachel needs to return the dogs to the Texas rescue organization so the Texas rescue organization can make other arrangements for the transportation of the dogs to Pennsylvania.

It appears the people the animal organizations relied on to help the dogs get transported from one state to another failed.

If the dogs health is harmed while under Rachel's extended care, by the way, she can be held liable. She should stop hiding and return the dogs now.