we get it, you can't get past that co-ownerships extend far beyond the AKC.
I don't even own AKC dogs, smart one.
co-ownership extends far beyond registering puppies.
There's a difference between a "co-ownership contract" and a "contract between people who also happen to co-own the dog."
It involves money, it involves stud fees, puppy contracts, who lives where, who trains, how long, what happens when issues arise, training isn't finished, it's finished early, someone dies etc.
I have all of those things in the contract for a dog that lives in another home and I co-own with someone other than the owner of the dog. The owner of the dog isn't even on his papers. It still isn't a co-ownership contract, because co-ownership of the dog has no bearing on the legality or enforcement of the contract.
Co-ownership contract: Person A agrees to sell Person B a bitch. Person A requires that they remain on the bitch's papers as co-owner (or sole signatory in the case of UKC) until Person A breeds the bitch and retains her first litter, at which time Person A will sign over full registered ownership to Person B.
Just an example of ONE situation where co-ownership actually matters here.
Not a co-ownership contract: Person A sells a puppy to Person B. Person A requires that the puppy be shown X amount of times per year until it obtains X title, requires that Person B perform X health tests on dog at X age, and further requires that Person B have semen collected from the dog at X age for Person A's sole use.
Co-ownership does not matter here, whether the dog also happens to be co-owned at the time is irrelevant.
That first example...is NOT what "most dog people" seem to think a co-ownership agreement IS. More than one person in this thread have expressed hangups they have about doing nothing more than having another person listed AS a co-owner on a dog, regardless of whether or not the dog is even under contract, because they seem to have mixed/uninformed ideas of what the simple act of having someone signed onto the registration papers as a co-owner actually DOES.
Which is why I stated in my original reply to this thread that the actual CO-OWNERSHIP doesn't matter nearly as much as the CONTRACT the dog is under, and the wording of the contract. The OP said, "I have friends who co-own and friends who've walked away
when offered only a co-ownership." THAT sort of misunderstanding about what co-ownerships are and what entitlements and responsibilities are attached to them is why I think there is a very important distinction that should be made between a CO-OWNERSHIP, and a legal agreement. Because most people seem to be just fine with contracts, and than balk at the mention of the ACTUAL, literal, co-ownership, because they're misinformed and think that co-ownership BY ITSELF gives the co-owner more rights to the dog than it really does.
But can you point it out for me again, what did the practicing attorney that wrote an article for the AKC and printed by the AKC for it's members call that agreement again??? I could have swore she called it a co-ownership contract, much like everyone else in the dog world.
I can point out all kinds of situations where lawyers have misused terminology. Point?