Author Topic: The $140,000 Cat (Read 8704 times)

Sunnymo · « **on:** October 15, 2014, 04:13:46 AM »

This has been making the news here in Australia...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/tiffany-the-cat-is-worth-140000-no-kitten-around/story-fni0fit3-1227089364137

A family was selling their prestige property at auction and it was passed in at $2,060,000. They ended up selling for $2,200,000 after a 'cat clause' was included in the contract. The buyer's child fell in love with the vendor's cat and offered to purchase the property as long as the cat was a part of the inclusions with the house.

Who on earth pays an extra $140k for a house just to get a cat? And who lets their child have this much influence in where they live and how much is spent to do so?

Primm · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2014, 04:29:05 AM »

I saw that too! The disturbing part for me was that the contract clause said that for the extra $140k the sellers agreed to provide a cat "the same type as their cat". So they talked to the kids and agreed to leave their actual cat for the buyers! WTF? For $140k just go out and buy another rag doll cat! And let your kids keep the one they grew up with!

So much wrong with that story. So so much. *SMH*

greenmimama · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2014, 09:46:56 AM »

It was probably old and peeing on everything already LOL

Very weird story though.

Dicey · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2014, 09:56:11 AM »

I kinda think it shows that the more money you have, the less money means to you. Could be a cautionary tale for those who think 1M (or whatever bigger number) is not "enough" to retire on. If it inspires "someone" to realize that they have enough to pull the trigger and buy back their life, then the cat purchase will have been worth it for "someone", just not the people who bought it.

Bob W · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:08:55 AM »

Funny but I would pay extra to buy a house that never had a cat or dog live there. Different strokes I guess.

Elderwood17 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:40:24 AM »

Quote from: Diane C on October 15, 2014, 09:56:11 AM

I kinda think it shows that the more money you have, the less money means to you.

Agree. Nonetheless this is an extreme example/situation.

When I hear of things like this I always think of the ethical issues of spending money like this vs that money going to childhood vaccines (or substitute your own example) and just shake my head.

sheepstache · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:55:06 AM »

On the one hand, the "child" is 19 so I say it's time for him to let go. On the other hand, it says he's the one who bought the cat. But going back to the first hand, he was going to be traveling and not able to take the cat with him, so it sounds like for practical purposes the cat was the parents'.

Sid Hoffman · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2014, 04:20:45 PM »

Quote from: sheepstache on October 15, 2014, 10:55:06 AM

On the one hand, the "child" is 19 so I say it's time for him to let go. On the other hand, it says he's the one who bought the cat. But going back to the first hand, he was going to be traveling and not able to take the cat with him, so it sounds like for practical purposes the cat was the parents'.

As a pet lover myself, I shudder at the thought of using a pet as a bargaining chip to sell a home, but on the other hand, I can totally understand the notion of a pet becoming attached to a physical home and being totally happy to stay there. Recently I moved out of my ex's house and took one of the cats with me. He wasn't super happy about it, but eventually got used to my new place. I took him back to my ex's house for a few days while I went on vacation and he was actually totally cool with being back in his "old" home. I felt slightly less special when I saw that, but oh well. The Australian cat will likely be totally pampered and doesn't even have to go through the trouble of moving.

sheepstache · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2014, 04:35:08 PM »

Quote from: Sid Hoffman on October 15, 2014, 04:20:45 PM

Quote from: sheepstache on October 15, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
On the one hand, the "child" is 19 so I say it's time for him to let go. On the other hand, it says he's the one who bought the cat. But going back to the first hand, he was going to be traveling and not able to take the cat with him, so it sounds like for practical purposes the cat was the parents'.

As a pet lover myself, I shudder at the thought of using a pet as a bargaining chip to sell a home, but on the other hand, I can totally understand the notion of a pet becoming attached to a physical home and being totally happy to stay there. Recently I moved out of my ex's house and took one of the cats with me. He wasn't super happy about it, but eventually got used to my new place. I took him back to my ex's house for a few days while I went on vacation and he was actually totally cool with being back in his "old" home. I felt slightly less special when I saw that, but oh well. The Australian cat will likely be totally pampered and doesn't even have to go through the trouble of moving.

That reminds me of the fact that my family's cat decided to stay with the neighbors when we moved halfway across the country. I was 2 at the time, so a. I don't remember it, and b. we're 99% sure that's the reason it wanted to live with the neighbors instead.

MicroRN · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2014, 07:16:05 PM »

We're getting a cat with our new house, but definitely not paying any extra for him! He's a 9 year old barn cat who has lived there since he was born, and the owners don't think he could adjust to being an indoor apartment cat. Ever a sucker for animals, I said we'd be happy to keep him.

marty998 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2014, 02:01:11 AM »

The property would have sold for $2.2million cat or no cat.

Every now and again a realestate agent desperate for cheap publicity will exaggerate a story to get some headlines. Both the buyer and the seller would have been in on the joke.

Stop and remember how RE agents operate and you'll realise it's not beyond them to engage in this sort of action.

Oh, and its the HS. What else do you expect from tabloid rubbish. The only thing that surprises me is that the link is not to Sydney's Daily ~~Terror~~ Tele. (They might have run it, I just don't read that rag LOL).

Sunnymo · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2014, 02:09:41 AM »

Hi Marty, I saw this on a number of sites (The Age etc) as well as the nightly news. Sure, it probably would have sold for the same amount but, hey, this is the Antimustachian wall of shame & comedy... poke fun & enjoy the idiocy.

Sunnymo

marty998 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Sunnymo on October 16, 2014, 02:09:41 AM

Hi Marty, I saw this on a number of sites (The Age etc) as well as the nightly news. Sure, it probably would have sold for the same amount but, hey, this is the Antimustachian wall of shame & comedy... poke fun & enjoy the idiocy.

Sunnymo

Yep I agree with you, just getting people to see behind the headlines.

I wonder what the cat thought about all of this. If pets could talk LOL.

TreeTired · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2014, 04:11:56 PM »

Quote

Who on earth pays an extra $140k for a house just to get a cat? And who lets their child have this much influence in where they live and how much is spent to do so?

You are looking at this the wrong way. 1. $140k, rolled into the 30 year financing is only $600 per month (!!!!! LOL!!!) and 2. Your child's happiness is priceless!

HairyUpperLip · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:24:31 PM »

Quote from: Bob Werner on October 15, 2014, 10:08:55 AM

Funny but I would pay extra to buy a house that never had a cat or dog live there. Different strokes I guess.

I would too.

I hate when I'm looking at houses for sale and see doggie doors. :-/

iwasjustwondering · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:48:28 PM »

Speaking of doggie doors, I don't get them at all. Wouldn't you get squirrels and other rodents, and raccoons in the house? Yuck. How is it possible that people live with doggie doors? Am I missing something?

fireferrets · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2014, 03:09:30 PM »

Quote from: marty998 on October 16, 2014, 02:01:11 AM

Every now and again a realestate agent desperate for cheap publicity will exaggerate a story to get some headlines. Both the buyer and the seller would have been in on the joke.

Stop and remember how RE agents operate and you'll realise it's not beyond them to engage in this sort of action.

Daaaang, I was taking it at face value, I feel naive. Oh well, you learn something new everyday! :)

Vorpal · « **Reply #17 on:** November 24, 2014, 07:40:21 PM »

C'mon guys, clearly the cat wrote that article. Cats are nothing if not egotistical and self-serving.

austin · « **Reply #18 on:** November 24, 2014, 07:49:28 PM »

How much does a kid cost?

KodeBlue · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2014, 10:05:54 AM »

Adds a new meaning to "pussy whipped".

Sorry, but if we sell our house, our doggies aren't for sale.

SpicyMcHaggus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 08, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »

Sounds like more money than sense.
I would have sold the cat too.

Albert · « **Reply #21 on:** December 08, 2014, 02:48:01 PM »

Quote from: Elderwood17 on October 15, 2014, 10:40:24 AM

When I hear of things like this I always think of the ethical issues of spending money like this vs that money going to childhood vaccines (or substitute your own example) and just shake my head.

The money in this case is not lost, it just moved from the bank account of one rich guy to the bank account of another (plus the bank). The seller can now use it for charitable purposes if he/she is so inclined.

News:

Author Topic: The $140,000 Cat (Read 8704 times)