I'm trying to find info on court cases where registration papers do
not equate to ownership.  I  know I've read info on this, more than
once, but can't for the life of me think of where.  From what I
recall, registration papers signify that the horse belongs to a
specific breed and registry, but holding registration papers isn't
automatically proof you  own the horse.  Possessing the reg. papers
shouldn't nullify a legal and binding contract regarding the
requirements to obtain full ownership, I wouldn't think?

I'll fill you in on the sordid details later....it's regarding one of
the stallions I helped get rescued a few years back.

Sharon Potter
Red Branch

Breed registration papers don't ask for any proof of ownership, no bill of
sale, etc.  They just ask you to put the name of the owner on the "owner"
blank.  Many of the forms aren't even "sworn to".  The person filling out
the form could have lied because, say, the horse was in their custody and
they wanted him registered for some reason.  But the breed registration
papers are no more definitive as proof of ownership than a coggins would be
or any other hearsay document.  I think at best they would be "some
evidence" of ownership that a court could attribute its own weight to (or
not).  Now I don't know if you will find that in case law but I certainly
think it's common sense.  If the court understands that no proof of
ownership is furnished in order to register the horse I think it's
elementary.

I can think of a million reasons why registry papers don't pass from
owner to owner in a sale and not all of them are sleasy.  Sometimes
it's just a case of poor record keeping.

As John notes papers are evidence of ownership, but such is not
conclusive.  Sadly, equine papers are not like car titles or deeds.
Life might simpler if they were.  When the lady took the papers from
the prior owner she could only take from him what HE had.  He still
had legal ownership of the papers so he could convey them to her.  But
he no longer had ownership of the horses and thus could convey nothing
more than pieces of paper.

The lessee has received some bad legal advice.  Hopefully her lawyer
will learn quickly and educate her.

I'm trying to find info on court cases where registration papers do
not equate to ownership. I know I've read info on this, more than
once, but can't for the life of me think of where. From what I
recall, registration papers signify that the horse belongs to a
specific breed and registry, but holding registration papers isn't
automatically proof you own the horse. Possessing the reg. papers
shouldn't nullify a legal and binding contract regarding the
requirements to obtain full ownership, I wouldn't think?

I'm trying to find info on court cases where registration papers do
not equate to ownership. I know I've read info on this, more than
once, but can't for the life of me think of where. From what I
recall, registration papers signify that the horse belongs to a
specific breed and registry, but holding registration papers isn't
automatically proof you own the horse. Possessing the reg. papers
shouldn't nullify a legal and binding contract regarding the
requirements to obtain full ownership, I wouldn't think?

I would think the name on the papers would be the rightful owner....
unless a bill of sale is more recent.

Breed registration papers don't ask for any proof of ownership, no bill of
sale, etc. They just ask you to put the name of the owner on the "owner"
blank. Many of the forms aren't even "sworn to".

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:33:41 -0700 (PDT), redbranch
chocodawgs at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to find info on court cases where registration papers do
not equate to ownership. I know I've read info on this, more than
once, but can't for the life of me think of where. From what I
recall, registration papers signify that the horse belongs to a
specific breed and registry, but holding registration papers isn't
automatically proof you own the horse. Possessing the reg. papers
shouldn't nullify a legal and binding contract regarding the
requirements to obtain full ownership, I wouldn't think?

I would think the name on the papers would be the rightful owner....
unless a bill of sale is more recent.

Hunter

On Oct 14, 7:56 pm, "Jane Saranac" <jsalaci... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Breed registration papers don't ask for any proof of ownership, no bill of
sale, etc. They just ask you to put the name of the owner on the "owner"
blank. Many of the forms aren't even "sworn to". The person filling out
the form could have lied because, say, the horse was in their custody and
they wanted him registered for some reason. But the breed registration
papers are no more definitive as proof of ownership than a coggins would be
or any other hearsay document. I think at best they would be "some
evidence" of ownership that a court could attribute its own weight to (or
not). Now I don't know if you will find that in case law but I certainly
think it's common sense. If the court understands that no proof of
ownership is furnished in order to register the horse I think it's
elementary.


OK, time for more information. The rescue that took these stallions
in, after my vet and I gelded and vaccinated them (great fun,
considering they were aged studs who had been locked in a barn in
filthy conditions and starved for over ten years and weren't halter
broke!), has a legal contract written by an attorney who sits on their
board of directors. It states that for a period of five years, the
adopter has to annually send in a vet report and current pictures of
the horse, and at the end of five years of good and proper care, the
total ownership of the horse will be turned over to the adopter. This
particular adopter tracked down the breeder who abandoned the horses
at the farm he sold, and he gave her the papers (which he wouldn't
give to the people who donated the horses). She has refused to send
in her health paperwork this year because she says now that she has
the reg. papers, she owns the horse and is no longer bound by the
contract with the rescue. The case has gone to court, and mediation
has failed...the rescue just wanted their health papers sent in as
required, and she is refusing, plus claiming that castration devalued
the horses. (uh-huh...sure.) Next court date isn't for a few months,
and as I'll probably act as an expert witness for the rescue, I want
to have as much info as I can to help. This rescue has never lost a
case...their contract is pretty solid...but I still want to be well
prepared.

redbranch wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:56 pm, "Jane Saranac" <jsalaci... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Breed registration papers don't ask for any proof of ownership, no
bill of
sale, etc. They just ask you to put the name of the owner on the
"owner"
blank. Many of the forms aren't even "sworn to". The person filling
out
the form could have lied because, say, the horse was in their custody
and
they wanted him registered for some reason. But the breed registration
papers are no more definitive as proof of ownership than a coggins
would be
or any other hearsay document. I think at best they would be "some
evidence" of ownership that a court could attribute its own weight to
(or
not). Now I don't know if you will find that in case law but I
certainly
think it's common sense. If the court understands that no proof of
ownership is furnished in order to register the horse I think it's
elementary.


OK, time for more information. The rescue that took these stallions
in, after my vet and I gelded and vaccinated them (great fun,
considering they were aged studs who had been locked in a barn in
filthy conditions and starved for over ten years and weren't halter
broke!), has a legal contract written by an attorney who sits on their
board of directors. It states that for a period of five years, the
adopter has to annually send in a vet report and current pictures of
the horse, and at the end of five years of good and proper care, the
total ownership of the horse will be turned over to the adopter. This
particular adopter tracked down the breeder who abandoned the horses
at the farm he sold, and he gave her the papers (which he wouldn't
give to the people who donated the horses). She has refused to send
in her health paperwork this year because she says now that she has
the reg. papers, she owns the horse and is no longer bound by the
contract with the rescue. The case has gone to court, and mediation
has failed...the rescue just wanted their health papers sent in as
required, and she is refusing, plus claiming that castration devalued
the horses. (uh-huh...sure.) Next court date isn't for a few months,
and as I'll probably act as an expert witness for the rescue, I want
to have as much info as I can to help. This rescue has never lost a
case...their contract is pretty solid...but I still want to be well
prepared.

Isn't this a legal matter? What will you testify about?

Why isn't this a straight contracts case? Maybe Bill will comment?

"redbranch" <chocodawgs at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ef11def-b80b-47cc-bb64-74570449e16e at (no spam) l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
I'm trying to find info on court cases where registration papers do
not equate to ownership. I know I've read info on this, more than
once, but can't for the life of me think of where. From what I
recall, registration papers signify that the horse belongs to a
specific breed and registry, but holding registration papers isn't
automatically proof you own the horse. Possessing the reg. papers
shouldn't nullify a legal and binding contract regarding the
requirements to obtain full ownership, I wouldn't think?

Breed registration papers don't ask for any proof of ownership, no bill of
sale, etc. They just ask you to put the name of the owner on the "owner"
blank. Many of the forms aren't even "sworn to". The person filling out
the form could have lied because, say, the horse was in their custody and
they wanted him registered for some reason. But the breed registration
papers are no more definitive as proof of ownership than a coggins would be
or any other hearsay document. I think at best they would be "some
evidence" of ownership that a court could attribute its own weight to (or
not). Now I don't know if you will find that in case law but I certainly
think it's common sense. If the court understands that no proof of
ownership is furnished in order to register the horse I think it's
elementary.

I don't recall ever having a registered horse who's papers came directly and
immediately from the last person shown on the papers...