 LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please visit www.legalshield.com/hub/merika. I found this question on line. "My grandmother with Alzheimer's can no longer care for our elderly family dog. Can I bring her to live with me"? I must admit that my first reaction is do they want the pet or grandma to live with them? lol. but seriously this is a real question or concern. According to https://answers.justia.com/questions/answered/california/animal-dog-law William John Light's the answer is: I assume that someone has power of attorney for your grandmother with regard to decisions regarding her property, or perhaps a conservatorship has been established. Whomever has been given those decision making responsibilities can decide what happens with your grandmother's property, including the dog. If there is no one in that position, then a conservatorship should be established so that someone with legal authority can make decisions about the property and dog. My two cents on it is that this is something that needs to be considered sooner than later. It would even be great to have grandma in on the plan if at all possible and get it in writing before grandma's condition is advanced. If you have not planned ahead and need an attorney that is affordable and accessible legal shield is a great plan that can help. Many services are free and you will never pay full price for anything.
1 Comment
LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please visit www.legalshield.com/hub/merika. A 12-week-old chow-husky mix puppy was beaten, hung by the neck, tortured, and set on fire by a group of teenagers in 1994. The dog, named Gucci, survived but was severely burned. The only adult abuser was sentenced to six months in jail while the two juvenile abusers received sentences of community service. The case drew international outrage and led to changes in Alabama law. Gucci’s law, or the Pet Protection Act, made first-degree cruelty to a domesticated dog or cat a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Gucci became the lifelong companion of his rescuer and finally passed away in 2010 at the ripe old age of 16. LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please visit (www.legalshield.com/hub/merika). In this case, plaintiff’s family dog, a German Shepherd named Monte, ran away and was rescued by Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR). The organization refused to return the dog to plaintiff, so plaintiff filed suit against GHGSDR. The court found that there is no common law that states that a dog owner loses property rights to its dog if it runs away and is found by someone else. The court also looked to whether or not there was a city ordinance that would determine the proper ownership of the dog. Ultimately, the court found that the city ordinance regarding stray dogs did not strip the plaintiff of ownership rights because the dog had run away. The court also held that if there were any doubts as to the meaning of the ordinance, it should always be read “against a forfeiture of property.” The Supreme Court of Texas reversed judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment reinstating the trial court's judgment that Monte belonged to the Liras and the court properly enjoined GHGSDR to return him to his owners. More details on this case can be found here LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please click here: www.legalshield.com/hub/merika. UNIONDALE, N.Y., April 11, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Americans spent nearly $63 billion on their pets last year, but there may be no money better spent than protecting them in case of death, disability, or divorce of their pet parents. In recognition of National Pet Day, the Veterinary Practice Group (VPG) of the law firm of Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo & Terrana, LLP offers the following tips for pet owners to prepare for life's unexpected twists and turns. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership such as AKC registration, paperwork from the shelter at the time of adoption showing who adopted the pet, or a written acknowledgment of ownership are ways to establish legal ownership. "The old saying that possession is nine tenths of the law may be true in many cases, but proof of ownership supersedes possession when it comes to pets," said Mary Mongoi, Co-Chair of the Firm's Veterinary Practice Group. LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please visit www.legalshield.com/hub/merika Feral cat colony caretakers face many challenges: trapping for spay/neuter, paying for veterinary and food expenses, attempting to socialize the cats and kittens and finding good and loving homes for those that are adoptable. The legal issues surrounding caring for feral and stray cats rarely cross a good-hearted person's mind when they begin caring for these cats. Who could find fault with attempting to end the reproductive cycle and giving these homeless creatures a better life? Unfortunately, there are not only individuals but also national groups who find fault with this, and the laws can be interpreted to the benefit of either side. Most laws and ordinances pertaining to companion animals were not written with feral cats in mind. In fact, many states and localities do not have specific cat ordinances, but rather focus on dogs, vicious/dangerous dogs, licensing dogs, etc. This leaves the general laws which pertain to "pets" or "companion animals" (i.e. not wildlife or livestock), as the guidelines for all cats, whether pampered housecats or feral. Within these laws are clauses that can and do affect colony caretakers, but which are generally ambiguous and open to interpretation. Should these laws deter someone from caring for a feral cat colony? We certainly hope not! We present this information to educate caretakers so that they, in turn, can educate their neighbors and legislators and avoid potential legal issues. While ignorance may be bliss, it isn't a defense. *Disclaimer: Every state, county and municipality has different laws, and even within the same legal boundaries are officials who will interpret those laws differently. The information here is intended to be a generic guideline to possible issues facing feral colony caretakers within the United States. Research your own local laws, talk to your local animal control officers, contact other rescue organizations and individual rescuers so you know what issues pertain to your area. Cats and the LawMany counties do not include cats specifically in their ordinances. The role of animal control also differs greatly, from full service shelters with education and sterilization programs as well as adoptions, to no shelter space at all with animal control's duties being to handle complaints and "dispose" of nuisances. The difference usually lies in the amount of funding animal control has in the budget. State laws generally cover the official duties and obligations of animal control, and also the cruelty/abandonment/neglect laws. However, local (county and city/municipality) ordinances may supercede state law if the local laws are more stringent. Issues that affect feral colony caretakers and rescuers are listed below, and may be found in state, county or city/municipal codes, if these clauses exist at all:
Legislation and ordinances are public record, so do your homework in finding the statutes that apply, or contact a local rescue or shelter. They should be knowledgeable about the laws, and calls and emails can be made anonymously. OwnershipAnimal ownership is legally defined in many ways, but a common definition is providing food and medical care. While this can work in a rescuer's favor by granting "custody" of a neglected animal to the caretaker, this can also be used against colony caretakers. If the animals cause damage to property, i.e. ruining a prize rose bush by using the garden as a litter box, injuring someone's pet who is allowed to roam, etc., the caretaker could conceivably be held liable. More pressing are issues of licensing and required vaccinations, as the "owner" of the cat can be fined and the cats confiscated by animal control if these are not current. Licensing, Required Vaccinations, "Leash" Laws and Pet LimitsAt a minimum, most areas require companion animals be vaccinated for rabies. While this is generally done at the time of spay/neuter for TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return), yearly boosters are not always possible, which could put the animals and caretaker in violation of the Code. Additionally, some areas require licenses for all "owned" pets, that any owned animals be contained (i.e. in a fenced yard or on a leash), and/or that only a certain number of animals can be legally owned. Any of these can lead to difficulties for a colony caretaker or rescuer for obvious reasons. AbandonmentEvery state's animal cruelty statute contains a clause that abandoning an animal is illegal. While colony caretakers applaud these statutes, because if people didn't abandon the cats in the first place the majority of the feral problem wouldn't exist, it can also come back on them. The problem is the "R" in TNR. Caretakers argue that they are not abandoning the cats, they are returning them to the same place where they came from, and providing sustenance and support for them after the spay/neuter. However, as the "owner" of these animals, there are also requirements for what must be provided for the cats - adequate food, water, shelter and medical care, generally. Just providing food is not enough, according to most laws. These are, of course, open to interpretation as to what "adequate" really is. The crux of the abandonment issue is where the TNR occurs. If you are trapping and returning to your own property, there should be no problem unless there are ordinances forbidding free-roaming animals. If you trap on private property with the owner's expressed permission (i.e. get it in writing), there also shouldn't be a problem. The issue comes if there is not expressed permission from the property owner or if the trapping occurs on public land. Complaints & Animal ControlFor the most part, Animal Control doesn't go looking for people who TNR but they do have to respond to complaints. The complaint could be a neighbor who doesn't like the cats coming in their yard using their garden as a litter box or fighting beneath their window, from anti-cat people who just don't want to see cats anywhere, or from well-meaning wildlife advocates who fear for the indigenous fowl and fauna based on misinformation from national Conservation Groups. Regardless of who complains, Animal Control has to investigate, and their findings often depend on their own feelings about TNR and feral cats. If they find fault, the charges could entail: abandonment, violations of vaccination, licensing or pet limit laws, failure to provide basic provisions, trespassing if TNR was done without permission from the landowner, and a variety of health code issues depending on the health of the colony, the method of feeding (i.e. food becoming rotten and attracting possible rabies carrying wildlife like skunks and raccoons), etc. All of these are misdemeanor charges in most places and would result in fines. If no caretaker comes forward, and perhaps even if you do, they also have the option of trapping and removing the cats. Most shelters view known feral cats as unadoptable and therefore will euthanize immediately. In addition, much depends on how the caretaker reacts to the animal control officer. Just like with traffic tickets, the right attitude can be the difference between a warning and a ticket and in this case between life and death for the cats. Remember that animal control officers generally get into the business because they care about the welfare of animals. They are doing their job and working within the confines of the law. What is gray area to many caretakers is often black and white on the books. Avoid what they call the Savior Complex, that you are the only reason the cats are alive and surviving. While it may be true that you are the reason they are thriving, feral cats are survivors on their own. In essence, always be polite and courteous and be willing to compromise to work within the black and white letter of the law. How to Avoid ProblemsThe short answer is to avoid complaints about your colony. In order to do this here are a few steps you can take. Educate your neighbors and neighborhood. Put up flyers about the problem of overpopulation and encouraging people to spay and neuter their pets so they aren't contributing to the problem in the area. Talk to your immediate neighbors about what you are doing. Educate them to the benefits of TNR: less kittens, reduction of the feral population over time, less fighting, etc. Bring statistics, studies, and the like and let them see that this isn't just your idea, it is a proven method of controlling feral population and reducing the risks inherent to overpopulation. If they know that someone is caring for the cats, they may be less likely to call animal control to "take care of the problem." Join up with a rescue organization. While they may not be able to offset the monetary costs, they may be able to defray the civil liabilities of an individual rescuer as well as having greater communication and standing (hopefully) with local animal control. Of course, the other major benefit is networking with other experienced rescuers, gathering ideas, and supporting each other. Realize that not every area is a good place for a feral cat colony. On the edge of or within a wildlife preserve would be one area which is almost guaranteed to have problems and raise complaints, and the complaints may be from entities which you simply cannot win against, namely state and federal wildlife or parks agencies. If the cats are targets for abuse, if there is extreme opposition from neighbors, then moving the colony may be the best option. Moving a feral colony is never the first choice, but in extreme situations it is better than having animal control trap and euthanize the cats as the only way to handle the complaints. If you are living in an apartment/rental property, be sure to speak with the property management/landlord. In the case of apartments, the management will be the first place people will call to complain. Be aware that even a compassionate landlord may not be willing to outright grant permission to TNR on their property because of liability and health issues, although they may be willing to have a don't-ask-don't-tell attitude toward you if you present them with the information. If you decide to go ahead without expressed permission, you will need to decide whether or not to let neighbors know what you are doing because complaints to the management will no doubt break any tenuous agreement with the landlords. As a precautionary note, no matter whose permission you have, it is always good policy to not advertise where and when you will be trapping or feeding. Whenever trapping, it is a good idea to stay close and keep an eye on the traps, not only to minimize the stress on the cats, but to give people with bad intentions as little chance as possible to do their deeds. Unfortunately, there are people who will make opportunities to hurt cats, and when it happens to ferals it is extremely difficult to prove and even more difficult to prosecute. ConclusionAre feral cats worth the potential problems? Definitely. They are living creatures and while they may not be protected under the law in most areas at this time, they deserve the chance to live a healthy life. In addition, TNR has been proven to be the only method that can truly control the population of feral cats since they are so adept at breeding. In the short term, the best way to work with ferals and with the law is for individuals and organizations to work with those who must enforce the law, namely animal control. There are compromises that can be reached. In the event that there are prohibitive statutes on the books or animal control refuses to work with you, the best course of action is to educate those in the area so that they are less likely to complain to animal control who will be required to enforce the code. In the long term, this article shows the deficiencies of many codes that simply don't have proper laws on the books to deal with TNR and feral cats. Again, education is the key. There are groups out there who actively campaign against TNR, feral advocates need to be just as proactive. Case URL: http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/tnr__the_law.html  LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please visit www.legalshield.com/merika Owners of animals affected by food contaminated with melamine received slightly more than half of the money in a $24-million fund established to settle legal claims stemming from the largest pet food recall in North America. The balance of the fund went to lawyers’ fees and expenses, claims administration and public notices. In all, $12,357,277 was paid on 20,229 claims from the United States and Canada, according to information provided by the claims administrator, the accounting firm Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP in Philadelphia. A total of $27,793,975.36 in claims was judged eligible for compensation. However, the collective payout was significantly less — amounting to 45 cents on the dollar. The claims administrator cited several factors for the reductions: Some claims had been reimbursed before the court action. Some exceeded the $900 limit for undocumented damages. Most significantly, most were reduced pro rata because the fund was not big enough to pay all approved claims in full. The claims concerned pets that ate cat and dog food tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid. Unscrupulous suppliers in China added the contaminants in trying to inflate the apparent protein levels in wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate. The adulterated ingredients ended up in foods and treats made by 12 different manufacturers, according to court documents. Discovery of the contamination led in 2007 to the biggest pet food recall in history, involving about 180 brands and some of the most prominent names in the business — Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Mars Inc., Del Monte Pet Products, Nestle Purina PetCare Co., The Iams Co. and Procter & Gamble among them — as well as dozens of retailers, including Wal-Mart, Target, PetSmart, Petco and Costco. The majority of products came from Menu Foods, a Canadian company contracted to manufacture numerous brand-name and private label pet foods. Tens of thousands of animals ate the poisoned foods, and many became sick, some fatally. The combination of melamine and cyanuric acid forms crystals in the kidneys, potentially leading to renal disease and renal failure. The scandal led to the criminal prosecution of the American company ChemNutra, Inc., and its owners for their role in importing the tainted ingredients. They pleaded guilty last year to distributing adulterated food and selling misbranded food, both misdemeanors. On the civil-court side, more than 100 class-action suits arose out of the incident. Those cases were consolidated and addressed by the $24 million settlement. Although court documents and related information are available online, information on how the fund was distributed is not posted publicly. That’s not unusual, according to Timothy Eble, a class-action expert in South Carolina who was not involved in the pet food case. “Typically the manner in which payments generally will be calculated is available through the court but the amounts actually to be disbursed to any individual would not necessarily be available,” he said. The VIN News Service obtained details on how settlement funds were disbursed by contacting Russell Paul of Berger & Montague, P.C., of Philadelphia, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Paul, in turn, requested the information from the claims administrator. Click here for larger view Several claimants emailed the VIN News Service to express disappointment with the size of their shares of the settlement. Paul said he, too, has heard from a number of chagrined pet owners. “People want all of their money,” Paul acknowledged. Count Elise Maitland of Victoria Harbor, Ontario, among the dismayed. Maitland lost her collie-Labrador mix Michigan to kidney failure after he ate tainted Ol’ Roy canned food with gravy. “The $500 I received did not even pay the vet bill, let alone a new pet,” she fumed. “...I feel we were extremely ripped off.” Asked if, in retrospect, he thought that the settlement fund was inadequate, Paul replied, “We pushed and pushed and pushed, and feel we got the maximum we could get.” Paul described the case as extremely complicated. The litigation involved more than 80 lawyers for plaintiffs in two countries, more than two dozen defendants and several appeals that stalled the payout. “It was three to four years of bitter fighting, from District Court up to the 3rd Circuit (Court of Appeals) and back to the District Court,” Paul said. Evaluation of claims likewise was complex, he noted. “Each one had to be individually analyzed, and often veterinarians had to be called,” Paul said. “The possibility was rife for fraud.” Sherrie Savett, who served as co-lead counsel with Paul, added that even the public-communications aspect of the settlement wasn’t simple, involving the placement of notices in multiple periodicals in two countries, and creation and maintenance of the website. Paul said the fact that plaintiffs did not receive 100 percent of their damages is not unusual in class-action suits. Eble concurred. “If they got half of their actual damages, that’s actually a pretty good result in a class action,” said Eble, who operates a website intended as a neutral source of information for the public about class-action issues. “What you’re talking about with 20,000 people, most would have claims that vary from $200 to $3,000, depending on what the specific facts were,” he explained. “They (individually) would not have been able to hire a lawyer to go through discovery and pursue the case for less than the value of the claim.” Paul said he understands how deeply the contamination afflicted pet owners. “We (collectively) spent thousands of hours uncompensated talking to aggrieved pet owners just because they needed to talk,” he said. “It was a very tragic situation. Tragic. No amount of money can make certain people whole. There are elderly people who lost a pet who are devastated. I spoke to one who is on antidepressants who won’t get another dog because he doesn’t want to outlive it.” Maitland, a single mother of four, likely represents the feelings of many pet owners when she says she regarded her dog Michigan as family. She adopted him when he was a year old. She was dubious at first about having a dog, but he immediately was so protective of her children — warding off strangers, for example, when the kids were in the car — that Maitland became equally protective of the dog. Michigan was 13 when melamine wound up in his Ol’ Roy, a private-label food sold by Wal-Mart. She said the first indication that something was wrong was that Michigan lost control of his bowels. By the second night, he was leaking bloody fluids. Maitland and a friend drove Michigan at 1 in the morning to an emergency clinic 35 to 40 minutes away. “Just walking into the emergency clinic, right on the spot, it was $500,” she recalled. “I had to borrow that money from my friend that was there. I said, ‘We can’t even get home because my car’s on empty.’ They took $25 off (the bill) so we could get home.” Maitland ended up with about $1,000 in veterinary expenses from two clinics. When she retrieved Michigan after several days of medical care, it was with the thought that he should die at home. But he didn’t, not right away. He actually regained strength, although Maitland said Michigan never fully healed. He died 14 months after the poisoning came to light. Maitland submitted a claim for $1,072.87. In August, she received a check for $587. “I don’t feel like I got anything out of this,” she said. “I feel like it was a four-year wait and I think we all got ripped off.” Like Maitland, Karl Rahder of Naperville, Ill., received a check this summer amounting to about half of his claim, which totaled more than $1,500. Rahder’s cat, a traditional sealpoint Siamese named Inca, became sick from eating tainted Iams cat food. Rahder, a writer and teacher on international relations and global affairs, recalled that Inca began vomiting and having diarrhea, stopped eating and became listless around February 2007 — several weeks before the recall began. Her condition “caused me a great deal of worry,” Rahder said in an interview by email. “I was afraid she was going to starve to death or die from renal failure of some kind. A quick check of various Internet forums revealed that a large number of people were experiencing exactly the same thing and were beginning to panic.” By the time U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators determined the source of the problem, Inca’s health had deteriorated sharply. She spent four or five days in the hospital “close to death,” Rahder recounted. Inca recovered but has never been the same. “Since then, she has been weaker and more fragile,” Rahder said. His share of the court settlement arrived this summer. He called the payment “quite welcome” if not entirely gratifying. “It’s hard to say how satisfied we were with the outcome, considering that the payment was reduced by over half and that it took so long for the issue to be resolved,” he mused. “The larger issues, including toxic additives in pet food and a lack of government oversight, certainly trouble me.” Since the incident, the FDA has taken steps to more closely monitor pet-food safety. In August, the agency announced the establishment of a Pet Event Tracking Network. PETNet, as it’s nicknamed, is a secure, web-based system by which federal, state and territorial agencies can share information about incidents involving pet food, such as illnesses associated with consumption. For those who lost animals to the melamine scandal, of course, no reforms or compensation will bring back the pets. More than half of claims involved animals that were fatally poisoned: 13,242 claimants indicated that their pets died. Another 9,001 indicated that their pets were sick but survived; 1,801 indicated that they took their pets for testing after learning about the recall but the pets did not become sick; and 1,557 claimants did not specify the condition of their pets. An analyst from the claims administration office noted that the claims likely do not fully represent all the animals that were harmed. “The number of claims received in class actions is usually only a percentage of those parties injured,” he wrote. “Therefore, the number of claims received is probably not the total that were injured.” Many owners whose pets died felt their animals were irreplaceable, judging from some submissions. According to the analyst, claim submissions — not all of which were approved — totaled more than $569 million. One claim alone was for more than $500 million, “almost all of which represented that claimant’s view about the value of her lost pet,” Savett said. At the other end of the spectrum, someone submitted a claim for 30 cents. The nature of that claim, as with all the claims, is confidential, Paul said. The median claim was $951.46. Among approved claims, the largest disbursement was $21,986. The smallest was 33 cents. The median disbursement was $430. The settlement agreement set limits on payments in certain categories. Payment of eligible but undocumented claims was capped at $900 per claimant. Reimbursements for screening and testing of animals that ate tainted food but proved not to be ill were limited to a total of $400,000. Payments for pet food expenses were limited to $250,000 in aggregate. According to the claims analyst, most claims fell under the “other economic damages” category. Owing to the number of eligible submissions, those claims were paid at a pro rata share of 52.1 percent. Pet food reimbursement claims were paid pro rata at 49.5 percent. Healthy screening and testing claims were paid at 100 percent. Once all qualified healthy-screening-and-testing claims were satisfied, money remaining in that portion of the fund was applied to qualified claims for other economic damages, Paul said. Savett said lawyers for the class negotiated liberal claims procedures, such as the allowance of up to $900 in undocumented expenses. Those generous guidelines made more claims eligible for payment, she said — which, overall, ended up reducing the amount of money available for any given claim. Eble, the class-action expert, said such suits have value beyond the monetary compensation. “They do modify corporate behavior. They do prevent theft,” Eble said. “So many of these cases ... they accomplish a goal to serve a public purpose. You don’t have to worry about getting dog food in the future that is contaminated with melamine because now they know they have to test for it. It’s too expensive not to.” Court case URL: http://news.vin.com/doc/?id=5139625 Legal Shield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind.
The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With Legal Shield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for Legal Shield, please visit; https://www.legalshield.com/hub/merika HOUSTON -- Big developments in one family's fight over a pet pig named Wilbur. The family has been in a court battle with their homeowners association over whether the pig stays or goes. Thousands of people have showed their support for the family on Wilbur's Facebook page, and today a judge made the official decision. Two words: Wilbur won. Not a huge court case with millions of dollars on the line, but for a Spring family, the stakes couldn't have been higher. Wilbur is a pot-bellied pig that the Sardo family has had for a year and a half since Wilbur was a 7-week-old piglet. They live in a Spring subdivision and Wilbur is primarily a house pet. When the homeowners association was told there was a pig in the neighborhood, the Sardos were told to get rid of him or face a lawsuit and a huge fine. Instead, the Sardos sued, claiming that Wilbur was not livestock, but a pet. In court Monday, the HOA argued a pig is a pig and while not specifically named in the deed restrictions, it's not your ordinary house pet. At the end of the hearing Monday afternoon, the judge ruled that while the purpose of a homeowners association is to preserve the appearance of a neighborhood, it can also overstep its bounds. He then ruled that Wilbur can stay where he lives -- mostly indoors -- with his family and a dog. The Sardos couldn't be happier -- even crying as they left the courtroom -- ending a year-long battle with their HOA. "Relief, when he said that. And he has his web page and he has the most unbelievable supporters and I thank all of you out there," said Missy Sardo, Wilbur's owner. The homeowners association attorney left without comment. But at one house in Spring, there is much celebrating. Look for Wilbur who has his own web page at WilburSardo.com. Case provided by Deborah Wrigley Legal protection is something every pet owner needs. In this day and age pet owners face law suits related to bites, property damage, or even wrongful eviction. Pet owners need to keep legal counsel on retainer just to be safe but that is expensive, if the pet owner is not a member of Legal Shield.
LegalShield has been providing legal service plans to North American families for over 40 years. Our customers can access legal counsel and advice from qualified lawyers simply by calling a toll-free number. Many other benefits are included, but even at the most basic level our plans allow you to have peace of mind. The following case is just one of many that happen too often. With LegalShield, you’re sure to be in good hands. To find out how you can sign up for LegalShield, please click here: www.legalshield.com/hub/merika Emerald Gillespie has won a month-long court battle but accepts that she will never see her dog. A Whitehorse dog owner has been awarded $3,600 in damages and court fees following a months long court battle over custody of her dog, Buddy. Emerald Gillespie dropped Buddy off at the 'Any Domesticated Animal Rescue and Boarding Kennels' in Tagish after the dog showed some behavioral problems. The facility is run by Shelly Cuthbert who cares for over 80 dogs on her own. After more than a month and a few visits, both Gillespie and Cuthbert agreed the dog deserved a better home. When a home was found by Gillespie, she went to retrieve her dog and that's when Cuthbert says the dog was surrendered to the shelter and would not be adopted. A judge has now ruled that Buddy should have been returned to Gillespie. In his decision, Yukon Territorial Court justice Heino Lilles awarded $1,100 in court fees and $2,500 in damages. Gillespie says the dog was always her priority. "I know I didn't get my dog back, and obviously that was my most important thing so that's really sad that I'm never going to see him again but at least I got to see an objective party tell Shelley that what she did was wrong and that's justice. During the court case, Buddy was sent to an adoptive family in Alberta but during the trip, he slipped his collar and escaped. Case provided by: http://221-56435479e942c.radiocms.com/news/local-news/owner-wins-court-battle-over-buddy-the-dog/Copyright © 2016 City Hikes Dog Walking & Pet Sitting, LLC, All rights reserved. Oakland, CA 94621, USA |
Merika Reagan, MA, CDW -AuthorWhen I am not enjoying my work with pets I am educating people about their legal rights. Many people are not aware of how what pet ownership has to do with legal issues. In this blog I will show the connection and how we all can live more and worry less. Archives
October 2017
Categories |
RSS Feed