OK. So how do us observers figure out which poster here is most accurate with the facts and details?
It does not appear to be disputed that the horse owner had an eviction notice, appealed, was given a deadline to pay a fee to the court in order to stay that eviction while appeal was herd, and failed to pay it, after which the eviction order went into effect.
Thing is you can’t just stay on a farm tats been foreclosed and sold out from under you. That’s just not how this works. The bank will be lax but the new owner wants you gone ASAP and with good reason.
That is the question - did they get a court order and have the horses moved legally, or did they take matters into their own hands and relocate them without due process?
It sucks to buy a property with tenants who aren’t paying, but that doesn’t mean you can do what you want with their stuff. In MA, she would be considered a tenant, and after going through the eviction process, if she left stuff behind the landlord has to pay to store the stuff for 6 months.
I am not sure what the law is for livestock. For pets, it is a felony to abandon them when you move, so law enforcement and AC are involved.
I’ve posted the information to search at the Tompkins County Clerk’s website.
The procedural rules for both foreclosure and eviction are very specific and rigid in NY and always benefit either the homeowner in foreclosure and the Tenant in an eviction proceeding. I know there was someone posting earlier on the thread that she worked in the Eviction part in NYC, she can confirm as to evictions.
Most foreclosures in NYS ordinarily take up to 6-8 years if the homeowner challenges the foreclosure (most homeowners attempt to work out a resolution with the bank) and there are required pre-trial conferences that take time to schedule. 6-8 is the general information I give bank clients. If it is not defended, it usually will take anywhere from 2-4 years (without any moratoriums for Covid).
Evictions- I counsel my clients that it is often easier and faster to offer the Tenant money to leave. It is more effective. Otherwise, a nonpayment eviction (at the rate we are going in NYS) can take years due to the requirements under ERAP. A Holdover proceeding - depends on the tenant and the court - right now the actions I have brought for clients is roughly 120 - 180 days to get a tenant out if they do not apply for ERAP (exponentially longer if they do).
There was an issue of fact as it relates to the eviction, thus the pending appeal.
If you would like to read the Eviction documents- it’s public record: Case No.: 2022-0162
There have been sales. In fact in September 2022, Kr was in active negotiations with the Tenant to trade a gelding for a mare. In fact, Tenant has sold a number of horses over the years, so it’s not simply that she was breeding indiscriminately. She had 19 broodmares on her farm when they were taken. Of those 6 mares had babies at their sides (if she was truly irresponsible - all 19 would have had babies and been rebred for next year). Kr was made aware of that fact prior to the sale as she demanded all of that information from the Tenant. Only 4 mares w/babies went to the sale - where are the remaining 2 babies?
We know 1 died in transport from wherever they had been held to the sale/auction; 1 is unaccounted for.
And that to me is the most important part of the entire story. None of the court documents indicate that Tenant received due process as to her property/horses. There was not enough time to proceed with a stableman’s lien process - and in fact, would have required a court proceeding to get the court order.
How is there no boarding arrangement?
They had her horses and were charging her $20/day to board them per … A *text she received, or some sort of arrangement.
If they weren’t boarding her horses, why did they transport them, place them at some guys farm, and *text her that she would owe $20/day/horse?
I know some people think that the horses could only be removed/sold under a stableman’s lien, but that would apply if the new property owner was trying to collect back board. The $4500 was for rent, not board (according to court docs), and it looks like the horses were handled as if they were abandoned property left over after tenants were evicted. Every resource I’ve found says that there is no law in NYS requiring an order for a landlord to sell tenant’s left-behind property, but maybe I’ve missed it? Do you know what NYS tenant law would require an order? And if you believe that the horses can only be sold under a stableman’s lien, why do you think that? What is the difference between horses and furniture, in terms of property left behind by evicted tenants? (Genuine questions! I’m not being snarky, I’m just really curious about what the law actually is and which law would apply.)
Incidentally, I looked up VA residential landlord/tenant law and here, evicted tenants only have 24 hours to remove personal property. (§ 55.1-1255. Authority of sheriffs to store and sell personal property removed from residential premises; recovery of possession by owner; disposition or sale.) No court order required. If the property is sold, any proceeds left over after costs and debt are subtracted go back to the tenant. (Obviously, live animals aren’t going to be put out on the curb with the rest of the evicted tenant’s personal property, but the point is that in VA, property left behind by evicted tenants can be disposed of quickly and without a court order. Notice is required, but not for evictions, and even when notice is required, the property can be disposed of 10 days after the landlord gives notice, if they aren’t sure if the property has been abandoned or not.)
This is VA law regarding property left behind by evicted tenants: “If the landlord receives any funds from any sale of such remaining property, the landlord shall pay such funds to the account of the tenant and apply the funds to any amounts due the landlord by the tenant, including the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in the eviction process described in this section or the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in selling or storing such property.” It’s standard in those states where there are laws governing the disposal of property that was left behind after eviction, the owner is liable for the costs of storage. In the case of livestock, the costs of storage would be boarding/vet/farrier fees. The question might be, what is “reasonable,” but in VA, $20/head for short term board would be considered reasonable. And I think VA law is pretty typical in that the property owner has no say in where the property is stored, other than the question of reasonable costs.
There is no NYS law regarding property left behind after eviction, but it sounds like landlords are expected to store property for a “reasonable” amount of time for the evicted tenants to reclaim it. It’s standard for the owner to owe for the costs of care that accrue until they pick up their animals or until the animals are sold.
I seize animals as part of my job. Completely different situation, but when I seize animals or a group of animals, I transfer them as soon as possible to an appropriate facility for care while the seizure is pending. The owner can’t choose where the animals go (and will not be told where the animals are going) and the owner is responsible by law for all costs incurred for their care. And I seize under civil forfeiture law, so court orders aren’t required. (But again, totally different situation, other than that the owner is responsible for all costs until ownership is transferred to my agency. And yes, civil forfeiture is arguably unfair and the process may be changed in the future, but at this point it’s legal.)
This link is glitching for me. If you could cut and paste the foreclosure notice that would be very useful for all of us.
So we know foreclosure happened in 2019, and there was probably a bunch of bank discussions happening prior to that.
Once the foreclosure happens the bank owns your house. They can evict if they want, but these days many banks can’t be bothered. However, once the house sells, the new owner is going to want the old owner out ASAP. I honestly don’t see how the girlfriend partner spouse of the foreclosed owner can claim to be a legacy tenant. She was never a tenant. Nevertheless the court called her bluff and said “we will stay this eviction and consider your claim if you put up $4500 in escrow” which I assume would be towards rent if she was deemed a tenant. You can’t claim to be a tenant and refuse to pay rent.
If the foreclosure happened in 2019 but then movement stopped for Covid these folks have been sitting on the farm paying neither mortgage nor rent for 3 years. This is typical of slow moving foreclosures. There were crazy stories after the 2008 housing meltdown where it wasn’t even clear what financial entity held the loan, because of how subprime loans were chopped up and sold. So you can get away with staying put until suddenly you can’t anymore.
I still think that the relevant law they are working with is going to be akin to abandoned property or to stray animals on someone elses property.
There are several points here.
Was the foreclosure and sale done correctly by the bank? No suggestion this was done wrong.
Was the eviction order sought by the new owner done correctly? The horse owner was given the choice to fight this in court but failed to put up the fees requested by the Court. So the eviction order was considered valid because of that. By not continuing with the Court challenge, the horse owner accepted that she was not a legal tenant and would not pursue this further. So the property buyers claim she is a squatter and needs to be evicted is unchallenged.
It’s unclear if the horse owner had moved household goods before the horses were seized. There is no mention of these.
However, since the horse owner has chosen not to pursue the argument that she is a legal tenant, she is open to be turfed off the property along with her belongings.
It is not her property. She has no legal standing. She has waived her right to pursue this through the courts. The original eviction notice is valid with everything it entails.
I get that it came faster than she expected, perhaps.
If you are a judge, why are you counseling clients? It is a breach of your ethical responsibility to have clients as a sitting judge in every jurisdiction I am aware of. It’s one thing if you said “when I was in private practice I counseled clients X”….
I know a lot of judges as close personal friends, and none of them would play this fast and loose with their ethical responsibilities on a random online forum. I hope you will clarify this issue because I find it very concerning.
I won’t go into your obvious bias here.
For the record, I can’t see the documents in the court records as a guest. I can see what has been filed but none of the detail.
This seems to just be not true given what we now know. If one is a lawyer and judge at any level of court one needs to be very careful to figure out the truth.
I had this exact situation when a property that I was managing went into foreclosure as the borrower wasn’t making payments. Once the options were explained to them, they left on their own, fortunately.
They left behind a Mercedes (and a lot of trash). We could see many personal belongings inside it. (I made sure no one touched the car.) Contacted the previous residents and gave them a deadline (at least 7 days with a weekend) to move the car. They said someone would move it. No one did. It sat. I checked with our attorney, and then because it is a small county and it pays to be on the right side of local opinion, I called the sheriff to ask what to do. They both said I had followed the proper procedure, so call the towing company to come get it.
The towing company was happy to take it and knew just what to do re legal ownership transfer. Something along the lines of what Scribbler describes. I never heard anything more about it. Yay.
Had the car owners done whatever they needed to do to move it when they moved out, or if they had done this after I alerted them, that was their cheapest $$ point to keep it. Once the towing company had it, it was several hundred $$$ more costly to get it back. After that I’m sure it went to auction (just like the horses) and it would sell for $$$$$ market value – so still more costly had they wanted to recover it.
At every step the cost to recover it escalated dramatically.
Just validating Scribbler’s description with a real life example.
In a complicated process like this, if you want to keep what you own, you cannot fail to act while the clock is running. Whatever else are the rights and wrongs, in the end it comes down to that.
Regardless of any errors that may or may not have occurred in the process. This horse owner did not do what was necessary at many points while the clock was ticking and this is the result.
Random thought – Guessing that in a hypothetical situation where the former owner did have a chance to get the horses back legally, even if she wasn’t required to buy them or reimburse the rescue’s purchase cost, she is still going to have to pay some daily rate for their care during the time since they left the property. For all of the days or some of the days. A court is going to require that, almost certainly.
As has already been mentioned about the cost of pre-auction time, a daily care rate for so many is going to be an astronomical total.
Months ago, when $4500 would have extended the horses’ time on the property, seems to have been the least expensive moment in the process. And she did not or could not pay it.
The very fact that she never came up with the $$$ at several points along the way to stop this journey indicates that she can’t possibly come up with even more $$$ for them now.
I have no idea what the legalities are of getting her horses back. But regardless I’m thinking it is a moot point by now, as guessing it is doubtful she can pay the cost of recovering them. Free legal help is the least of the challenges.
A stablemen’s lien would not be required because there is no boarding arrangement.
I"m referring to the person that removed the horses from the property and then sold at auction- apparently for unpaid board, despite the fact that there was no boarding arrangement and the lack of authority to sell them.
