It matters a lot if he was the property owner?
1 Like
Well I am, in the US and actually in the same state… And I know the rescue people in that area who have gotten action on cases.
The bottom line, it appears many people knew, and even documented the neglect* and did nothing to alert authorities. But now we’re supposed to accept that the neglect happened in her hands… 
*Neglect at someone hands, but who knows, since the guy who had the animals between this woman custody and arriving at the auction had them, according to Kr, for months and they look poorly at the sale wearing sale tags (months after leaving her custody)
the woman who they were taken from was upset with the situation, and one might assume that was because they weren’t getting proper care.
2 Likes
Because he and her were evicted and you act like her horses just disappeared. She KNEW where they went and that she was to pay board. I mean you claim she was paying rent so what’s the difference. And before defending someone make sure you have seen ALL the court documents. No one did anything wo the proper paperwork even down to the auction.
No, not if he’s not the owner of the horses.
My husband can’t sell or give away my horse.
Because I own it.
1 Like
Not if he doesn’t have a court order of some kiind.
1 Like
But she didn’t contract for this-- and yes, it matters. You cannot make a contract for another person without legal documents being in place.
I haven’t seen any proof that these horses were in bad condition- if I had, I can assure you my feelings would be different. I have seen dated pictures of these horses looking great.
2 Likes
Clearly, you have the documents in hand, or you wouldn’t have bought the horses from the sale. Can you please post them so we can better understand this?
2 Likes
So why didn’t she file theft charges…oh wait…she tried and they told her she could not bc the removal of her horses was legal
1 Like
It was legal on what grounds?
.
2 Likes
I do not have them in my possession, but they are in the hands of people who clearly understand the law and how it applies to this case.
1 Like
Matters to the storyline here is what I meant.
I am assuming she had been given a certain amount of time to vacate her property from the premises. She vacated but the horses stayed. Once that time elapsed the new owners were given permission by court to remove her property. I don’t think people understand that she was given every opportunity and afforded time that she should not have had. The new owners of the property are horse owners themselves so not heartless.
From end of August to october
Assuming isn’t helpful… I believe a tenant has 30 days to remove property after an eviction.
Was she given 30 days after leaving?
1 Like
OK so she moved out but left her horses on the property. Missed an opportunity to have the deadline for the horses extended by not paying $4500?
My understanding from every barn drama thread on COTH is that the laws on tenancy don’t apply to boarding horses.
Were there really 40 horses? If so did she move 20 and leave 20? Did half go elsewhere or is this exaggeration?
Even 20 is too much if you’re foreclosed on.
2 Likes
Response
May to end of August. That’s more than 30 days
This is the timeframe for what?
Are there any photos of the horses before they were removed from the property? Or before it was foreclosed upon?
1 Like
There were 41 horses. 17 went to the sale(4 w unregistered babies). I do not know for sure where the remainder are.
