When Does Legal Ownership of a Cat Occur?

fieldsforever · 06-12-2018 10:17am #1

Someone said a cat was found by two people holidaying and asked if I'd watch the cat for a few weeks. In the message asking if I'd watch the cat for a few weeks, she said she had the cat in her possession for only two weeks. She never collected the cat, only provided one bag of food and two bags of litter, and €25 over the course of three months though the cat turned out to be pregnant and had kittens at my residence. I paid for pretty much all the costs as what she did give didn't last long. Rides to the vet, vet bill, deworming, the cost of feeding five cats are the expenses. Because she failed to properly provide for them, hasn't offered to visit them since she initially dropped off the cat, I've had the cat longer than her, the kittens were born at my residence, and whenever I asked for her to arrange vet care she failed to/suggested her friend who isn't a vet to make diagnoses, I wonder if the cat and kittens are now actually mine? The vet confirmed the cat is not microchipped. What are the laws concerning this in Ireland.

Also, is there a way to verify if an organisation is real? When is an organisation considered a charity? She said she runs a registered organisation but when I looked up registered charities, the name she gives doesn't show up. People are telling me she isn't any of the sort. Would a false organisation giving me a cat to watch for a few weeks but now I've had the cat for a few months, and now her kitten, with a lot of out of pocket expenses be against charity regulations? Or would that only apply if she asked me specifically for money, which she didn't. I just had to buy all I did or else the cat would of starved to death and had no litter to use and be ridden with worms, without veterinarian follow up concerning her pregnancy.

Very odd situation that I've found myself in.

brian_t · 06-12-2018 1:48pm

There is a saying that you own a dog but you feed a cat.

I don't know what the legal situation is.

How long after you got the cat did it give birth. A cats pregnancy can be as short as two months.

ohnonotgmail · 06-12-2018 2:19pm

brian_t wrote: »

There is a saying that you own a dog but you feed a cat.

I don't know what the legal situation is.

How long after you got the cat did it give birth. A cats pregnancy can be as short as two months.

the legal situation in england (and quite possibly here) is that cats are property. As to whether the OP owns the cat in question i dont know. It seems it was given with the intention of being returned but that hasn't happened. Could the person who gave it to the OP be said to have abandoned the cat?

pwurple · 06-12-2018 2:24pm

Yes, it's your cat.

It was abandoned, by whoever, plus this woman who set you up at the start to take it... and it's now yours.

No idea what you ask asking about her place of work for. Did you think you were becoming part of that organisation?

Anyway. I'm not a fan of cats... they are ridiculously damaging to the environment. I'd say get it put down it you don't want it.

Mrs OBumble · 06-12-2018 2:34pm

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, it's your cat.

It was abandoned, by whoever, plus this woman who set you up at the start to take it... and it's now yours.

No idea what you ask asking about her place of work for. Did you think you were becoming part of that organisation?

Anyway. I'm not a fan of cats... they are ridiculously damaging to the environment. I'd say get it put down it you don't want it.

Since when did finders--keepers become part of the legal system?

BTW ... In practise, dogs have owners while cats have staff. But i don't know what lwgal ftamework covers possession of companion animals.

Heckler · 06-12-2018 2:35pm

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, it's your cat.

It was abandoned, by whoever, plus this woman who set you up at the start to take it... and it's now yours.

No idea what you ask asking about her place of work for. Did you think you were becoming part of that organisation?

Anyway. I'm not a fan of cats... they are ridiculously damaging to the environment. I'd say get it put down it you don't want it.

You don't own a cat. A cat owns you :P

So get it put down because you're not a fan. Right. Maybe rehome it if they don't want it. I'm not a fan of dogs. Can we get them put down too please ?

I've owned cats over the years and treated right they are a loyal, loving and affectionate pet. And smart as fook. Put Lassie in the ha'penny place.

Heckler · 06-12-2018 2:36pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Since when did finders--keepers become part of the legal system?

BTW ... In practise, dogs have owners while cats have staff. But i don't know what lwgal ftamework covers possession of companion animals.

Cats have staff hahaha so true.

Heckler · 06-12-2018 2:37pm

A cat will choose you. Won't stay if it doesn't want to.

hullaballoo · 06-12-2018 3:44pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Since when did finders--keepers become part of the legal system?

Finders keepers is and has been a valid rule of law for centuries.

By finding lost/mislaid items, you do not instantly acquire property rights but you obtain possessory rights that trump the rights of anyone but the true owner.

My recollection on this isn't the strongest and Google is throwing up all kinds of nonsense but iirc, the common law year-and-a-day rule applies to the detriment of the true owner so that the finder, having taken any reasonable steps to identify the true owner (including no steps whatsoever where that is reasonable), will obtain ownership.

The classic example is finding €20 on the street. Unless you witnessed who dropped it, you probably cannot identify the owner, in which case you are entitled to pick it up and pocket it. It wouldn't be reasonable to take steps to seek out the true owner - any steps you could take would be unreliable in ascertaining the true owner.

Depending on many circumstances, taking further steps may be required on the basis of reasonableness.

In any event, finders keepers is good and valid law, albeit not directly relevant to the question asked by the OP.

fieldsforever · 06-12-2018 5:21pm

I ask because though the cat was left here longer than agreed, had kittens here a month and a half later, though I paid pretty much all expenses, organised and paid for vet expenses, she now wants the cat and kittens she never seen. She had the cat for two weeks and I for three months.

It isn't that I want to keep them, it's that I think it is best I sort out rehoming. When the cat was pregnant and not moving, I asked if she'd help out but she suggested a non qualified vet to make a diagnosis so I took the cat to a vet.

I find it odd that when I said I was going to rehome them, she suddenly gained interest. Where was the interest when I said I don't want to feed them anymore, when they needed to be wormed, etc?

It makes me wonder where I stand legally.

I mention the false organisation and false charity because I wonder if giving someone a cat under false pretenses and pretty much giving up ownership responsibilities then suddenly wanting the cat back...If that would mean the cat is still legally hers. Very puzzled but now she has the guards ringing me who aren't fully aware of the situation. When I rang the guards, I was told I'm grand and doing the best thing. That evening, I'm told by a guard over the phone that I could be arrested over this, but the guard isn't aware of the full situation.

Foweva Awone · 06-12-2018 5:30pm

pwurple wrote: »

Anyway. I'm not a fan of cats... they are ridiculously damaging to the environment. I'd say get it put down it you don't want it.

Jesus that's nasty.

I am STRONGLY in favour of spaying/neutering cats to control over-population, but the idea of killing a healthy cat in these circumstances is so wrong.

OP if you don't want the cat/kittens, ask a local rescue to help rehome them. But if you do keep them, please get them all neutered!

fieldsforever · 06-12-2018 5:46pm

brian_t wrote: »

There is a saying that you own a dog but you feed a cat.

I don't know what the legal situation is.

How long after you got the cat did it give birth. A cats pregnancy can be as short as two months.

A month and a half after she arrived, she gave birth.

seamus · 06-12-2018 6:05pm

It's quite common for people to decide that they're going to devote their lives to saving animals, call themselves a charity and operate fostering programmes, donation drives, etc. And then you look into it, and all is not as it should be. There was one here on boards for quite some time that ended up with animal cruelty charges (I won't go into it further).

I think the fact that she's a crazy fake animal rescue is probably not all that relevant. She is still an entity that exists, regardless of whether her charity does.

If the cat was given to you on the agreement that she was to pay the cost of caring for it, then it would be reasonable to refuse to give the cat(s) back until your expenses are repaid. If the Garda calls again you can explain this, and he'll realise it's a civil matter not a criminal one.

Though legally grey, on a more practical note if you were to have the cats microchipped and your name put on them, then she has practically no way to assert ownership except through court, which she won't do.

DesperateDan · 06-12-2018 6:11pm

pwurple wrote: »

Anyway. I'm not a fan of cats... they are ridiculously damaging to the environment. I'd say get it put down it you don't want it.

What a bizarre statement. Are you confusing cats with cows?

ohnonotgmail · 06-12-2018 6:18pm

seamus wrote: »

It's quite common for people to decide that they're going to devote their lives to saving animals, call themselves a charity and operate fostering programmes, donation drives, etc. And then you look into it, and all is not as it should be. There was one here on boards for quite some time that ended up with animal cruelty charges (I won't go into it further).

I think the fact that she's a crazy fake animal rescue is probably not all that relevant. She is still an entity that exists, regardless of whether her charity does.

If the cat was given to you on the agreement that she was to pay the cost of caring for it, then it would be reasonable to refuse to give the cat(s) back until your expenses are repaid. If the Garda calls again you can explain this, and he'll realise it's a civil matter not a criminal one.

Though legally grey, on a more practical note if you were to have the cats microchipped and your name put on them, then she has practically no way to assert ownership except through court, which she won't do.

What way does she have to assert ownership now except through the courts?

touts · 06-12-2018 6:27pm

This is a three step process.

1 Get a big box and put all the cats in it.

2 Bring it to the woman's front door and ring the door bell

3 Give the box a good shake, drop it and run.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 06-12-2018 6:29pm

I remember reading about a cat in America who was left millions of dollars in his owners will.

How on earth does this work in reality. Does the money go into some sort of trust for the remainder of the cat's life? What happens after?

Sounds like a legal nightmare

Mrs OBumble · 06-12-2018 7:39pm

Op what do you want?

Do you want to keep the cats? Or do you want her to pay the expenses you incurred and to take them away?

Peregrinus · 07-12-2018 2:45am

fieldsforever wrote: »

Someone said a cat was found by two people holidaying and asked if I'd watch the cat for a few weeks. In the message asking if I'd watch the cat for a few weeks, she said she had the cat in her possession for only two weeks. She never collected the cat, only provided one bag of food and two bags of litter, and €25 over the course of three months though the cat turned out to be pregnant and had kittens at my residence. I paid for pretty much all the costs as what she did give didn't last long. Rides to the vet, vet bill, deworming, the cost of feeding five cats are the expenses. Because she failed to properly provide for them, hasn't offered to visit them since she initially dropped off the cat, I've had the cat longer than her, the kittens were born at my residence, and whenever I asked for her to arrange vet care she failed to/suggested her friend who isn't a vet to make diagnoses, I wonder if the cat and kittens are now actually mine? The vet confirmed the cat is not microchipped. What are the laws concerning this in Ireland.

"Someone" didn't own the cat in the first place (and, from what you say, has never asserted that she owns it). She doesn't own the cat just by virtue of having found it, or by virtue of having it handed to her by "two people holidaying" who found it.

So, if she asks for the cat, you can refuse. She has no entitlement to the cat as against you.

The true owner of the cat could demand it back from you, but (a) they are very unlikely to turn up demanding that, and (b) if they did turn up, they might have difficulty proving that they are the true owner, given that the cat isn't chipped (and, presumably, doesn't have any other identifier, or you'd have mentioned).

So, bottom line: there is somebody in the world who has a better title to the cat than you do, but you are very unlikely to be bothered by them. For all practical purposes, the cat is as good as yours now.

GM228 · 07-12-2018 1:26pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Finders keepers is and has been a valid rule of law for centuries.

By finding lost/mislaid items, you do not instantly acquire property rights but you obtain possessory rights that trump the rights of anyone but the true owner.

My recollection on this isn't the strongest and Google is throwing up all kinds of nonsense but iirc, the common law year-and-a-day rule applies to the detriment of the true owner so that the finder, having taken any reasonable steps to identify the true owner (including no steps whatsoever where that is reasonable), will obtain ownership.

The classic example is finding €20 on the street. Unless you witnessed who dropped it, you probably cannot identify the owner, in which case you are entitled to pick it up and pocket it. It wouldn't be reasonable to take steps to seek out the true owner - any steps you could take would be unreliable in ascertaining the true owner.

Depending on many circumstances, taking further steps may be required on the basis of reasonableness.

In any event, finders keepers is good and valid law, albeit not directly relevant to the question asked by the OP.

I'm not so sure about this year and a day rule, there seems to be no authority for it, rather it seems to be something that is mistakenly believed, and nobody can actually confirm it. The authorities seem to suggest otherwise, or at least are silent on it.

Rather it appears there is no time frame, but you may keep something until the rightful owner is found, and of course as you stated you must take reasonable steps to find the true owner or you could potentially be charged with theft.

The maxim for Finders Keepers appears to stem from Armory vs Delamire [1722] 1 Stra 505 (a trover case), and there seems to be nothing to support the 366 day rule in later case law both in the UK or here. It's also worth noting the leading English case on the issue, the Court of Appeal Waverly Borough Council vs Fletcher [1996] QB 334 case, Lord Justice Auld examined the authorities on Finders Keepers and held:-

the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner

No mention of a time limit. In any case the law around finders keepers is interesting and not as straight forward as some believe, you also then have to take account of the nemo dat rule (and it's market overt exemption) for example.

I think the old sayings of finding is keeping and possession is nine tenths the law can be dangerous half truths.

Del2005 · 08-12-2018 11:29am

DesperateDan wrote: »

What a bizarre statement. Are you confusing cats with cows?

Cats kill thousands of smaller animals for fun, so yes they are bad for the environment.

A small dog or cat is the equivalent of running an SUV, so they have a large carbon footprint along with mindless killing.

davindub · 09-12-2018 2:04am

Del2005 wrote: »

DesperateDan wrote: »

What a bizarre statement. Are you confusing cats with cows?

Cats kill thousands of smaller animals for fun, so yes they are bad for the environment.

A small dog or cat is the equivalent of running an SUV, so they have a large carbon footprint along with mindless killing.

Americans, believe anything to justify a 5l engine.

donkeykong5 · 09-12-2018 2:41am

Cats are amazing animals.

Graces7 · 30-12-2018 3:52pm

Del2005 wrote: »

Cats kill thousands of smaller animals for fun, so yes they are bad for the environment.

A small dog or cat is the equivalent of running an SUV, so they have a large carbon footprint along with mindless killing.

These are ridiculous statements requiring objective proof.

Where i live we would be overrun with rats and other vermin if my cats were not here. We cannot use poison as that would kill wild life. Certainly not mindless pr for fun

Cats have been in Ireland as long as there has been recorded history. They are a vital part of our environment.

and to suggest killing it? Live and let live please.

Graces7 · 30-12-2018 3:54pm

OP; did she try to find out who owned the cat before she took it? I had a cat taken like that once and was lucky to get it back.

and that was by someone on holiday,.

donkeykong5 · 30-12-2018 4:02pm

My cat has a bladder infection. Vet gave her an injection yesterday for pain. Also 2 different antibiotics to sprinkle on her food for 7 days. Only problem is shes eating all around the medication. I just got more wet food and mixed it in that and she wont even touch it at all. Any ideas please.

sonofenoch · 30-12-2018 5:02pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I remember reading about a cat in America who was left millions of dollars in his owners will.

How on earth does this work in reality. Does the money go into some sort of trust for the remainder of the cat's life? What happens after?

Sounds like a legal nightmare

Is it taking on staff?

When Does Legal Ownership of a Cat Occur?

Comments