I anticipate no contentious interaction in this thread, since it involves the topics of cats, law, and social media norms, upon which there is near-universal agreement as to norms.
This is the story of a Maine Coon named Reggie. Reggie is a rescue cat, and in the Chicago neighborhood in which the Illinois Centennial Monument stands proud, Reggie was rescued five years ago by Feline Friends, an all-volunteer, nonprofit, cat rescue outfit. Feline Friends permitted an artist in the neighborhood named Rachael Siciliano to adopt Reggie, subject to a long list of conditions. Siciliano (who goes by the name Rae Bees, because she is an artist) agreed, for example, to never declaw Reggie and to maintain him as an indoor cat.
Reggie still has his claws, but the latter condition has become contentious.
Reggie escaped. In an effort to find him, Bees posted a humorous Facebook picture of Reggie, with a caption saying, “I’m lost (again).”
Reggie was found, and his implanted chip was scanned. The chip was still registered to Feline Friends, so they were notified; they in turn found Bees’ Facebook post, and were alarmed to discover this wasn’t the first time Reggie was lost. In fact, combing through Bees’ social media postings, they found photographic evidence of multiple instances of Reggie hanging out in the backyard with Bees’ friends. Felines Friends decided that Bees was not honoring the condition that Reggie be an indoor cat, and refused to return him.
Bees, predictably, was upset with this decision. She averred that Reggie was not routinely permitted outside – that he was merely an accomplished escape artist. She says she offered several concessions: she obtained a GPS tracking cat collar and told Feline Friends they could have unlimited access to track Reggie day or night. She offered to post bail: $1500 to be forfeited to the agency if Reggie ever escaped again. She even offered to accept unscheduled Skype sessions any time Feline Friends wanted to confirm Reggie was in fact inside and safe.
Feline Friends declined all of these offers, according to Bees.
So she sued.
Felines Friends says that they had a contract which Bees breached, and so they are keeping Reggie. Bees (through her lawyers) says there was no enforceable contract; the conditions were simply a list of desired future events, and Feline Friends cannot exert that level of control over her pet, which is an animal she owns and has for the past five years, when she acquired him from Feline Friends.
Here is the Chicago Trib’s report.
I side with Bees. The cat is hers. Even if there was a contract, and it was breached, it’s unclear to me under what legal basis Feline Friends can engage in this kind of self-help. (If I were to learn that the contract explicitly contemplates this, my view might change). And of course civil law is not my cuppa, so take that conclusion with large heaps of salt.