Hopefully you may be able to give a little advice here.  I've just this minute finished talking to a friend over the telephone whom is at their wits end concerning a dog they sold just over two years ago to what seemed at the time a decent family, my friend found out that the puppy they sold just over two years ago has been passed on to friends of this family who decided to use this poor dog against their own dog, that is infact a rescue that comes from a well known establishment.  There are now puppies, which are crossbreeds - turns out the family that now own the dog my friend sold thought that they had something they did not with their rescue dog it has been established that the rescue dog is a crossbreed (getting past the fact that they bred from a rescue dog at that, which is the Dam).
They now want 'rid' of the Sire of the puppies - surprise, surprise, he has now served his purpose!  Friend has offered to take him back (which has caused an awful amount of arguments within the family because even though they are prepared to take him back they are not really in a position to for reasons I cannot go into).
Anyhow, after a chat with the people that now own the dog, before they take him back they have demanded his papers which have apparently been lost by the previous owners - friend has checked and they never bothered transfering his ownership when he was originally sold as a puppy, so whether it be legal I don't know but on paper friends still own him.
Friend has refused to hand over the dogs papers on the basis that they really have no need should they be looking to hand him back, but they are saying they 'need' his papers to beable to sell their puppies - which of course don't make one jot of difference because the mother of the puppies is a rescue crossbred dog.  Anyway it's now turning into a tug of war over the dog and his papers, no papers no dog...

What do they do? Advice please?

More than likely by the sounds of your post the people who have the 2 yr old male that bred him to their bitch want his papers to sell him privately knowing full well the dog being only 2 yrs old they could still get a couple of hundred for him being a pure entire pedigree dog with papers .
Am I right in thinking the breeder as her name on the original document. I am sure in the KC rules if an owner of a pedigree dog knowingly breeds with a mongral then it will be struck off the KC anyway as with breeding a bitch over 6 years old isn't allowed . Tell your breeder friend to contact the KC with this problem. I personally wouldn't let them have the papers as they'll just sell him for as much as they can.

> I right in thinking the breeder as her name on the original document. I am sure in the KC rules if an owner of a pedigree dog knowingly breeds with a mongral then it will be struck off the KC anyway as with breeding a bitch over 6 years old isn't allowed . Tell your breeder friend to contact the KC with this problem

No & No

The only time the KC will not register the offspring of a dog(obviously if it is bred to a KC registered bitch of the same breed)is if the dog bites someone @ a KC event & it's reported to the KC. The KC have no interest in matings with mongrels or other breeds. They will not do anything if a bitch over 6 is bred from, it is 8 years of age & even then the only action is to refuse to register the litter if prior permission has not been given(again only to a KC registered bitch of the same breed)

The KC can do nothing about the dog being sold on as as soon as the dog is sold it becomes the new owners property to do with as they will. The previous owenr/breeder has no say in it(unless the dog is in partrnership)

I stand corrected sorry giving out wrong information.
Its a shame that the Kennel Club don't care about these issues .
Rather shocking that they allow pedigree dogs to mate with anything!! 

>Rather shocking that they allow pedigree dogs to mate with anything!! 

To be fair, what could they do? It's pointless having rules that can't be enforced, so how could they monitor the activities of every registered dog in the country?

> The KC can do nothing about the dog being sold on as as soon as the dog is sold it becomes the new owners property to do with as they will. The previous owner/breeder has no say in it(unless the dog is in partnership

But of course if the dog is still in the breeders name should the owners mate the dog to a KC registered bitch the registered owner of the sire would have to sign the litter application.

IN law who the registered owner is and who the actual owner is are not related.  Registered ownership with the KC is no proof of ownership as such.  If it were I still solely own about 30 dogs according to KC records instead of 4 and two deceased.

There are lots and lots of registrable litters bred, because either the dogs are endorsed, not in the new owners ownership, bitches too old too young, or of course not purebred themselves.

The KC (a Private club whose rules and procedures members or those using it's services agree to be bound)can only deny registration, it has no power  to stop someone mating a dog and bitch and producing and selling puppies.  No-one in real authority wants to stop casual irresponsible and purely commercial breeding, in fact the powers that be encourage the latter, as long as they get their slice of the action, License fees and taxes of course, as that kind of dog breeding is view in the same way as farming or producing any other goods for sale.

Is it the breeder or the people that bought the puppy initially who are wanting to take this dog back? If the puppy purchaser, did they pass this dog onto their friends with payment involved, or was it a free transfer? It may be that the people who have the dog now may just want their money back, which is why they want the paperwork because to be honest I can think of no other reason for them wanting the papers, other than to sell the dog. Proving that this dog is registered means nothing in a crossbreed, especially as the bitch is a cross herself. If his papers are endorsed saying his puppies cannot be registered the papers are not worth anything anyway, to someone who may want him as a stud dog.

It seems to me that if the papers are handed over there is little chance the dog will be returned, the breeders signature will be on the document should it ever be found, so transfer would be easy. If a new set of papers were issued the dog will be in the breeders name, without a transfer signature which would mean it couldn't be transfered....but signatures are easy to forge. The breeder would have to pay a fee for this new document, are the owners willng to pay for this? It seems to me they have no intention to hand the dog over, so I wouldn't give them the papers.

Another way round this may be for your friend writing a letter to these people that they can show to the prospective new owners of these puppies to say she has bred the sire and would be willing to talk to them regarding this and confirm he is registered. The onus on producing the papers is on the people who purchased the dog as a puppy not the breeder as she passed the papers on, with a receipt (I hope) when she sold him. Did she give a contract forbidding the dog to be passed on without either returning it to her/or to help in rehoming? Is the dog endorsed?

Its a tug of love with some hard people who know how upset the breeder is and are making the most of that. Shes damned if she does, and damned if she dosent. I would make it hard for them, either flatly refuse, or play a game where she agrees but says she has to send off for a copy but needs the payment for this. Wait till their cheque clears, then the wait until the Kc send the papers (whcich could be a long wait, letter lost in the post, repeat request etc) and by then the puppies should have sold so the papers are no longer needed, that excuse has gone so return the price of the copy when you collect the dog. She could run the risk of them refusing to return the dog and wanting the papers, but I would then say...oh sorry, the puppy/older dog ate them, I'll return your money and return it by registered post. Well, as the puppies have gone, they no longer need the papers, do they.

If the dog is not endorsed, and still in the breeders name, can she put restrictions on the papers now? or would the KC not allow that/remove them if asked? With restrictions breeders (using the term loosley) would not be interested, so he wouldn't be so valuble.

What an awful situation.

To be honest it isn't as convoluted as all that.

A dog without his papers is just a dog, could be a cross could be purebred, but without his KC registration he is just a dog.

The registration is in the breeders name, end of.  So only the breeder can now transfer the dogs registration to a new owner (unless the original papers turn up with the breeders signature on the only way this dog can be transfered to anyone is for the breeder who is the registered owner to ask for duplicate papers

They just need to sit tight, as they can't do anything, the current owners will find that the dog has little or no resale value over and above that of any canine with no background, such dogs are 10 a penny at the dogs home.

I suspect the reason the3 owners who ahve used the dgo on their bitch for a litter want the papers is:
     1. To add value to the crossbred litter by beign able to say by pedigree sire.
     2. To sell the dog on afterwards, as a proven stud.

Iagree with what you say, but I thought the 'game' was , if the papers are not handed over, the dog won't be. Ever. I was looking for a way to prove the dog is registered without handing over papers. Or play a waiting game till the pups have gone when the papers will not be needed. There would be no reason then for the papers to be passed on. I certainly wouldn't give them the papers, transfer signatures can be forged, but I would try every trick in the book to get the dog back.

Just a thought, if the people that bought this dog as a puppy have a receipt, wrote to the KC and said they had lost the papers and the breeder was refusing to assist in obtaining a duplicate, would the Kc step in here and transfer anyway?

As far as i know they would write to the breeder first off.

I think these people will soon work out that their best bet of getting anything for the dog is to let the breeder have it, as it has no value as such to anyone else without the paperwork.

So I would be calling their bluff, though as a worried breeder that is hard.

Hi,
Not sure if I am getting this right, Who is the dog's KC registered owner:-
1 Original breeder, 2 friend or 3 Mongrel breeder?

If I am right reading this - The KC's are in the friends or original breeders name, then there is no need to ask for the paper work back.
If the dog is in the friends name, then take the dog back, all they have to do is ring the Kennel Club and ask for duplicates papers.
If the dog is in the original breeders name then take the dog back, and speak to original breeder.
Who ever has the papers I hope they shred them very soon !!!!!

They don't need KC's to sell these puppies, what ever the parents the puppies are mongrels and can only be sold as mongrels.

Either way I would get friends to take dog back, (sorry they can't keep him),rehome him with no papers! even with no papers this can still always happen, so get him castrated before rehoming.

This poor dog sounds like it has already had three homes, he need somewhere to stay that loves him.

>>friend has checked and they never bothered transfering his ownership when he was originally sold as a puppy, so whether it be legal I don't know but on paper friends still own him<<

Ok, just an idea, but if your friends still "own" the dog, and not the people that bred him, could your friend not just take the dog back, since she is the actual owner?  I know it could cause a big hassle, but on paper, their was never a transfer of ownership, so I would assume that your friend has all rights to take the dog back.

I dont know UK law, but its just an idea. 

Agree with Crespin,

If the friend is the original breeder, ( and I can't workout if they are) they have the right to take the dog back.

UK Law - As far as I'm aware in this country, the ownership of a KC registered dog it who's name is on the KC's as registered owner.

IF FRIENDS NAME IS ON THE KC'S THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE DOG BACK ANY TIME THEY LIKE.

> If the friend is the original breeder, ( and I can't workout if they are) they have the right to take the dog back.
>
> UK Law - As far as I'm aware in this country, the ownership of a KC registered dog it who's name is on the KC's as registered owner.
>
> IF FRIENDS NAME IS ON THE KC'S THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE DOG BACK ANY TIME THEY LIKE.

Sorry but you are wrong, the KC registration does not prove ownership especially if the dog was sold in the first place. The breeder has no rights to take the dog back

Hi,
I know what you mean, but proof of sale/sold is the transfer of KC ownership.

I only other proof of ownership is a reciept that the dog was sold, but this alone is invalid unless it has all the KC information on it ie, KC name, number, dob, breed colour and both vendor and purchases would have to have signed and dated this.

Interesting point who owns a dog? The person with the official KC's or the person with a reciept?
All the reciept information is on the KC's, therefore it is more legal than a reciept which can be fasified.

I am not saying the breeder has any rights, but the person who name is on the KC as the registered owner.

Sorry but thats just not true. The registered keeper and the owner are not nessesarily the same. Only a court could decide on who owned (Had rights over) the dog.
I think the best action in this would be to hand over the papers (They are of no use to the mongrel litter breeders) and get the dog out to a place of care. Surley he is the main concern in this tangle? Once the dog is safe then sort out the paperwork. A reciept is only worth the paper it's written on unless signed by ALL parties. I think the original owner of the dog (OP?) needs to get his puppy into a good life home, with or without papers!
Lets get things into perspective and get the poor dog away and safe!
Aileen.

I think the best action in this would be to hand over the papers (They are of no use to the mongrel litter breeders) and get the dog out to a place of care.

Thats the problem though, if the papers are supplied there is no saying the current owner will hand the dog back, and the papers will make him more valuable. At present they are saying 'no papers no dog' but there is no guarentee the dog will be returned regardless.

> Hi,
> I know what you mean, but proof of sale/sold is the transfer of KC ownership.
>
> I only other proof of ownership is a reciept that the dog was sold, but this alone is invalid unless it has all the KC information on it ie, KC name, number, dob, breed colour and both vendor and purchases would have to have signed and dated this.
>
> Interesting point who owns a dog? The person with the official KC's or the person with a reciept?
> All the reciept information is on the KC's, therefore it is more legal than a reciept which can be fasified.
>
> I am not saying the breeder has any rights, but the person who name is on the KC as the registered owner.

Sorry you are not correct, the court would look at the evidence, the breeder handed over the KC registration, they sold the dog, the cheque in the breeders name possibly, tattoo registration mark, etc etc

The KC document is not proof of ownership on it's own & there have been many cases where the KC registration has still been in the breeder's name yet the dog adjudged to belong to the purchaser. Now if the cheque bounced that is a criminal offence & the dog would then belong to the breeder(obtaining goods by deception)

Courts don't just look at the KC docs & receipts, but if the breeder in this case has had the money for the dog, morally & legally she no longer owns the dog QED

I think maybe they are just after some sort of pedigree to show the potential puppy owners so, why not just write them one out ?? after all the registration is actually of no use whatsoever for the mongrel puppies so, unless they are planning as you say to sell the poor chap on the don't need it. Then offer to buy him back if they are looking to rehome him anyway.

Debbie

I don't know if I can mention the breed of the dog involved?.

But should the breeder (a good friend of mine) decide to hand the dogs pedigree and KC certificate it would allow or enable these people possibly sell the poor dog.
Which is why there is a confrontation concerning his papers - my friends knows the score concerning why they want them as they have a feeling these people may go back on their word concerning the dog they bred once the papers had been handed over to them.  They also do not wish to put their name to a litter of mongrel puppies as these people seem to think it will help them with the sale of the pups, which of course it may well do even though they are mongrels.
The dog was endorsed and sold on a puppy sales contract so they did all the could concerning the welfare of the dog at the time he was sold to his original owners whom have admitted they passed the dog onto these people without knowing what their intentions were for him and was housed there on the condition that he was intended as a pet, apparently his papers were destroyed by accident which is why his current owners do not have any instead being passed onto my friends as all the original owners could remember was their contact information, hence their call to my friends concerning the dog they bred.
They are more than happy for the dog to go back even offered to buy him back (yet these people refused because they want more than the original owners paid for him on the grounds that he was now proven!  Even after my friend explained he was endorsed so him being proven means very little to perspective purchasers should they decide to sell him anyway, with or without his papers)
Obviously the breeders are very distressed that this has happened and they do love their dogs and every puppy that they have bred was up until a few days ago was accounted for in regards to the breeders knowing/believing where the dogs they bred were placed.
I have no advice to offer them other than asking on here for advice, all I could do was lend a sypathetic ear to people I believe did their utmost best

Its just awful and I can imagine your friend is terribly upset but, in all honesty it seems there is little hope that she is likely to get the dog back anyway. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous as a dog being worth more because he has sired a mongrel litter!! Is there nothing some people won't do to make a bit of extra cash!!  In that situation I think I would just put all cards on the table and either pay what they are asking for him or offer a lesser amount and then just stick to it but tell them 'no matter what the papers will be staying put'.

Debbie

If the dog was sold on a puppy pet contract, doesnt that in itself give the breeder rights to take the dog back?  The contract was breached, since this dog was bred from. 

I could be completely wrong, and butting my nose in, but it sounds logical. 

And if they handed the pedigree itself over, the breeders name would still be attached.  It shows linage, which would include the affix of the breeder, therefor, tying this litter to that breeder.

What a mess, it goes to show that even with all the best intentions in the world, with all the endorsements and contracts, things can go wrong. I really feel so very sorry for the breeder.

These dreadful people are simply out for what they can get. There is no way in this world I would give them the papers, even though they are no use for Kc breeding they will add a dash of colour to a crossbred litter of any kind with a super pedigree. People on the whole don't understand pedigrees, or that they have no relevance to a crossbreed/mongrel, just see the 'famous names' and red bits.

If they were to go down the courts way with their contract it would have to be direct to the original puppy purchaser, did they have rights to sell/pass it on? If proved not, would it still be possible to recover the dog from its new owners? Would they want to do this?

ck even offered to buy him back (yet these people refused because they want more than the original owners paid for him on the grounds that he was now proven!

This alone makes me think the only reason they want the papers is to sell him to the highest bidder. if they won't sell him back having been offered money for him, I hardly think they will give him back once the puppies are sold.

> If the dog was sold on a puppy pet contract, doesnt that in itself give the breeder rights to take the dog back? The contract was breached, since this dog was bred from.&
>
> I could be completely wrong, and butting my nose in, but it sounds logical.
>
> And if they handed the pedigree itself over, the breeders name would still be attached. It shows linage, which would include the affix of the breeder, therefor, tying this litter to that breeder.

Not in the UK the endorsements actually say progeny not eligible for registration not that the dog cannot be bred from. the contract itself TBH are not upheld by the law as a dog is viewed like any other possession-ie you sell it & your interest(in legal terms) ceases

Thanks for clearing that up for me MM

If someone has already said this sorry, in a rush!

If friend (breeder) still has the paperwork in her name and transfer was not done by owner 1, then I would suggest that she shuts mouth and does not relay this information to the 2nd owners. Let them kick up a fuss, it does  not matter, the breeder did not sell her pup to owner 2, it was down to ownner 1 to transfer ownership.

The paperwork is useless to them, with regards to the pups they can not register the litter, and it will not make the buyers impressed as they are getting crosses.

If your friend (breeder) does transfer the ownership to owner 2 she runs the risk of this dog being sold by them obviously with paperwork they are more likely to do this.

I would suggest she says nothing, waits for the dog to be returned, either keeps him or finds a very good home for him afterwards tell the KC she has lost the transfer of ownership and can she have another, and can happily transfer the ownership to the new 3rd owners.

Legally she does not have to transfer, she did not sell the pup to them, let them blame owner 1, they don't have a leg to stand on.

> If the dog was sold on a puppy pet contract, doesn't that in itself give the breeder rights to take the dog back?&nbsp; The contract was breached, since this dog was bred from

Such contracts, even in the USA have no real legal standing, other than to show that a dog was sold as a Pet so has no implied value other than as a Pet.

No breeder can take back a dog that they have sold, as all rights to the animal pass to the new owner same as if it were a TV or Armchair.

Registrations with kennel clubs showing ability to register progeny with said private organisations are a different matter altogether.

Dogs are classed simply as property and when you sell property that is it.

My ex husband stole my dog from me when we had split up and passed her onto a third party.  Legally as my husband he had every right to do so regardless of evidence to show the dog was solely mien.  My name on registration, mine on receipt and my cheques had paid for her.

Thankfully after an appeal in my local paper the people who had my bitch brought her back to me.