A Doggie Case

that's cool :) i wish X and Y would just forget the money and just take care of the puppy, and if they opt to sell it, i wish Y would agree to just split the proceeds, sigh.

Perfect algebra! I couldn't have 'sum'med it up better, myself ; ) Maybe Y should have reported X for neglect, in the first place, while continuing care or offering to adopt said puppy. X would then have all legal rights to sell puppy or ASPCA would rehome puppy with Mr. A or even X, who actually wants it!

There should be a 'common sense' law in place ; )

i've suggested that they split the proceeds but Y won't agree.

not really fair for Y but well, that's just reality i guess.

that's the shady part :P

i apologize for not being able to get back to this discussion soon to clarify the matter. X knows where the puppy is and consented to the set-up. his allegation is just, he didn't know Y would want to sell it that's why he's interested to 'take care' of it. but Y retorted that if he didn't take care of the puppy, it would have gone astray since X is negligent of it.

This is my State's laws on Gaurdianship of pet Guardianship A new type of law is popping up in many cities. Based on the stated desire by some groups to eliminate pet ownership, it replaces property rights in animals with ‘guardianship,’ a concept that allows government authorities and appointed agents to confiscate dogs without compensation. Proponents of the law claim that ‘owners’ consider pets as expendable as toasters or old cars but ‘guardians’ will treat animals with more care and concern. There is no evidence to support either contention: if reports about the dollars spent on dog food, supplies, vet care, and incidentals are any indication, most people already treat their pets like family members. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that a change in language will produce a change in attitude in owners who already neglect their dogs, allow them to break animal control laws, or fail to control nuisance barking or harassment. Dog ownership is a basic constitutional right, but guardianship is bestowed by the government and can be revoked for violation of specious policies or regulations. In most states, animals can be removed from owners if serious neglect or cruelty has been proven. Revocation of guardianship is easier; a humane agency might simply interpret animal cruelty law by enlarging the definition of mutilation to include customary animal husbandry practices, determining arbitrarily that a dog isn’t receiving adequate exercise or nourishment, or deciding that a particular person is incapable of providing for more than a particular number of dogs. Ownership protects dogs from theft and allows dog owners to seek compensation from those who harm their pets. It allows breeders to sell the puppies they carefully produced and nurtured, authorizes both breeders and buyers to enter into legally-binding contracts without government interference, and permits people to sell or give pets to new homes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion Dogs and dog owners face more discrimination than ever before in American society. While we pay lip service to the dog as man’s best friend, we allow fear and politics to determine the parameters of dog ownership. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on premium foods, veterinary care, toys, kennels, pet sitters, training classes, and more even while limiting the number and type of dogs an owner can house. We use dogs to aid in catching criminals, search for victims of crimes and natural disasters, help handicapped humans, and provide emotional support even while barring dogs from communities if they exceed a certain weight. This schizophrenic attitude will be cured only when owners live up to their responsibilities to obey nuisance laws, keep their dogs at home, and train their dogs to have good manners at home and abroad. These steps will decrease the number of dog bites, the surrender of dogs to shelters for bad behaviors, the nuisance calls, and the plethora of restrictive laws that are making things worse, not better.

very well said myspot! i like the guardianship over ownership thing. excellent points made there.

actually this is my 2 cousins' dispute. cousin X owns the puppy but too lazy to take care for it. since he lives next door to cousin Y, the puppy goes to Y for food (X knows this and even say "how's d puppy doin?" when he sees Y). cousin Y is interested in taking care of the puppy with the ulterior motive (which came out later) of selling the puppy when it grows a lil older (of course Y knows it's X's puppy). so after a few months, when buyer Z came, the money/sales proceeds became a problem.

X said it's not abandonment, he just let the puppy stay with Y since Y seemed to love taking care of the puppy anyway (but he admitted he got no time to do it himself too). X said further that he had no idea Y got the intention of selling the puppy later.

I watched a court show where... puppy wanders into X's yard and X has maintained care for it over a period of time. Y had to compensate X if they wanted the puppy back. In a court of law, Y could take X to court for reimbursement for caring for the puppy, even if they weren't asked to. It's the same if someone finds an injured pet and aquires professional care for it, the owners are responsible for the medical needs of their pet. In some cases, the owner relinquishes their ownership rights, so they can be free of financial responsibility.

so mySpot, in terms of legalities, X gets the entire proceeds here. all Y can claim for are the expenses he incurred, given he can show proof of how much. is that right?

OP, I'm so sorry you lost your pet : ( It was definitely part of your family and legally yours! Commenter, that chi is adorable! Is she yours?

yes, the law on period of possession. i'm sorry you weren't able to keep the dog.

Your expierence is slightly different because of what the owner said but he was lousy and wrong to do what he did I'm sorry that occured to you.

but X is still the owner, right?

I agree with lulu this is like abandonment because cousin x didn't care for the puppy by feeding it, playing with it etc. Since cousin y has spent money to feed puppy and what not, then I would say the puppy is now y's.

What has x done to warrant ownership. I think x has abandoned the puppy. x could probably be charged with animal cruelty(if y didn't feed it , it would have starved) and have the puppy taken away. x hasn't done anything for the puppy, hasn't fed it, hasn't given it love, hasn't provided for the puppy. Why own a puppy when your not going to be willing to give it what it needs.

once again, i apologize for not being able to get back to this discussion soon to clarify matters. it's sad that there's no documentation on the dog-ownership. but Y cannot deny that X is the owner coz he knows that from the time he started taking care of the puppy. it's more sad that it's a money-dispute more than anything else.

this is not true here if a dog is allowed lose and goes to a persons house does not have tags etc and that person the owner of the house feeds the dog for three days it becomes thiers.At that point they can do as they wish with it thats the law here .It does not matter if in 5 days a owner shows up with papers now most people would return it to the former owner but they are not required to by law .If a dog is getting out of a fence the owner is required to fix that fence dogs should not run lose ,if the owner x kept the dog under control they would not have this issue . The person y should of turned x in instead of taking care of the dog .

I was also wondering what the law in the original X and Y's state was, where animal rights and ownership are concerned. Maybe Y could look it up on the Internet or make a few calls?? Our law states that dogs must be provided with food, water, and shelter.

3 days? wow, that would make things a lot simpler if that would be the rule of ownership & possession.

Yes I was told this by the animal control of our county .well in this case above the person y was giving food water and shelter as the dog slept with him .I think here it is mainly concerning pets that show up at your house that the owners don't keep under control.Allowing a dog to room free does not show respouncible ownership .I believe not containing the dog lead to the issue at hand .

I agree with tejasvinee

that's what X said, he did not think that Y has the intention of selling it. nevertheless, X would agree to sell the puppy to Z too if he would be compensated as well, being the rightful owner.

right.

that's where Y erred, he didn't draw the lines clear. could have been better if he asked X to give the puppy to him at the onset so the ownership is clearly transferred.

i agree, they should cancel any sale at the moment and first straighten out things on with whom the puppy stays now.

sad to say, the case had gone farther than that. the intention to sell is already revealed which made the case shady.