The horses are livestock in the eyes of the state. If it was 86 cattle this is how they would be sold, as a single lot. The amount of the lien doesn’t matter.
My hopes are on the 3rd generation Montana breeder getting the lot of them, getting them healthy, identified, and dispersed. They have enough hay and the family as a whole is apparently quite wealthy.
The horses have been seized from the owner and there is a criminal case against him, and they will be sold to cover the lien, so he can’t get them back. It’s pretty clear the lienholder just wants the money he is owed.
The saving grace about the criminal case is that it means whoever purchases the horses cannot disperse them until after the criminal case is closed. This should keep kill buyers away.
My impression is that the breeder was incapacitated, not paying the rent on the land, and the people who were supposed to be taking care of the horses weren’t doing so. While incapacitated, he wouldn’t have been able to sell any of them.
And the horses are caught in the middle of the human drama. It is really sad. I hope they get good homes in the end.
Hopefully the price for the lot of 86 would put them beyond the means of a kill buyer. But some of the kill buyers are backed by big operations with financial backing.
And, hopefully the cost of keeping the lot of them for an unknown amount of time will keep the kill buyers away.
Hypothetically, with 86 horses, if they were to go to a kill buyer, who would know if some well-fleshed horses are swapped out for skinnies from outside of this herd? Especially with so many plain colors, plainly marked. In my experience law-enforcement does not know one horse from another. And are confused by written color descriptions.
Also in my experience with property, law enforcement tasked with auctions have zero idea how to get the best and highest bids. It isn’t really what they do. They just get this over with because it’s assigned to them.
My understanding is that for lien/money owed/government seizure auctions, you aren’t supposed to get the highest bidder. You are supposed to just get the money owed. It is actually against some laws to put a reserve more than the lien on or actively try to get the highest bidder - this is whether or not the entity that is owed money is private or public. It is a safeguard against anyone purposely putting someone into debt to get even more money out by selling it for a tidy profit.
I was told for PA if a stable man’s lien amount is $10,000 and horse sells for $17,000 the horse owner gets $7,000 less the auctioneer fee. The stable who holds the lien cannot keep more than the lien amount so cannot make a profit.
In this case, I think the Sheriff is next in line after the landowner, as they have considerable expenses related to caring for the horses since they were seized.
In most cases, going through the lien process is the only way to legally get rid of the animals if they were left/abandoned on the property and the owner can’t or won’t sign them over. You may be able to pursue the money in other ways (small claims etc), but you can’t just sell or give away the animals as they still belong to somebody else (even though that person may be crappy). It’s just that in this case instead of one or two boarders you have an entire herd.
Interesting. Somewhat analogous to the tenants who won’t pay their rent and won’t leave.
86 is a lot of horses for one property. Is this a board barn with daily care? Or just a huge pasture with a lot of horses turned out?
If money stopped flowing, it’s hard to imagine that they only owe around $10,000. It would seem the space and care for so many horses would have come to more than that. But I have no idea where this place is or how they operate.
Other than that some posters are indicating that a highly toxic personality is involved. When that is the case, anything can happen. It doesn’t necessarily have to make sense. Guessing that has something to do with it?
It’s land and some pens leased by the horses’ owner, not a boarding situation. Owner was paying for all care…
Or not. It’s coming out that some of the horses are in really bad shape - skinny, slipper hooves, old injuries etc.
More ominously, it’s being said that other breeders and local horsepeople have known things were bad for several years (before the owner had a stroke) and were willing to look the other way while buying good horses from him. What’s left, and I’m speculating here, is probably older breeding stock and a lot of feral youngsters.
Someone who’s involved and has seen the horses posted a sad list of 4 older horses in bad shape but too wild to handle.
In locations with an Agister’s lien process, as the person filing the lien you can’t sell someone’s horse until the lien process is fulfilled. 99% of the time, Agister’s lien auctions come and go with no attendees, then the person that filed the lien gets to take possession of the horse(s) and do what they wish. Therefore, it makes complete sense to auction off all 86 as one lot. It’s all but ensuring there will be no buyer at the mandatory auction. After the day and time of the auction passes, the lien is fulfilled, this Bruce Peterson person takes over ownership and I imagine will sell them individually (except for the criminal case piece on this one). Usually, Agister’s lien auctions go completely unnoticed. I mean, look at how antiquated their requirements are - they usually require notice in the public newspaper (some jurisdictions just say a public place such as a flyer in the courthouse). How many people really get the newspaper anymore? Mr Bruce here unfortunately didn’t predict that someone would post it online and everyone would freak out.
If the lien holder only did a lien on “a couple” horses to then sell and cover the lien cost, what do you then expect them to do with the other 80+ horses on their property, owned by someone else that isn’t paying whatever bill?? Wait another two months when the bill is racked up again, and do it again? And again? And again? I’m really not understanding why people are so caught up in the idea of “why can’t he just sell a couple of them?” It doesn’t work that way.
[a few posts coming … this situation is not a one-off in the horse world, breeders and others who accumulate numbers of horses can get into this situation and it is a challenge to those who care about horses to know what to do when we see the damage to the horses … ]
Hoarding, essentially. Guessing a lot of uncontrolled breeding. Offspring without clear parentage. Beyond knowing that they are from that lot of horses.
So, some interested Morgan-lovers are all about rescuing the ‘foundation bred’ horses. Even the horses for which no pedigree can be established? No registration? Because the situation has deteriorated to where there is no longer any control over them, and no real record-keeping?
Someone said that crochety owner hasn’t been registering them. As someone said, they are grade. Can they contribute any longer to the breed?
Hopefully those rallying to the rescue are fully aware and fully prepared to truly rescue these horses. All best wishes to them, I deeply hope they succeed.
There should be a law or something that allows someone, some agency, to report and step into a situation that is developing like this into hoarding / overpopulation, with no control and inadequate care – unaltered males and females together, random births, ineffective or no training. Horses produced from these situations don’t have a good chance at a good future.
This is a problem that can start small, but goes exponential, very quickly. And the horses’ problems become so endemic to each horse that there is no undoing the harm. Plus many other people can be affected by the situation on the problem horse property, as well as the problem horses.
When certain criteria are met, seize the uncared for, untrained, uncontrolled breeding, horses and get them into responsible homes. And do it long before there are 86 of them with no clear pedigree, no training, no place to go. Essentially classic kill pen fodder, next stop Mexico. If no one steps in for them.
A watch list for breeders and other owners falling into these circumstances. This can happen to almost any horse breeder, or anyone who regularly acquires horses, large or small scale. If there are financial reverses, or mental health issues making for bad decisions (or no decisions), or an owner aging beyond their ability to provide care, or other situations. It is so easy for it to become this. So much faster than the owner/breeder imagines that it can.
So very sad for the horses and for all involved humans.
Thank you, @quietann , and all of those sharing details of the situation for these horses.
There should be agencies that step in for all kinds of things, problems with animals and problems with people. We are fairly proactive with children, but in general for adults, and adults with animals, it’s kind of laissez faire.
Horse overpopulation and lack of care tends to grow slowly, things can be getting by, and then it’s very often in winter (or in drought) that the whole house of cards caves in.
A lot depends on how well funded and zealous the local animal control entity is.
I just want to say that while things have gone downhill relatively recently, probably since the owner had a stroke in 2022, this was originally a well-thought-out, careful breeding program. He was breeding this stock for over 20 years and produced some very nice horses. It breaks my heart that he didn’t plan for a health catastrophe and that this is how he will be remembered.
I know people have wondered why he didn’t reach out earlier for help, and all I can say about that is that sometimes with older people it’s just hard. My in-laws are in poor health and my mother-in-law has dementia. My father-in-law refuses to put their names on the waiting list for assisted living. He thinks things are “fine” as they are. All we can do is wait for the $h!+ to hit the fan. Thank goodness they don’t have animals.
Like property foreclosure auctions. The vast majority of the foreclosure auction properties go unsold, with or without auction attendees. The process of the auction that doesn’t sell a property transfers ownership to the foreclosing party.
The auction process - sold or unsold - clears some other claims on the property, but doesn’t always clear all other liens (e.g. mechanic’s lien). The other liens may make it not worth it to a potential buyer.
Wonder how much 86-horse owner owes for feed and hay. The farrier. The vet. These people may be left out of ever getting what they are owed, once ownership is transferred elsewhere. (IF the horses are getting farrier, vet, feed, hay … When any grass is insufficient for their nutritional needs. But there may be old unpaid bills.)
I take it that Peterson is the one holding the debt and behind the auction.
Is Peterson required to take a payment to settle the lien, from the current owner, or from anyone who might offer immediate payment?
If so, that could stop his strategy to become the owner of the horses and take control of their future sale. If the lien was settled before auction, the ownership of the horses would likely stay with the current owner. The issues with the status quo would roll forward, not solving Peterson’s problems.
All that said … I am a little surprised that anyone wants ownership of 86 horses, many not tame to handle (maybe most). With no breeding records, no registrations.
Some, I’m sure, have their paperwork and can be sold and more than settle what is owed. Although those sales are time-consuming, resource intensive, and basically a lot of work. Many professional volume sellers do not like selling ‘custom items’ individually because of that. (The kill pens have made a science out of it, though.)
BUT – almost certainly, many of these horses will be ‘surplus to needs’, as it were. With no real future in the horse world. Unless breed rescuers step up for them. That may or may not happen for all that aren’t sold to other homes, as there could be considerably more than there are places that will give them a future life.
The remainders are remainders because they are the hardest to sell/rehome. I’m guessing that – if Peterson is able to take ownership and sell or rehome what he can – the remaining horses will end up as ‘pasture cleanout’ to a kill pen.
Just comparing with what I know …
Any (real estate) property with notice for auction may be pulled from the auction at any moment. Before the auction starts. Even right up until the bidding starts on that property.
Someone may be attempting to pay enough to stop the sale. A change in status can happen in the lender’s back office to settle or delay the sale. I’m not sure if that is totally at the lienholder’s discretion, because there may be some legal requirements on the foreclosing entity to accept some level of payment.
That may or may not apply to livestock, as the laws I’m slightly more familiar with focus on people losing their homes. Although livestock is often someone’s living.
Often pulling real estate properties from auction, accepting full or partial payment to stop/delay the auction, is because the lender doesn’t want to end up owning the property when no one buys it (the usual outcome). Regardless of many stereotypes that they do. They’d rather collect the $ over time as long as $ are coming in barely sufficient quantity.
But in this case it seems that Mr. Peterson does want to own these horses so that he can move forward to next steps.
That’s going to be interesting with individuals and groups rallying to buy these horses at auction. OR coming up with an agreement to settle the debt and stop the auction. I do not know what Mr. Peterson is or is not required to do if those offers come to settle the debt.
At property auctions – I’ve seen properties pulled while the auction was in progress, bidding underway for other properties ahead of them on the auctioneer’s list. There is a communication between the auctioneer and foreclosing entities throughout many auctions - sell or pull ??? Drama. 
But that doesn’t mean that will be the case for these horses – dunno. Drama here, too.
I understand this completely. Peterson has a much larger problem than the bill currently owed. He has the problem of 86 uncared-for horses on his property with no plan for them.
The problem cycles and increases in $ amount every month with an unpaid or partially paid bill.
Non-paying rental tenants say “I’ll pay next week! Next payday!” etc. But if they couldn’t afford one month’s rent, how can they afford the two-months-total that is now past due? Three months? Four months?
Once they are behind in payments, people just fall deeper and deeper into the hole.
Mr. Peterson definitely has a massive problem with 86 horses with an owner not paying the bill. Good luck to Mr. Peterson and to the horses. I hope the current owner is able to find a way forward in life with no horses.
This is a story as old as time, and I am deeply sympathetic. On top of everything else, very often the increasingly impaired adult retains legal control over their possessions and finances. It is very, very hard to shift control to others (grown children, even a spouse, etc.).
The laws in this country are not at all pro-active on these issues. It is usually up to the increasingly mentally impaired adult themselves to make the decisions to transfer control. The more their mental situation deteriorates, the less likely they are to do this.
To get a medical reason, they usually have to consent to a diagnosis - and often three are required, from three different physicians (who know they aren’t qualified for it and are reluctant, unless they are specialists in cognition).
UNLESS they end up as a patient in the ER making no sense when talking to the doctors. That is how my mom got her required “three diagnoses” from three doctors who convened to assess her situation during her ER visit.
This I don’t know, I’ve never seen an Agister’s lien get to that point. The times I’ve seen it used (and have used it myself) the horse owner definitely abandoned the horse(s), the lienholder just has to go through the process because that’s the law and they want to sell the horse to recoup their costs.
Unsure of this part as well. I would assume that if the current owner, who owes the debts, pays off the lien, then yeah they’d keep ownership of the animals. But if someone else pays it? Idk. I saw a Facebook post with some info about someone apparently attempting exactly this, paying off the lien, but then taking the horses themselves, so I guess they’re expecting that their payment would get them ownership, not leave ownership with the current owner. I have no idea if they can even offer, or if the lienholder is obligated to take the payment if it’s offered by anyone other than the current owner. 
Will certainly be interesting to watch this all play out.
Undoubtedly. Their only real option is to take the horse owner to small claims court, no matter what happens with the future ownership of these horses.
I can’t even imagine. The process was frustrating enough for just one horse. 86 abandoned souls?? Insane.
I guess there’s a teeny silver lining - this Peterson Ranch appears to be an 8000+ acre property (if my Googling is correct), so perhaps Mr Peterson can accommodate this number of horses for a short time fairly “easily” and be able to recoup what he’s lost while still finding good homes for them.
I think this depends on local laws. In my limited experience, the lienholder HAS to auction - this is another safeguard against working some deal with someone that wants the property.
As far as cognitive decline and lack of planning…we are dealing with this now in the small company I work for.
As the story goes…
Owner 1 started the company and sold controlling shares to son (Owner 2). Owner 2 IMMEDIATELY kicked Owner 1 out of the company. Hence, Owner 2 was reluctant to sell controlling shares to son (Owner 3). Also, Owner 2’s entire identity seemed wrapped around the company as he showed up to work every day, insisted on being part of meetings and decisions and at 80+…maybe it’s time to enjoy that boat you own…
So what happened? Well last spring he had some health issues and ended up home/hospital. Showed up to office once at the end of the summer. Then had a stroke middle of November and is currently still unable to speak…working on recovering but wife has been infirm for a while so both need constant care now. On top of that, Owner 3 doesn’t have any power to make decisions or sign checks for company. Luckily, the employee Owner 2 had hired and has been there for 40 years and WAS planning to retire, does have some of the power needed to run the company.
So, on top of 4th quarter being our busiest season, it’s busier because of enacting new state regulations, and Owner 3 is dealing with the personal and professional issues with Owner 2’s health issues.
It’s a mess but no animals involved.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
