Unaligned News For The Dog Fancy ~ Since 2002

 

Columns

Club News

Dog Food

Dog Sense

Dog Shows

 

AKC CO-OWNERSHIP DISPUTE

MARIE DAVINO’S LETTER TO AKC

as in this record of AKC's registration disputed co-owner theft of litter

 

July 6, 2011

 

Mr. David Roberts,

VP Registration Services

American Kennel Club

 

Reference # 201104017

Shetland Sheepdog Litter

Sire: Conbrio Legends All Shook Up, DN035766/01

Dam: Mikamar Diamonds Are Forever, DN010698/02

Litter Date of Birth June 14, 2008

 

My husband Mike and I have been reputable AKC breeders for 15 years. We have bred multiple Shetland Sheepdog litters and puppies and all were registered only with AKC. I am an owner/handler, earning multiple BOBs and group placements. My breeder name, Mikamar, has been registered with AKC for 5 years and was just renewed. I also show in AKC agility, earning 2 agility championships with two more forthcoming.

 

I co-own the Shetland Sheepdog, Mikamar Diamonds Are Forever with Patricia Gagnon and have a written, signed contract stating so. Patricia circumvented this by lying to me, to the sire owner and to the vet who did the artificial insemination by telling them she is the sole owner of the bitch. She filed a false certification online without my knowledge or consent, written or otherwise. If I was NOT the co-owner, I would have not have found this out. To the best of my knowledge, Patricia Gagnon is solely an agility competitor.

 

I am, as always, working in the best interest of AKC, of the dam and the bitch by NOT signing this registration…I have reason to believe the dam had a very difficult birth and infection, and both dam and pup were ill by her own admission. Patricia told the veterinarian that performed the AI that she was the only owner of the dam, and, as a result, I cannot get any information about the breeding, the health of the dam or the health of the pup, or even if there were any other pups that died during birth or C-section.

 

I told Patricia that there was a significant risk to the dam, after two AI attempts that I carefully planned which did not result in any pregnancy, and she ignored me and continued with a third breeding without my knowledge. By her own admission, she stated online: “Sparkle did not have an easy delivery, and (the puppy) got off to a rough start with some health issues."

 

Patricia kept this breeding hidden from me for three years, and then filed a false online certification.

 

This second, paper litter registration is almost 3 years late. If I was in agreement with, or had knowledge of the breeding, I would have filed the litter registration immediately and set up a written contract on the puppy as I have done with every other litter.

 

I want to protect my years of effort and research by preventing another questionable, risky breeding. I want to protect the three year old daughter from similar health and safety risks. Patricia could register this pup as an ILP and show her in AKC agility. She does not need full registration to show this pup in agility.

 

All that being said, IF I HAD agreed to this breeding, our written contract states that my payment is first pick puppy from the breeding. She only has this one three year old “pup” from this co-owned litter. That would be my bitch.

 

I am withholding my signature on this litter registration until there is agreement from Patricia to a limited registration (or ILP registration) on this three year old. As a last resort alternative, I would accept full ownership, and place the bitch in a pet home if I also receive ownership of the first pick puppy resulting from this litter.

 

I have spoken with someone from TheDogPress.com, and they have advised me to follow procedure and work with AKC to get the situation taken care of. I appreciate your call, and have good faith that we will get this resolved.

 

Thank you,

 

Marie and Mike Davino

Mikamar Shetland Sheepdogs

 

Closing their correspondence, Mr. Roberts said:

 

Marie;

 

We are sorry that this situation did not work out to your expectations.

 

The case involving false online certification is currently under investigation.

 

The AKC cannot and has never got involved in interpreting contracts between two parties. As such, the AKC must require a contract to contain specific wording in regards to the right to refuse AKC registration. Unfortunately your contract did not specifically state that one party or the other had a right to refuse to sign AKC applications. This is stated in Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline, Chapter 3, section 6.

 

As explained to you, if you feel your contract has been breached your best course of action is to have it reviewed in a court of law.

 

AKC Procedures for Registration Matters, Section XII, Limited Registration states “If the owners disagree on whether there shall be full or limited registration, in the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, the dog will receive full registration."

 

When you have time please read the article from the November, 2010 AKC Gazette, “Legal Considerations for Co-owning a Dog".

 

Sincerely,

David Roberts

VP Registration Services

American Kennel Club

 

First published Nov 2006

click to share this article - Copyright ii NetPlaces Network / TheDogPress.com - All Rights Reserved

AKC's Contract Failure

The Davino-Gagnon co-owner contract failure, AKC rules mean nothing.

AKC PRIME

The software sucks in pet shop registrations and turns it into $$$.

Fools Contract

AKC refuses to honor co-owner contracts or registration certificates.