Dog seized by original owner

[stealth2]

All I can tell you is that the breeder of my two pups considers each and every one of her pups, b*tches & studs as family and keeps track of each one. When her "breeding stock" is aging out of that role (and I'm talking at ~3-4yrs), she does look to rehome some/most of them w/in the "family." Just as with the pups she sells (except those she sells for show), it is expected the dog will be neutered and if there is any reason the dog cannot be kept in the original home, there is an expectation that either the dog will be returned or rehomed w/her approval. (That's how I got the one in my profile.) I don't think that's unreasonable. A reputable breeder wants his/her babies in a good home. Not just "somewhere".

 

[justalayman]

All I can tell you is that the breeder of my two pups considers each and every one of her pups, b*tches & studs as family and keeps track of each one. When her "breeding stock" is aging out of that role (and I'm talking at ~3-4yrs), she does look to rehome some/most of them w/in the "family." Just as with the pups she sells (except those she sells for show), it is expected the dog will be neutered and if there is any reason the dog cannot be kept in the original home, there is an expectation that either the dog will be returned or rehomed w/her approval. (That's how I got the one in my profile.) I don't think that's unreasonable. A reputable breeder wants his/her babies in a good home. Not just "somewhere".

Returning a dog or even seeking permission to rehome a dog you’ve gotten from another party can be included in a contract but without a contract stating so, the expectations of the breeder are unenforceable.

 

[stealth2]

Returning a dog or even seeking permission to rehome a dog you’ve gotten from another party can be included in a contract but without a contract stating so, the expectations of the breeder are unenforceable.

I know. Just saying that it's not unusual.

 

[quincy]

I know. Just saying that it's not unusual.

I posted information once, at some time and somewhere on the forum, about states that will not enforce "return to breeder" clauses in contracts. I don't recall offhand if Pennsylvania is one of those states. I assume not, only because the dog here was returned to the breeder.

I will try to locate the information and add it here.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to an article on transfer of animal ownership and "condition-subsequent" clauses, written by Cherie Travis, animal law professor and cofounder of PACT Humane Society:
https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=animshel
Pennsylvania courts have consistently ruled that animals are property so it will be the property laws of Pennsylvania that must be looked at when deciding a dispute over animal ownership.

 

[Spartacus96]

Thank you all for your advice and insight. CoolMaltese, I'm sorry to hear you are going through a tough diagnosis. :'(

We met with our new attorney. We fired our old one when we discovered that we had the opportunity to get our dog back within 72 hours of her being seized by placing something called a counterbond. The attorney never mentioned it as a possibility. We don't think he even knew about it. His lack of knowledge on how to address the seizure during the hearing for it solidified our decision. Our new attorney explained that the $35K is the most she can ask for. She suggested that we offer to settle so we have. We are awaiting the other party to either counteroffer or tell us to take a flying leap. We suspect it'll be the latter.

We actually wish there WAS an agreement between our daughter and the breeder. If there was, when I offered to take the dog, she would've told me that she couldn't because of the agreement and I would've just contacted the breeder myself and offered to have the agreement transferred over to us. I've met the breeder on 3 separate occasions and even took one of my dogs out to her farm to play with the other dogs. I have no doubt we would've been given permission to keep the dog (and we wouldn't be here.)

Justalayman...I can see how that comment could be interpreted that way. We interpreted as meaning that the breeder's intent was to get rid of the dog to someone and our daughter just happened to be first on her list. Since this is such a convoluted matter, I wasn't about to bog this forum down with a lot of extraneous information, but something relevant to what you said is that all communications regarding getting the dog were done via Facebook messenger. All communications. No phone calls. Everything is documented. At no point, did the breeder refer in any way to maintaining ownership, that the dog was only being "fostered" as she now claims, or that there was a "return to breeder" understanding. Again, if there was, we would've worked with that and done what we needed to do to get her.

[email protected] attorney reached out the breeder's attorney for assurances that she not be put down and that we would be informed if her health declined. What good about mammary tumors (as if there is anything good about cancer) is that when she gets one, quick removal will keep it from returning. New ones will form, but it won't spread unless it's left untreated. Speaking of cancer...I agree that she probably wants to keep a lid on it. Ever since this happened, I've been digging into her breeding line and the amount of cancer and early deaths are alarming. I just started compiling the information, but I truly feel like something is wrong with her dogs. It's so very heartbreaking.

Quincy...we are aware of the property laws that govern dogs in PA. It's tough to think that she is seen as property and not a member of the family. Our governor seems pro-animal so maybe there's hope for change in the future. Fingers crossed.

Again, all of you are awesome people.

 

[quincy]

Thank you all for your advice and insight. CoolMaltese, I'm sorry to hear you are going through a tough diagnosis. :'(

We met with our new attorney. We fired our old one when we discovered that we had the opportunity to get our dog back within 72 hours of her being seized by placing something called a counterbond. The attorney never mentioned it as a possibility. We don't think he even knew about it. His lack of knowledge on how to address the seizure during the hearing for it solidified our decision. Our new attorney explained that the $35K is the most she can ask for. She suggested that we offer to settle so we have. We are awaiting the other party to either counteroffer or tell us to take a flying leap. We suspect it'll be the latter.

We actually wish there WAS an agreement between our daughter and the breeder. If there was, when I offered to take the dog, she would've told me that she couldn't because of the agreement and I would've just contacted the breeder myself and offered to have the agreement transferred over to us. I've met the breeder on 3 separate occasions and even took one of my dogs out to her farm to play with the other dogs. I have no doubt we would've been given permission to keep the dog (and we wouldn't be here.)

Justalayman...I can see how that comment could be interpreted that way. We interpreted as meaning that the breeder's intent was to get rid of the dog to someone and our daughter just happened to be first on her list. Since this is such a convoluted matter, I wasn't about to bog this forum down with a lot of extraneous information, but something relevant to what you said is that all communications regarding getting the dog were done via Facebook messenger. All communications. No phone calls. Everything is documented. At no point, did the breeder refer in any way to maintaining ownership, that the dog was only being "fostered" as she now claims, or that there was a "return to breeder" understanding. Again, if there was, we would've worked with that and done what we needed to do to get her.

[email protected] attorney reached out the breeder's attorney for assurances that she not be put down and that we would be informed if her health declined. What good about mammary tumors (as if there is anything good about cancer) is that when she gets one, quick removal will keep it from returning. New ones will form, but it won't spread unless it's left untreated. Speaking of cancer...I agree that she probably wants to keep a lid on it. Ever since this happened, I've been digging into her breeding line and the amount of cancer and early deaths are alarming. I just started compiling the information, but I truly feel like something is wrong with her dogs. It's so very heartbreaking.

Quincy...we are aware of the property laws that govern dogs in PA. It's tough to think that she is seen as property and not a member of the family. Our governor seems pro-animal so maybe there's hope for change in the future. Fingers crossed.

Again, all of you are awesome people.

Thanks for the update. I am happy you now have an attorney you trust.

Good luck.

 

[stealth2]

I still want to know what breed (or did I miss that?)...

 

[quincy]

I still want to know what breed (or did I miss that?)...

There has not yet been any mention of the breed of dog.

 

[Spartacus96]

Sorry stealth2 and quincy. I must've missed the request. She is a gorgeous, sweet golden retriever.

 

[quincy]

Golden retrievers are great dogs. I hope she does well with her cancer treatments and is returned to you soon.

 

[ShyCat]

Unfortunately, golden retrievers are very prone to cancer. Statistics are grim: over 60% of North American goldens die of cancer. Though still above average, the rate is quite a bit lower in European bred goldens (a distinctly different gene pool). The Morris Animal Foundation Golden Retriever Lifetime Study will hopefully help researchers figure out why.

 

[Spartacus96]

Thank you quincy.

ShyCat: Yes, unfortunately they are. We lost our first golden to lymphoma years ago. Thank goodness he didn't contract it until he was 13 and the chemotherapy treatments made him feel so much better and put it into remission for about 6 months. We were able to spend time with him and improve his quality of life. We made the decision ahead of time to not let him suffer when it returned. We have a wonderful vet who came to our home so he wouldn't have to travel.

In regard to Molly, our vet told us that only 1/2 of 1 percent of female dogs are at risk of getting mammary tumors if they are spayed early. I understand that, being a breeder, that would go against their business model, but the risk can be kept down to 8% if spayed before 2.5 years. Molly could still have had puppies and been spayed. The risk rises to more than 40% if spayed after 2.5 years or not at all. Regardless, it isn't necessarily that Molly has cancer, it's the disturbing amount of YOUNGER dogs that she's bred that have been getting cancer. Molly's own pup developed hemangiosarcoma at 6 years. I did some nosing around and discovered that the breeder has been living literally hundreds of feet from one of the largest coal ash dumps in the country for years and that it has been proven that the chemicals (like arsenic, thallium, lead, and mercury) have seeped into the groundwater. I don't know if that means anything, but it raised the hair on the back of my neck.

Anyway, we're trying to settle without it going to a trial. It's been more than a week since we offered a settlement and are still awaiting a counteroffer (though I suspect that we're going to get a big fat FU.) Fingers crossed, though.

 

[quincy]

Thank you quincy.

ShyCat: Yes, unfortunately they are. We lost our first golden to lymphoma years ago. Thank goodness he didn't contract it until he was 13 and the chemotherapy treatments made him feel so much better and put it into remission for about 6 months. We were able to spend time with him and improve his quality of life. We made the decision ahead of time to not let him suffer when it returned. We have a wonderful vet who came to our home so he wouldn't have to travel.

In regard to Molly, our vet told us that only 1/2 of 1 percent of female dogs are at risk of getting mammary tumors if they are spayed early. I understand that, being a breeder, that would go against their business model, but the risk can be kept down to 8% if spayed before 2.5 years. Molly could still have had puppies and been spayed. The risk rises to more than 40% if spayed after 2.5 years or not at all. Regardless, it isn't necessarily that Molly has cancer, it's the disturbing amount of YOUNGER dogs that she's bred that have been getting cancer. Molly's own pup developed hemangiosarcoma at 6 years. I did some nosing around and discovered that the breeder has been living literally hundreds of feet from one of the largest coal ash dumps in the country for years and that it has been proven that the chemicals (like arsenic, thallium, lead, and mercury) have seeped into the groundwater. I don't know if that means anything, but it raised the hair on the back of my neck.

Anyway, we're trying to settle without it going to a trial. It's been more than a week since we offered a settlement and are still awaiting a counteroffer (though I suspect that we're going to get a big fat FU.) Fingers crossed, though.

Thank you for the update, Spartacus.

I hope you are able to reach a reasonable settlement with the breeder. Please let us know what happens.

Good luck.

 

[Spartacus96]

Here's the latest. We are negotiating a settlement. We will never get our dog back because apparently that first hearing was the most important and we were not properly prepared. Before we considered settling, we were digging into defending ourselves and discovered some disturbing information about the breeder. They may be running an unlicensed business with the Secretary of State in PA. They own animals that you need special permits to have (they claim to live in another state yet is actually living in PA, so it is highly unlikely they are licensed). They also don't have other necessary licenses they are required to have (like from the state Dept of Agriculture.) I also have proof that they are selling puppies before 8 weeks which is illegal in PA. They are very wealthy and litigious (obviously). In the settlement papers, there will be language that will prevent either party from disparaging the other. I want to inform the proper authorities of what I've learned but my husband is scared they will sue us for doing so. Can I do it while the case is open? Is there another way to get around this? I'm having a conflict of conscience over what to do. It doesn't feel right to take the easy way out by settling and then letting their activities continue. Any advice? My attorney says that it would be suspicious to leave the language out of the paperwork and to just leave it all alone.