Sister-in-Law ‘Manipulated’ Woman into Taking in Her New Puppy. Now, She Wants to Be Reimbursed for the Adoption Fee

A woman revealed that her sister-in-law “manipulated” her into taking a brand-new puppy after buying a breed that is restricted in her neighborhood.

In a post shared on Reddit, she explains: “My sister-in-law and her husband got a puppy that is a restricted breed. They live somewhere ‘aggressive’/restricted breeds are not allowed, and they were aware of that when they purchased her, but I guess they were planning on hiding her and got her regardless of their location.”

She adds that one evening, she and her husband received a frantic phone call from his sister, asking them to take the dog immediately.

“They live 8 hours away and have a newborn baby,” she writes. “We didn’t want to take the dog because we have 4 cats. We’re cat people; we like it calm and peaceful. And we told her that and she’s like, ‘well get rid of your cats.’ Excuse me??”

She continues: “So fast forward, we crumble under her manipulative pressure and we take the dog in. We were planning on keeping her, and my SIL wanted us to pay $1,500 for her. Apparently, they got her for $5,000.”

Just a week later, the woman and her husband realized they were “not cut out” to care for the puppy, who was not potty-trained (despite the sister-in-law promising otherwise) and was “super destructive.”

They found the puppy a new home with a fenced-in backyard, allowing the new owners to take the dog for $100. When the sister-in-law found out, she asked when she would be “getting paid.”

When the woman explained they wouldn’t be paying, her sister-in-law “started freaking out” and suggested they pay a lesser amount in monthly installments.

“I was just shocked and put on the spot, so I crumbled and said I guess that’s fine, but it’s not fine. I don’t think it makes any sense to pay her anything,” she adds.

The internet quickly weighed in, with commenters urging her not to pay her sister-in-law.

One commenter wrote: “Don’t pay her a penny. It would have been nice if you had given her the opportunity to take her puppy back before rehoming it; but even then, as its new owners, you were not obliged to do so.”