So I worked for animal control for 22yrs and this doesn’t make any sense from how things are done in my state. If we had a criminal case going on we could not auction/adopt out the horses until the case was over. Especially if they were seized. Seized doesn’t mean you have custody, you have to go to court to obtain that. Also if there is a criminal case going on then to prove neglect from not being fed, you have to keep them in you custody to prove they could gain weight just by feeding them. It seems weird for them to be auctioned even if he signed them over without the criminal case being completed.
5 Likes
I feel like there are two very separate things going on here that are making it confusing.
The agister’s lien is what the auction was for, to cover the back board/land rent for these animals who it sounds like were basically abandoned where they were kept.
The cruelty/neglect case likely allowed the land owner to do the legal process to recoup what they had lost.
The horse owner lost ownership because of the lack of board/rent payments, not because of the cruelty case.
Now they are on to the cruelty case, where they want the horses kept in a location that they have access to them in case they need further information for their case.
4 Likes
The horse owner, assuming he is the one that paid the lien, still owns the horses - but does not have custody. The criminal case will determine whether he retains ownership.
The Hoskins Morgan case, mentioned above, shows the procedure in New York State. But I doubt that Mr Blatt had Beth Hoskins’ resources. Keep in mind IANAL.
She accumulated a large herd of Morgan horses (75 I think) including some well known show horses (the stallion Stony Hollow Ice Man bring the most notable.) But she kept these horses shut in stalls 24/7 with little care. A few breedings happened but she wasn’t registering the foals. This was a hoarding situation including cats and dogs too. In 2010, the animals were seized and charges were brought against her. The horses spent a few months in the care of a local humane society before being returned to her. In 2013/2014 she was charged again and this time convicted, and agreed to sell half of the horses. But she didn’t do this and was arrested for violating conditions of her parole. She spent 2 months locked up and during this time the horses were turned over to a receiver in early 2016 to disperse.
1 Like
It’s weird. But I gather if the auction had gone forward, the winner would have taken legal title to the horses, but not possession. They would have remained in the possession of the state as evidence in the criminal case until it was resolved.
2 Likes
The way I read it was simply that the horses could not leave the state. So they could take possession of them, keeping them in-state and allowing access to them as necessary for the investigation.
But if he never surrendered them (which it sounds like he didn’t) then he could lose and get them back. They use the word seized which is not a surrender. It all seems very backwards. Oh well. Hopefully they get him if they are in bad shape.
1 Like
I believe that is the correct understanding.
I did not find much in-depth, logically organized, information online about the laws in Montana concerning such situations. But most states follow a general concept of how liens, seizures, etc. claims against someone’s ownership of an asset will work out.
If this helps, this analogy might sort out a bit the way multiple claims against an asset will work.
This is a simplistic explanation. The real-life complications, legal and otherwise, can scramble this picture beyond recognition.
Claims - leins, seizures, foreclosures, etc., are anything that legally tries to take ownership away from the current owner and assign it to the party filing the claim.
Think of it as a queue (line) – the claims are lined up, one after the other.
The order of the queue is determined (by law & regulation) by 1) the nature of the claim, and 2) the nature of the party filing the claim. Some things & some parties have automatic precedence over certain others. Regardless of the order that they file their claims. It doesn’t matter that a party with precedence was the last to file, they still go to the front of the line.
-
Gov’t is almost always first in line by default. In this case, legally, the sheriff automatically has precedence over all other claims. In this case the sheriff filed first, but it would not have mattered if the sheriff filed after the board bill lien, the sheriff still has precedence. [Other examples of gov’t auto-first-in-line if they file on the asset: the IRS, property tax, etc., will come before a mortgage foreclosure, or an unpaid contractor. Do not buy that foreclosure property if it has an IRS and/or property tax lien against it.]
-
The claim at the front of the queue has first claim on the asset. Until that claim is worked through to resolution, ownership is not resolved. Then the next claim … then the next … and so on (very, very simplistic here).
Other claims behind the first in line may be resolved or adjudicated before claims ahead of it in line.
-
That is what has happened here – the unpaid board bill lien was resolved. In this case, with the lien paid up, the lienholder’s claim on ownership (Peterson) was released, and the horses’ ownership stayed with the original owner, Blatt.
-
But regardless of where ownership landed re the board bill lien, the sheriff’s claim is still there, because the sheriff (gov’t) is first in line.
-
So final ownership is not yet resolved. No resolution on ownership is final until the outcome of the sheriff’s claim is resolved.
Claims behind the first in line can wait a long time for a final answer – if ever! And the claimants have little control over the order of the claims, or how they are being resolved (or not), as it depends on the parties and factors of the other claims.
If the owner of an asset has multiple serious life problems, it is common for a situation to fall apart to the point that multiple claims will be filed against an asset. When personal finances start imploding, a lot of dominos can start falling because it takes money to do all the required things – pay bills, pay taxes, upkeep a physical asset, things required by various gov’t and business entities.
This is a very probable future for Westwind Morgans. There may be a longer queue of claimants to come. Their order in line is will depend on several factors. As will the potential of each of them getting at least some money from their claims.
Of course Peterson still has 86 horses, owned by someone else, on his property, being cared for by the humane society. That may be keeping him from using the property for other things. The board bill may soon be in arrears again. In fact, that seems inevitable, from what we know of the overall situation.
Peterson will no doubt be back with another claim or eviction or something to try to force those horses off his land – IF that is what he really wants as an outcome.
If Peterson truly wants to assume ownership of the horses, without purchasing the herd outright (if Blatt would sell), then he may try again with some sort of legal claim.
BUT … as of now … At the root of landowner/board-provider Peterson’s problem – apart from any current or future claims on the horses – if Blatt is the only owner/person who can legally sign to authorize a sale or any other settlement, and Blatt is either unwillng or unable to sign anything, as may be the case … then Peterson’s situation still has some messy legal steps to getting this settled to Peterson’s satisfaction.
It can happen that, if an owner is recalcitrant / uncooperative / behaviorally out of control, only the courts can decide. Peterson’s situation is not a good one.
Sadly, this ends up being the situation for so many messy situations where the owner of some asset has become unable to manage their own affairs effectively, but has not made or authorized provisions for someone else to step into that role. Things can be truly stuck at that point. It isn’t a pretty situation to resolve.
1 Like
Yes they were seized by the Sheriff, but that doesn’t mean she or the county owns them, just that she has custody of them while Blatt’s legal troubles are worked out. This is exactly what happened in Round 1 of the Hoskins case.
He apparently was either in Chicago with family or in the hospital when they were seized. The timeline isn’t very clear.
He could still get them back but it’s going to take some serious legal maneuvering. He owes money all over the county and beyond, and I doubt anyone around there wants him to have the horses back. It’s also not clear whether he is even living in the area anymore. The little bit of communication from him has made it clear that he doesn’t see the problem at all.
1 Like
I’m a little confused. I thought the only issue between Peterson and Blatt was the lien. So now that the lien has been paid, doesn’t that end Peterson’s involvement? Unless the horses are still on his property, there are mixed reports abd they may have been moved to the fairgrounds.
ETA I have since found out that they are still on Peterson’s ranch. The Sheriff is supposed to be responsible for their care and Blatt is supposed to be reimbursing her every 30 days but it’s obvious that isn’t happening. Also there are reports that the horses may be getting hay but not much else.
Clarifying - At this exact moment, based only on what I know from this distance, the horses belong to Blatt, and the only current known claim is the sheriff’s seizure.
According to the sheriff, Blatt actually isn’t the official owner while they are under seizure. That may be a technical truth, but in fact until Blatt’s case is adjudicated, the sheriff doesn’t really own them, either, beyond having the power of control. Maybe no one does until either the sheriff terminates the seizure, or else the court makes a ruling on the charges/claims, giving the horses back to Blatt, or severing Blatt’s ownership and handing them over to the sheriff.
Things can change fast in a situation like this. Everyone is under pressure, including people the public hasn’t yet heard from, who are concerned about significant money they are owed by Blatt.
Anyone who is owed money by Blatt and wants to make a claim for it needs to get moving and file it, soonest. A lot of ordinary providers of services and goods could be blocked by the court from filing after a sheriff’s claim is finalized by the court, assuming that’s coming. But if the claim of money owed is already filed, they may still be able to proceed against Blatt for monetary compensation, even after the horses are gone.
That’s what I was referring to as Peterson’s ongoing problem. IF the horses are still on his property – as it would seem that they are.
Nothing to do with the past to date – theoretically the lien settlement took care of that. It’s the next problem from here forward of a lot of horses and a non-paying owner. It all starts over again from here.
1 Like
This is the problem with that number of horses – where do the 86 of them go?
If the fairgrounds has the capacity for the horses, my guess is that it is far more difficult to care for them there. Whether they are stalled, or kept loose in arenas or other pens. If it were less than 10 horses maybe it’s not a big deal, but 86 in a more confined space than they are presently – eek.
If - as it seems - they are still on Peterson’s property, it may be because that is the easiest place to continue their care.
Horses and other animals are different from other seized assets because of the running cost of their care. Whoever is paying, however it is being provided, there is enormous pressure on the seizing agency and the courts to move forward to some sort of resolution.
Apparently Montana law even permits counties to sell seized livestock before the case is adjudicated – sounds alarming, but I do understand the cold logic behind it. It stops the running bills. The sale proceeds can reimburse costs to date, and and the remainder can go into escrow for the owner – once the court decides about that.
Just based on my limited experience with rescue, the best solution for the best care is to divide up the herd and send groups of horses to various locations and responsible persons for keeping. Splitting up the herd and relocating the horses may be complicated and expensive, but they will almost certainly receive much better care than the 86 of them together. Maybe multiple fairgrounds, or multiple private foster homes, or some combination.
I am not sure where reliable information on the latest Westwind Morgans events might be. The FB page for “saving Westwind Morgans” doesn’t seem to be that well informed. Wondering if any locals are even involved who can learn more through the county grapevine.
There have been a couple of locals commenting. Once I identify them, I take what they say more seriously. Also anyone who has done business with Blatt, or tried to.
1 Like
Oh, wanted to make a correction about something but it’s already been quoted.
Yes, the Sheriff can invoice Blatt every 30 days for the cost of caring for the horses – but 30 days hasn’t passed since she seized them; it was on 12/19.
1 Like
Guessing the sheriff’s invoices for cost of care – sounds like it’s invoicing after costs are incurred – will go on the stack of unpaid bills. But this bill will be owed to a gov’t entity. The gov’t could seize things to get their money. Eventually.
Mr. Blatt’s very deep hole is getting deeper by the day.
Assuming he was once a truly caring owner with a passion for these horses, this really is a very sad tale. But also something that happens to many people who aren’t able, or won’t, adjust to their changing personal situation. I feel for Mr. Blatt and for his family. And all the people feeling the pinch of his unpaid bills. And for the horses, most of all.
2 Likes
That is an INCREDIBLY good looking horse!
3 Likes
I certainly think so! He belongs to a friend who has done all sorts of things with him, truly showing the versatility of the Morgan (her trademark statement at our distance ride awards is “Morgan power!”).
I surely hope the herd gets the best possible soft landing.
5 Likes
AGREED! Love him.
1 Like
Latest update, someone in the Morgan world had a friend drive by Peterson’s ranch and take photos of the horses from the road. This is not all the horses, of course, but those up by the road look pretty good and some are even fat.
There’s a video that was added later of some horses further back, and some of those seem on the skinny side - but it’s a fuzzy video taken from far away.
I’m slightly amused by the people who are shocked that the horses have no shelter. That’s pretty normal for ranch horses in the area. Which is one of the reasons they’re so desirable for breeding - the ones that can survive a Montana winter are tough.
3 Likes
The photos of the hooves look pretty bad.
Sheilah
