Rescues & Retained Ownership?

[EventingMaff]

Ok so I know this topic has been discussed before, so feel free to link to an older thread!

Most rescues seem to have a lifetime-ownership clause where if the adopter is unable to keep the adopted animal it has to be returned to the rescue. Basically the rescue is legally the “primary” owner.

Now I totally understand the motivation behind this, and I could absolutely understand a “first right of refusal” type clause (although maybe that would probably stand up in court even less?), but aren’t animals generally considered property? If a fee has been paid and the adopter demonstrates they’ve paid all vet, food, “housing” costs (and assuming no issues of potential neglect or abuse) – do rescues actually have a leg to stand on?

I see these clauses as smoke and mirrors tricks, essentially the rescue banking on the fact that adopters won’t contest the clauses legally in court and also relying on the probability of needing to enforce the clauses being very very low.

Has anyone heard of a case being taken to small-claims? What was the ruling?

I signed a contract for my adopted girl a year ago with basically these types of clauses even though I’m against them in principle. I’m not at all worried about them (aside from the obvious of having no intention of ever giving my girl up) since the rescue I went through barely has 2 pennies to rub together let alone funds for a legal case and the rescue is in a different country to where we reside (rescue knew this upfront). So these are more just curious musings rather than needing advice on handling a situation!

[SummerRose]

I know of at least two cases involving horses where the resue was able to reclaim them.

Cohen v. Rostron: the adopter moved the horse from one barn to another without the rescue’s permission. The rescue reclaimed the horse. The adopter sued but the court found that the adopter did not have an ownership interest and therefore did not have grounds to sue. (The contract identified the adopter as “caretaker.”)

Swysgood v. Roberts: A woman adopted a pony and subsequently gave the pony to a third party. The rescue reclaimed the pony. The court found that ownership did transfer, but it was a conditional transfer and the original adopter violated the conditions so the rescue could keep the pony.

Well-written adoption contracts do allow the rescue to reclaim animals. If you have concerns about your contract, it’s best to speak to an attorney.

[EventingMaff]

[QUOTE=SummerRose;8823527]

Cohen v. Rostron: the adopter moved the horse from one barn to another without the rescue’s permission. The rescue reclaimed the horse. The adopter sued but the court found that the adopter did not have an ownership interest and therefore did not have grounds to sue. (The contract identified the adopter as “caretaker.”) [/QUOTE]

Hmm I guess I can see this type of set up (termed “caretake”) more as an indefinite lease then a sale or transfer of ownership. Makes sense why the rescue won from technical language stand point but seems ridiculous to reclaim based on a change in barn (unless the new barn was below acceptable standards of safety & welfare?)

[QUOTE=SummerRose;8823527]
Swysgood v. Roberts: A woman adopted a pony and subsequently gave the pony to a third party. The rescue reclaimed the pony. The court found that ownership did transfer, but it was a conditional transfer and the original adopter violated the conditions so the rescue could keep the pony. [/QUOTE]

This sounds more like what I had in mind. Interesting that there is such thing as a conditional sale. I was always under the impression that once full compensation is received that the property is under full jurisdiction of the new owner. I guess it’s similar to land and easements? Except violation of easements doesn’t return the property to the previous owner.

@SummerRose;8823527

If you have concerns about your contract, it’s best to speak to an attorney.

Nope, zero concerns - just idle musings! I don’t really agree with the clauses, but am not worried at all of them being applicable as I have no intent on rehoming or giving away my girl

[LauraKY]

Yes. The collie rescue I worked with had a dog returned to them through the courts. The adopter passed the dog off to a neighbor. It took about 6 months (after the neighbor had the dog for over a year, but the dog was returned to the rescue.

All the rescue wanted to do was a background check on the neighbor…they refused to cooperate. It turned out the dog hadn’t been seen by a vet in over 2 years and wasn’t in great shape when finally returned.

I would think people would be relieved that a valued pet has a safe place to land if they couldn’t keep it, no?

Don’t be so sure the rescue without two pennies can’t take you to court. The collie rescue’s lawyer did it pro bono.

[JanM]

Remember the Ellen de Generes (spelling?) and Iggy the rescue dog saga? She adopted through a rescue, signed a contract that if unable to keep the dog the rescue would get the dog back. One clause said no adoptions to families with children under a certain age.

The dog was given to a friend or employee of Ellen’s with at least one small child, and the rescue found out. They got the dog back, and readopted it out to someone they had screened. It held up in court.

[red_mares]

One of the many reasons why I will never, ever, ever adopt any sort of animal. I want a clear bill of sale.

[2tempe]

I’ve had this type of clause in paperwork on several of the animals I"ve adopted. I’ve NEVER had any proactive follow up from a rescue group, (though I know of one that is like Big Brother) and I’ve never had a reason to transfer my animals.

It would never keep me from adopting, as that is how I want to get my dogs and cats.
And realistically, many of these organizations adopt out hundreds of animals each year; they don’t have the capacity or time to follow up unless someone shows up in a humane case or plasters their story on TV.

[Darkwave]

Honestly, in the case of small pets like cats and dogs, the rescues and shelters have enough trouble finding good homes. They’re not going to swoop down and take something back unless it’s a very special circumstance. I would never let this concern keep one from adopting a smaller animal.

I can see how horses might be different. Especially if a horse ended up being a bit more valuable than first foreseen.