Ellen & Iggy

[Karried]

Wow, have you seen this video of Ellen D?

I saw this on Craig's List:

"Ellen Degeneres adopted a dog from Mutts&Moms, made a $3000 donation to the agency, then had the dog fixed and trained. After training, it became obvious that it wasn't going to work because her current cat and the dog were not a good match. So Ellen found a loving home with a little girl (her hairdresser) for the dog. Ellen was supposed to notify the agency if it didn't work out, but she did not. When Mutts&Moms called to see how the dog was doing, Ellen was honest about what had happened. The owner FLIPPED out, then contacted the new home and lied and said they were only doing a "home check." They then TOOK the dog.

I saw this on TMZ last night and I heard that Ellen was talking and crying about it on her show today. A friend from another forum created this petition. If you feel compelled, please also sign this petition below asking Mutts&Moms to give the dog back to the little girl and her family, and please do feel free to pass this on to others.

http://www.petitiononline.com/FreeIggy/petition.html

Mutts and Moms Paw Boutique 523 S Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 626.394.0946 Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com www.muttsandmoms.org


You can also click below to see a video of the Ellen D show where she is talking about this matter:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20152563,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines "

[Midtowner]

The law firm I work for (not as a lawyer because I'm not one) does pro bono (free) work for a local no-kill shelter. The policy is much the same. They have a contract whereby the pet owners agree not to sell the pet or give it to anyone else without involving the shelter. Taking the pet back is one of the remedies in the contract.

I'm not sure we know the whole story here. Perhaps the "new owner" was doing something which mutts&moms didn't approve of? It's very likely that the shelter was well within its legal rights to do what it did.

-- now whether what they did was smart or not is a different question entirely!

[Karried]

I have a feeling that 'Iggy' will be returned to this family asap ...

Hey, you don't want to mess with a sobbing Ellen! She was really heartbroken.

But, I can see how and why rules like this are put into place... imagine if it weren't Ellen and someone adopted a dog after careful screening, and then when it didn't work out, they gave it away to a family that hadn't been approved and couldn't take care of the dog like the agency envisioned.

It's like adopting a child.. 'ooops, he just didn't work out, so I gave him to a deserving family! My bad. '

( I know, I know, not quite the same, but you get my drift)

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

While I like dogs/cats/etc...I have a hard time with a lot of these shelters and "adoption" places and the way they treat PEOPLE.

Have you SEEN what somebody has to go through to "rescue" a dog from some of these places?

I mean really...It IS still a dog you know...It's got fur...It'll be okay outside for more than a potty break from time to time.

[PennyQuilts]

Ellen should have read the contract and she admitted she messed up. The point of having those contracts is to protect animals. There is no doubt Ellen is an animal lover, but not everyone is going to use good sense. If they cave on Ellen, they won't have a leg to stand on the next time some yahoo decides to ignore the agreement they made - and pets will suffer. I think Ellen was very irresponsible to go on air to stir emotions. The family that lost the dog may be sad, and that is unfortunate. The DOG wasn't there long enough to be harmed. The DOG is the important thing. Ellen created the situation. She should not get special treatment and what she is asking for will result in many other dogs being harmed if a precedent. The fact that Ellen decided to pass on the dog, with all her resources, underscores how many other perfectly nice dogs out there are handed off like a discarded sweater.

And let me add - Ellen CHOSE to adopt/rescue this dog with the strings attached. She could have gone another route but she wanted the warm fuzzy that came with doing a good deed, I suppose. Then she turned right around and did exactly what a lot of people do. Why didn't she make sure before the dog came home that the cats would be able to get along with it? This is a pretty predictable occurance. Until people start thinking of animals as more than just fur wearing mammals, this sort of short sightedness will not change. They aren't livestock and people should use their head about bringing a creature into their home. I can't imagine why she would think it was okay to adopt, sign a contract, and then pass on the dog. Anyone off the street who has rescued a dog is told this. Makes me wonder if a handler handled the details and she just went along for the ride. I am curious if she just happened to "mention" on air that she had done this wonderful thing of adopting/rescuing a dog.

I am a big-time Ellen fan but I am disappointed that she is doing this emotional blackmail thing.

[PUGalicious]

There is no doubt Ellen is an animal lover, but not everyone is going to use good sense.

And that includes the shelter.

I generally agree with the spirit of the rule, but these "rescue" organizations are often TOO militant about it. They complain about not enough animals being adopted, yet put up every conceivable obstacle to prevent good people from adopting animals. We dealt with that with one of the local organizations. Fortunately for us, we decided to adopt from the local animal shelter and ended up with a very wonderful dog without being subject to a third degree grilling and an unnecessarily strict binding contract.

Good sense would have recognized that Ellen, being the animal lover that she is, would have taken great care in finding a suitable new family. Now the resulting bad PR will do more harm to this organization than strict adherence to this rule is worth.

The organization should have used better common sense in this situation.

[sweetdaisy]

I read a little about this today. Apparently, Ellen's girlfriend (Portia) was the one who signed the contract. Regardless, they should've read it. Also, apparently the Mutts & Moms rescue group has a strict policy of not adopting small dogs to families with children under 14, and the home the dog was given to has two girls which are 11 & 12 (I think). So, the rescue group is adamant that the dog will NOT be returned to that home, no matter how much Ellen is upset about it.

Since I work with rescue groups, I can understand their strict adherence to their policies, however I do have to wonder how long are they allowed to "legally" have a claim in this? Midtowner, do you have any answers? Logically, it doesn't make sense to me that after a person purchases something (free and clear), the seller can come back and take over the item. (Do I need to worry that someone from SteinMart is going to go to my coworkers' house and seize the blouse I recently gave her?) Regardless of the contract, isn't there something to be said about ownership in this matter? I need a better understanding of the law...

Pugalcious, I'm sorry to hear you had such a hard time with a rescue group, but I'm pleased you were able to adopt a great dog from a shelter (as I am a huge fan of adopting from the shelter)!

[FritterGirl]

When we adopted from Pets & People, they were very explicit regarding their regulations for adoptions. One of the rules was like that of Mutts & Moms in that if we could not care for the dog, we would return it to P&P, and not adopt it out to another family.

They were great with their follow up, and we've been thrilled with both girls!

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I read a little about this today. Apparently, Ellen's girlfriend (Portia) was the one who signed the contract. Regardless, they should've read it. Also, apparently the Mutts & Moms rescue group has a strict policy of not adopting small dogs to families with children under 14, and the home the dog was given to has two girls which are 11 & 12 (I think). So, the rescue group is adamant that the dog will NOT be returned to that home, no matter how much Ellen is upset about it.

Since I work with rescue groups, I can understand their strict adherence to their policies, however I do have to wonder how long are they allowed to "legally" have a claim in this? Midtowner, do you have any answers? Logically, it doesn't make sense to me that after a person purchases something (free and clear), the seller can come back and take over the item. (Do I need to worry that someone from SteinMart is going to go to my coworkers' house and seize the blouse I recently gave her?) Regardless of the contract, isn't there something to be said about ownership in this matter? I need a better understanding of the law...

Pugalcious, I'm sorry to hear you had such a hard time with a rescue group, but I'm pleased you were able to adopt a great dog from a shelter (as I am a huge fan of adopting from the shelter)!

Talk to the MPAA about what you're allowed to do with a product after you pay for it, take it home, and use it.

[PennyQuilts]

Adopting the dog differs from buying a blouse because buying the blouse is free and clear once money changes hands. The dog came with strings attached so that although Ellen had "ownership," she didn't have the same kind of ownership that the owner of the blouse had. Their ownership was voidable when she failed to abide by the terms of the contract. Because the contract contained specific language regarding what to do if the adoption didn't work out, a court would say that the parties had a meeting of the minds on that aspect. In other words, the essense of the agreement was the idea that the dog would not be given away (yes, I'm a lawyer. Contract law is not my area of practice but his is pretty basic). As far as the idea that Ellen's partner was the one who "actually" read the contract, I am at a loss as to why she didn't speak up. That is a smoke screen.

I am repeating myself when I say that Ellen going public was emotional blackmail. I believe she genuinely felt bad but she should have kept it private. Dragging the public into the dispute was a bullying powerplay. The show is taped so that clip could have been edited out if she was trully overwhelmed. She showed it to try to pressure the agency.

Like a lot of other people, I wonder if it would be so bad to give the dog to the little girls but the fact is, Ellen made a deal and she broke it. To come back and criticize the rescue agency, imply they are spiteful, etc., is grossly unfair. Ellen agreed to the terms and doesn't get to decide later to substitute her own judgement. It is a question of integrity, if nothing else.

The fact that she spent a lot of money on caring for the dog was unncessary, too. That was included to somehow bloster her position. It has nothing to do with the dispute. By breaking the contract, she essentially gave someone else's dog to those children. Trying to make the agency look bad to make her poor decision turn out okay is just wrong. The end result is that it undermines the public's respect for the importance of these types of agreements. Rescue agencies try to educate the public on how important it is to respect the terms of the contracts. This dispute has set things back bu encouraging everyone who simply disagrees with the terms to think they have the moral high ground. No way would I enter into an agreementwith Ellen at this point. Her "apology" amounted to an attempt to badmouth the agency and make them look bad to get her way.

[karlanee]

I understand the rules shelters have to use, but I have to agree with the person that basically said sometimes they forget to that we are the people and these are still animals.

We adopted a cat from Pets & People quite a few years ago. After having her for about 5 years, our doctor finally deduced that our daughter's years of struggle with allergy problems were from the cat and the allergies got so bad that it was either get rid of the cat or seriously risk our asthmatic child's health. After trying to find several other solutions rather than get rid of her, we contacted Pets & People since the contract we'd signed said we were to give her back to them if we could no longer care for her. I took her to them, after making a phone call to find out what to do, and when I got there they proceeded to humiliate and shame me for more than 10 minutes because I was bringing the cat back, despite the fact that we'd had her for over 5 years and she was in wonderful health. They literally told me "it's more humane for you to kill her than to give her up and expect us to find somewhere for her". Excuse me? This was one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make - giving up my children's beloved pet because it was making my child severely ill - and rather than try to make this a little less painful, you are actually telling me to kill my cat - and all I'm trying to do is abide by your contract so I'm doing the humane thing. I was so angry, and so upset that I took the cat (in the carrier) and stormed out, bawling the entire time. I ended up having to give her to the local shelter, who were very kind and understanding, and just praying they were able to find a home, rather than have to euthanize her. I don't know whether they found a home or not and it still eats at me to this day, but ultimately I'd choose my daughter over the cat any day. I do know that I will never get a pet from Pets & People again, and I will never support their organization, nor will I recommend anyone go there. I'm sure this is an isolated incident, but it was enough to set me in stone.

[sweetdaisy]

Thanks for your comments on this, East Coast Okie. While I do agree this is basic contract law and Ellen obviously broke the contract, how can an agency have an agreement that in essence gives quasi-ownership? It's almost like they allow you to "borrow" the animal...a long term foster. I'm not understanding how this can be a legally binding contract if someone has paid the fees, etc. And, while it's "sort of" like a child adoption, it's really not...it's a dog.

Karlanee, I'm sorry to hear you had such a horrible experience at Pets & People...that's just awful and they should be ashamed.

[Martin]

adopting the dog differs from buying a blouse because buying the blouse is free and clear once money changes hands. the dog came with strings attached so that although ellen had "ownership," she didn't have the same kind of ownership that the owner of the blouse had. their ownership was voidable when she failed to abide by the terms of the contract. because the contract contained specific language regarding what to do if the adoption didn't work out, a court would say that the parties had a meeting of the minds on that aspect. in other words, the essense of the agreement was the idea that the dog would not be given away (yes, i'm a lawyer. contract law is not my area of practice but his is pretty basic). as far as the idea that ellen's partner was the one who "actually" read the contract, i am at a loss as to why she didn't speak up. that is a smoke screen.

regardless of the sentimental attachment that some have with pets, the law sees them as property. a reasonable person would infer that an adoption is a permanent arrangement. when i adopt an animal from the shelter, it becomes my property. i'm not renting the animal. if this pet is my property, then it is reasonable that i have control over how that property is used, including the transfer of ownership.

while there may have been a contract in place, i'd question whether or not it is enforceable. just because terms of a contract are spelled out, doesn't mean that those terms are enforceable under the law. while the law may support a limited time frame where the shelter can excercise control over the property, i doubt that it would support any open-ended restriction. such a clause would interfere with the rights of the property owner. i don't think it would stand up.

-M

[Karried]

Ellen had mentioned on her show yesterday that a Chip was implanted in the dog and it was her understanding and she was told that her name was to be put on the chip.

It wasn't. And if it had been put on the chip, they wouldn't have been able to have taken the dog away ( at least from her ) because she would have been identified as the rightful owner.

Now she is talking about forgiveness on the show... it's a tough one.

Knowing how attached I get to animals, I'm sure it was excruiating for the family and the little girls. I think it could have been handled much differently.

The rule that no children under 14 should have a small dog is insane!

Edit:

Oh no ... it looks like Iggy was given away to another home!

Well, it's about the dog and hopefully, Iggy found a good home but the family is probably so heartbroken!

How sad.

[PennyQuilts]

As to micro chips - two of my dogs have them. They don't have your "name," they have an identification code. They keep track of ownership and if you sell or give away the dog, it is easy enough to go online with the proper password and update the information connected the the ID information on the micro chip. Or you could even remove the micro chip. If you dog gets picked up, they can scan them at the pound or at a vet and the information associated with the code pups up. It doesn't give any "ownership" information, standing alone. It is just evidence. There are a lot of things you can do to establish ownership but if you have a contract or an adoption agreement, that will almost always govern. In the absence of that, they'll look at verbal testimony, who licensed the dog, who paid for vet bills, if you bought the dog and kept a receipt, etc.

As to adoption and property, I have to disagree with the analogy. You never adopt property. You adopt a child. Adopting pets is a relatively new trend but it is intended to give some of the same protections to animals that they would get if they were more than property. Since they are considered just property (although a lot of people equate them with the status slaves had in the antebellum south) there aren't really any legal protections in place other than anti animal cruelty laws. If an adoption doesn't work out with a child, there are laws in place to protect that child. With a pet, you have to build in protections in the adoption agreement (contract) because there isn't a legal framework that would automatically protect the animal. In a failed adoption of a pet, absent some protections in the adoption agreement, the animal can simply be put down.

Selling with strings attached is quite common with animals. The AKC allows a limited license in which a purebred dog can be registered but its offspring, can't. This allows breeders to make sure that the dogs they sell don't reproduce. It is the breeder who registers a dog (unless he sells that right) and if they get only a limited certificate, that is all the dog has. Typically with a breeder, you are charged a certain amount and if the dog is not neutered by say, age one, you owe the breeder an extra several hundred dollars. Another thing they do is to require the buyer to have the dog's hips and eyes checked by the time they are a certain age. If the new owner doesn't do it, they are supposed to pay the breeder back a certain amount. They would be facing civil liabilities if they welch on the agreement. You'd have to work it into the contract for the remedy to be the actual return of the dog. Most rescue/adoption agreements specifically make sure that the dog is to be returned instead of disposed of by regifting or whatever.

I suppose I am a lot more harda**ed about this because I have studied laws designed to protect animals. Right now, this is just about all they've got and I would hate to see respect for these sorts of contracts eroded.

[PUGalicious]

I think that particular adoption agency did more harm than good for rules, laws and contracts like these. As a colleague of one of the owners of that agency was reported to have said, the principle is a good one, but poorly applied in this case. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

In their zealousness to enforce the letter of the law (out of spite more than principle), they hurt the ultimate goal — placing homeless dogs in good homes.

[Martin]

as to adoption and property, i have to disagree with the analogy. you never adopt property. you adopt a child. adopting pets is a relatively new trend but it is intended to give some of the same protections to animals that they would get if they were more than property. since they are considered just property (although a lot of people equate them with the status slaves had in the antebellum south) there aren't really any legal protections in place other than anti animal cruelty laws. if an adoption doesn't work out with a child, there are laws in place to protect that child. with a pet, you have to build in protections in the adoption agreement (contract) because there isn't a legal framework that would automatically protect the animal. in a failed adoption of a pet, absent some protections in the adoption agreement, the animal can simply be put down.

for an animal, 'adoption' is just a friendly euphemism for 'sale' and is used as a marketing tool to play at people's emothons. as you've stated, there is no legal framework that protects animals in the same way as children. i see no legal distinction between the sale of an animal and the 'adoption' of an animal. the law sees an animal is property and therefore the owner of that property has rights as to what he chooses to do with that property. and don't even get me started with some people comparing pets to slaves. ridiculous.

selling with strings attached is quite common with animals. the akc allows a limited license in which a purebred dog can be registered but its offspring, can't. this allows breeders to make sure that the dogs they sell don't reproduce. it is the breeder who registers a dog (unless he sells that right) and if they get only a limited certificate, that is all the dog has. typically with a breeder, you are charged a certain amount and if the dog is not neutered by say, age one, you owe the breeder an extra several hundred dollars. another thing they do is to require the buyer to have the dog's hips and eyes checked by the time they are a certain age. if the new owner doesn't do it, they are supposed to pay the breeder back a certain amount. they would be facing civil liabilities if they welch on the agreement. you'd have to work it into the contract for the remedy to be the actual return of the dog. most rescue/adoption agreements specifically make sure that the dog is to be returned instead of disposed of by regifting or whatever.

you bring up a pretty good point here. however, i don't think that the situations are entirely analogous. the value of an animal with a pedigree can be adversely affected by the number and quality of its offspring. the original owner has a business interest in maintaining the value of the animal. the enforcement of such contractual terms is not to protect the animal as much as it is to protect the value of the original owner's investment. the animal in this situation was not bred for any purpose and was not sold based upon any known pedigree therefore i don't think that the legal protections you're citing here apply.

-M

[PennyQuilts]

I agree they don't apply in this situation but there were given merely as examples of how sales with strings attached are common with animals and enforceable.

[Karried]

Well, there must be other sorts of animal ID chips ... at least that's what I have read about the story.

Maybe they misunderstood?

"Just in: The attorney for Mutts & Moms tells "The Insider" that ELLEN DeGENERES' formerly adopted dog has been placed in a new home.

On her show Wednesday, Ellen addressed the importance of micro-chipping pets to insure proper ownership. She contends that the reason she cannot claim ownership of her adopted dog, IGGY, is because his identity chip was still registered to the rescue agency.

Sources tell ET that while the agency claims Ellen broke her contract by giving him away to a trusted co-worker, the Mutts & Moms owners themselves have not followed all the rules set by their company.

They allegedly did not require Ellen or her partner PORTIA DeROSSI to fill out an application, nor did they change the registered owner information as they said they would.

Additionally, it is said the contract in question does not contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts & Moms for taking back the dog.

Our sources also tell us the family Ellen gave the dog to -- her hairdresser, her husband and their two pre-teen daughters -- did fill out an application online when the dog took up residence with them.

It was at that time the agency said they would come out to inspect their property as part of the adoption process.

Instead, they reclaimed the dog and calling the police.

As Mutts & Moms were officially registered as the owners by the chip, authorities turned over custody to them."

[PennyQuilts]

Sounds ridiculous from the get go. Can't imagine why they didn't have the paperwork in order. Were they star struck? Makes me wonder if Ellen and the agency have a history that went south. Makes me wonder if there is more to the story than we know.

[Karried]

Sounds ridiculous from the get go.

I agree.... of course, the poor dog and kids are stuck in the middle of the adult's mess - as usual.

[PennyQuilts]

Some news reports have had the agency's lawyer claim that he has e-mails to prove that the family with the kids were offered the opportunity to fill out an application to be approved to adopt the dog but refused. He claims he has other evidence that Ellen's staff left messages that they would ruin the agency if they didn't play ball on Ellen's terms. Wonder if this story is going to continue or just fade away.

[Midtowner]

It sounds like the organization does good things. So they don't treat Ms. Degeneres (sp) special due to her fame, so she throws an extremely public hissy fit. This is fame at its worst. Absolutely pathetic.

[PennyQuilts]

Still a student, Midtowner? Where?

[PUGalicious]

Some news reports have had the agency's lawyer claim that he has e-mails to prove that the family with the kids were offered the opportunity to fill out an application to be approved to adopt the dog but refused. He claims he has other evidence that Ellen's staff left messages that they would ruin the agency if they didn't play ball on Ellen's terms.

And we know that lawyers have never been known to overstate the "facts" or stretch the truth or anything...