CATTLE - BRAND NO OWNERSHIP

[whiteface]

NEWS ON PAGE4 MARCH17 WESTERN PRODUCER
IS SERI0USLY AFFECTING CATTLE BRANDING.
OUR NEW BAR-CODE TAC SYSTEM IS WORKING VERY WELL. THE OLD BRAND ID IS DONE STOP
COLLECTING BRAND FEE IF ONE JUDGE IS GOING TO DECIDE AS THE CASE OF BANKROB
BONNET-FEEDLOT CATTLE COSTUMERS CLAIM
CIBC BANK. BRANDS ON FEEDER COOP AUCTION MARKETS CUSTUM FEEDLOTS PASTURES .BRAND,SDONT STAND UP IN LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF CATTLE.AS YOU CAN READ IN
THIS NEWS , OF CLIFF MUNOE HEAD OF BRAND OFFICE SAID IT SERIOUSLY CONSEQUENCES OF BRANDING .

[farmers_son]

See: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/ca_bonnett_Receivers6Report_mar05%281%29.pdf

See: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/ministry/org/lis_leg_review.pdf %22Cliff Munroe%22 Brand ownership&hl=en

2.2 Determination of Ownership
A specific issue relating to livestock marketing legislation is industry uncertainty over the legal effect of brand inspection on a sale transaction. Some critics have alleged
that brand inspection does not provide value because it does not “verify ownership”.

The legal aspects of cattle transactions and title transfer are far more complex than
they appear on the surface—and certainly more complex than many in the industry
may have assumed.

Brand inspection assists in the passage of title because of provisions in the livestock marketing legislation. Under the Brand Act, a brand is proof of ownership, in
absence of evidence to the contrary. This means that unless a person brings forward more compelling evidence of ownership, the Courts will rely on the brand to determine ownership. Further, only brands registered under the Brand Act can be applied to livestock. Finally, under the Livestock Identification and Brand Inspection
Act, the livestock must be manifested by the contributor. This allows the brand inspector to compare the brand on the livestock with the brand registry and with the
information supplied on the manifest.

Brand inspection alone does not assist in the passage of title in two situations.

Firstly, if someone has fraudulently branded the livestock and the fraud is undetected by the buyer, buyer’s agent, or brand inspector. In this situation, the legal title in
the livestock will not pass to the buyer.

Secondly, if the seller has previously pledged the livestock as security to a lender, the legal title may not pass to the buyer if the seller fails to pay the lender. In this situation, the lender may look to other parties who subsequently took possession of
the livestock (e.g., an auction market) and sue them for the value of the livestock in order to recoup its losses on the loan to the seller. These are called “conversion”
lawsuits.

[farmers_son]

job well done farmers-son !
not to many cattle man know about this
brand ownership !i read a bank in south
alberta took branded feeder coop cattle
as ownership when the feedlot was in receivership .members of the feeder-coop
lost their deposit.if remember correct it was chin-feeder coop.
hope we don;t hear any more of them like
bonnet in ponoka.
the u-s-a r-calf border closing is not
B-S-E it means[BEEF-SAVE-EATING] and
not[ MAD-COW] . AS IT IS CALLED IN MONTANA.

[cswilson]

In Sask. as far as I know the bank that is financing the feeder co-op has the right to seize the cattle if loans are in default. Members are required to get their other lenders to release their interest in the cattle.