Interestingly, a friend had a horse that they adopted from a rescue. Papers came with the horse. The owner on the papers (Amish) was dead. She called his widow, and asked for a transfer, and she said that she didn’t know if he had sold the horse to her or not. He was a dealer, and had literally sold hundreds and probably thousands of horses. ASHA said nope.
The do have a new rule in place to help rescues.
I understand your point, and perhaps with a bill of sale things are different, but the ASR depends on transfers.
Yes, it is all down to associations which are private entities. In my case, KWPN had already transferred the horse’s papers to me, no problem. Because the horse was Lifetime registered with USEF, USEF rules applied to my show (USDF dressage). USEF wasn’t interested in KWPN’s opinion.
Legal ownership is totally separate.
This stuff is confusing. There is a lot of case law on these issues because it is hard to understand.
I should also, by now, reemphasize I am not a licensed attorney in NYS but I have a law degree from Harvard, am licensed to practice law in 3 states, and have almost 2 decades of experience in litigation matters and 15 years in association work. In other words, I am very well trained in figuring out what is law and what are private rules of an association.
I think you are a very good faith actor in this discussion. While I disagree on whether I want this person to get the horses back, you have been very straightforward and I appreciate that. It is nice to be able to discuss with you. I am happy to say when I am wrong, like when I thought the $4500 was for horse care instead of rent. I just don’t like what I see here for the horses in the original owner’s care.
Thank you! I know that we do not always agree, however, I have always respected your opinion. You aren’t being petty, and you are well intended. It’s OK to not agree! It’s those of us on COTH who can still be respectful that make it worthwhile to come back to.
I knew that it was a heavy lift to try and find someone, but hope does spring eternal.
@fordtraktor. Thank you for stepping into this fray. Have read your posts for years. Sorry but this whole thread has a hoarder vibe. The breeding shut down my interest in the back story. pick pick pick at the people who pulled the final plug. Who the hell keeps breeding horses when they’re seriously behind the 8 ball?? It’s gross. And wrong.
I really think some horse people are addicted to breeding–I know more than a few barns that complain they have no money, breed horses (even in a small program), hardly sell the products of the program, and keep doing it.
What is the redress the owner is seeking? Does she want the horses back? Where would she keep them? Or does she want financial compensation for them?
Thank you, I don’t wade into too many hot topics these days, but it was 19 degrees here with blowing snow, so after my 2 hours of chores AM and PM I have had time to dig into this one, which interested me because of the legal and horse aspects. For my work I also do background investigations so it was interesting to me to look into the online record behind the parties and this situation. I have tried to be fair. There are always 2 sides to everything, but based on the law and tracing back publicly available online information I am not comfortable with this person’s management of the horses.
Stay warm ! This is probably one of those no good deeds things here going unpunished. I generally don’t comment on these type of threads. Just wanted to assure you on the outside this thing looks like a massive fustercluck.
Back to the topic of questionably removed horses and subsequent sales at auction.
Scenario 1> If the horses were removed without proper, legal, documented authorization, then they were stolen by gentlemen Therefore, the horses must be reasonably returned to the original owner. The gentleman should be compelled to respond to question as to why, how and by who’s direction he took them. ( there must be legal remedies in NY when horses are stolen)
Scenario 2 > If gentleman had what he believed to correct legal direction to “remove” and hold horses for a fee of $20 per horse per day, he also had the duty to provide proper care. IF he took them to auction for moneys he alleges owed to him by original owner ( S.N.?) for board and care and transport, then, any auction sales money paid to him in excess of what $$ he claims original owner owes for care, should be given to orig. owner.
Thus , if he charged $12,000 for 20 horses for 30 days
1) And received $20K at auction, he owes S.N. $8,000 from auction sales plus difference of true value of horses.
2) if received $30K at auction, he owes $18,000 from auction sales plus difference of true value.
I’m certain that value of horses sold is significantly more than $1,000 - $1,500 each. (and price of mares w foals by side)
I’m only addressing the 20 +/- horses mentioned and a purchase price mentioned.
Please keep on topic of horses taken by gentleman (as alleged agent or ??) and sold at auction. Reasonably guessing that auction proceeds were payed to gentleman ( less their fee).
Can see my previous post #214 on subject above asking about N.Y. law in regards to selling for $$ owed and owing surplus/overpayment to alleged debtor.
This is a one issue post - hoping for insight as per N.Y. law on selling horses for more than allegedly owed.
The tenant issues, rescue’s issues are NOT part of this post.
PS. horses in very good condition and esp. nursing mares can decline massively in 30 days of poor quality feed or inadequate amount of feed to look as pictured in auction pics.
I will differ with you, and say that horses with no show records, in some cases no registration, possibly no training, and basically out of a back yard breeding situation, are likely not going to fetch much if anything at auction. If they are too skinny for the meat man, they have almost no market value.
It is shocking and humbling to see how little value horses can have when they start to fall through the cracks. This is one of the sources of delusion for backyard breeders and hoarders. They go around saying “that colt is worth $20,000” when in fact you probably couldnt give him away, no one needs him. And this is true of purebred horses too. What a given horse sells for all trained up and showing is not what an aged brood mare or feral yearling or scruffy pasture horse sells for even of similar breeding.
My guess on the order of events is this.
Horse owner missed the deadline to pay $4500 into escrow to stay on the property until September.
Property buyer ran out of patience and started the court ordered procedure to get the animals gone. Not exactly an eviction procedure since the horse owner was not living there.
Posters have said local LE was present. I would assume that means the sheriff or bailiff contracted with Horse Dude Gentleman as someone with a stock truck and acreage to remove the horses.
We don’t know what paper was in the hands of the Sheriff or Bailiff when they arrived. Presumably they had some kind of warrant or court order.
Horse Dude takes horses. Later he communicates to horse owner that she can get them back if she pays boarding rate of $20 a day per head, which if it’s 35 horses, is $700 a day. For 6 weeks that’s over $30,000. She doesn’t have that kind of money. If she did, they wouldn’t be foreclosed.
Since the horse owner can’t afford to retrieve the horses, my guess is they are treated as abandoned and Horse Dude is permitted to auction them off to cover his expenses.
If the property was abandoned he may have no requirement to pay anything back to the horse owner. It may be more like salvage. You leave a bunch of old vehicles behind when you get foreclosed. The tow yard takes them. You have to pay a fee to get them back. If you don’t, the tow yard sells them after xx amount of time and keeps the cash.
Thank you, @M this is exactly my issue with this.
My question is who is Horse Dude, and what are his qualifications that (insert legal agency) contracted him to come, transport and then hold theses privately owned, not legally seized horses? Under what authority?
What oversight and by whom, does he operate under while operating in this manner?
Who decides that fee, $20/day, is appropriate?
Shouldn’t that be communicated to Owner before the horses are removed?
(2)- So Horse Dude had them six weeks?
Frankly, having looked at the images purported to be the Horse Owners leased property (lush grass) and where Horse Dude was keeping them (mud and pale looking hay) I’m not sure $20 a day is an appropriate amount to pay for those conditions. And it appears to me that it may actually be set that high to serve as a means to make it impossible for the Owner to retrieve them.
What if there had been a vet emergency with any one, or several of the animals, when being cared for by Horse Dude, under the direction of (insert agency)? Honestly, this all just sounds like a really bad idea.
*Isn’t there a legal process for that?
Re “proper, legal documented authorization:” If the horses were removed as property abandoned by a tenant, then there would be no record of the transfer in the legal records even if the new property owner did exactly what they were supposed to. There does not appear to be a law that specifically addresses property in this situation, but standard practice according to NY attorneys is to either serve the tenant notice or send notice to the tenants last known address via certified mail.
Given that the horse owner knew the cost being charged per head and the date of the upcoming sale, it is likely that she did receive notice. But as long as the property owner or person holding the horses sent notice via certified mail (even if the former tenant never received it), the property owner/barn owner has met the legal requirements and it would not be noted in public record anywhere.
(This might be an avenue the horse owner can look into if she finds an attorney willing to take the case – if the property owner can’t provide proof of the certified mailing, then she may be liable for any damages the horse owner can prove. And if the horses were seized under a stableman’s lien rather than as abandoned property, then it looks like that would have had to have been documented by the court, so if the person holding the horses did not go through every step of the process, that would potentially make him liable. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LIE/201-A)
Re ”true value,” historically, the best way to determine the fair market value was to sell at public auction. That’s why some state’s lien laws specifically require that property be sold at public auction. These horses, at the time of sale, could not be sold as registered so their fair market value is whatever they sold for as grade horses.
(The horse owner could try to claim what she believes to be their true value but she would be the one with the burden of proof. Given that the horses value was established by public auction, she’d probably need to counter with independent appraisals, then prove that she had intended to transfer registration to the new owners. I think this is a long shot, but it wouldn’t hurt for the horse owner to pay for a few hours consultation with a good attorney. It’s possible that even attorneys who have refused to take her case would be willing to spend a few hours advising the horse owner on the law and possible options or a realistic assessment of the situation, at least.)
“Can see my previous post #214 on subject above asking about N.Y. law in regards to selling for $$ owed and owing surplus/overpayment to alleged debtor.” There does not appear to be a specific NY law regarding handling abandoned property after an eviction, but the reasonable action would be for the property owner to return any money left over to the horse owner. The NYS lien law regarding proceeds for animals sold to satisfy a lien is here: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LIE/204
Incidentally, if the horses were moved to another barn to be “stored” around August 26, then weren’t sold until around Oct 13, that’s 49 days. More than the 30 days generally given and plenty of time to meet the notice (via certified mail) requirements. Unfortunately for the horse owner, I don’t think there’s any avenue to get the sold/rehomed horses back through any civil action. And it sounds like local law enforcement won’t pursue it as a case of stolen horses (and by all indications, shouldn’t). Still, I think it would be worth it to the horse owner to pay for a consultation by an attorney so that she fully understands the applicable laws and can make an informed decision about how/if to proceed.
I feel we know some of the same people! Not just with horses but also with tack and other equipment. I once saw someone insist that a cracked, slippery, unpadded saddle from the 90s was worth $5,000 because it was a Hermes.
What exactly is the redress the horse owner is demanding? If she wants the horses back, does she have provisions for their care? This is relevant at least in terms of my sympathies (I’m not a lawyer) because a big difference between getting a horse back versus a car after being taken away due to finances is the question of what will happen to a living animal after the fact. Or does she just want money?
“Posters have said” is not actually proof that LE was present.
I’ve seen situations where a special sale is set up, for herds of horses with a niche (stock horses, Arabs, etc)
In fact Unadilla actually had one recently.
Or in what capacity.
Were they simply there to assure no one went ballistic, or officially to facilitate and direct the seizure.
Or is she legally due whatever was collected from the sale of the horses at Unadilla and the missing horses, above/beyond the debts owed… And if not, why not?
If you seize something for debt of $100 and sell it for $200… That extra $100 is mine
The horse owner posted the name of the man who picked up the horses on her Facebook page.
“what are his qualifications that (insert legal agency) contracted him to come, transport and then hold theses privately owned, not legally seized horses? Under what authority?
What oversight and by whom, does he operate under while operating in this manner?”
If these horses were being handled as abandoned property, then under landlord/tenant laws, the new farm owner can have abandoned property stored. In some cases, they could have it transferred to a storage warehouse (with the former tenant being responsible for the costs) or, in the case of horses, they can have the horses moved to a facility that can care for them (again, with the tenant being responsible for the costs). Every source I’ve read says that there is no NYS law addressing this (except possibly for certain commercial property), but that standard practice is for the landlord to send the tenant notice via certified mail, store the former tenant’s property for 30 days, then dispose of it, with any leftover proceeds from the sale going back to the tenant. (I have no idea if any notice was sent but it would not be public record.)
If the horses were sold under the NYS stableman’s lien, then the person holding the horses would have had to get authorization by the court.
The person holding the horses would have been authorized to take them by the new owners of the property, who were responsible for the care of the horses until they were either picked up by the former tenant or were sold.
(I know this conversation has wandered into the condition of the horses, but this does not appear to be a seizure. It was storage of perishable property.)
“Who decides that fee, $20/day, is appropriate?” I know that in my area, $20/day is a reasonable fee for short-term boarding. In fact, the few barns I know that do short-term board actually charge more for mares with foals. Is it cheaper in NY?
“Shouldn’t that be communicated to Owner before the horses are removed?” The horse owner will be responsible for the cost of caring for the horses, regardless. If the new farm owner had been willing to keep and care for the horses on site, they could have charged whatever the reasonable short term fee is and if that’s $20 in that area, then the horse owner would still have been liable for that cost to the new property owner. But if the new property owner can’t or isn’t willing to do the day-to-day care of the horses, then they can have them moved to a “storage facility” until the horse owner pays the costs and picks them up, or until the new property owner can legally sell them (which appears to be 30 days after providing notice), whichever comes first.
Re the cost: $20 is pretty standard field-board cost for short term boarding in my area. It might be somewhat cheaper in that part of New York, but I think it’s unlikely that the courts would find that unreasonable if the horse owner tried to challenge it.
“What if there had been a vet emergency with any one, or several of the animals, when being cared for by Horse Dude, under the direction of (insert agency)?”
First, it’s pretty clear that the horses were not moved under the direction of any agency on humane grounds, but were instead likely moved under the direction of the new property owner (and if the usual standards for property abandoned after eviction apply, she had the authority to do so).
Second, there is always a risk that a horse could become ill or injured, regardless of who is caring for it. Ultimately, the horse owner would be responsible for the costs of any vet and/or farrier care. I have no idea if the new property owner was perfectly accurate in her assessment, but in one of her court filings she said that the property was in disrepair, the fencing was bad and horses escaped repeatedly, and that two horses had died on the property prior to the eviction so I think it’s unlikely that any court would say that she didn’t have the right to have the horses boarded elsewhere while she was waiting for the horse owner to pick them up. (But of course, that’s something the horse owner should discuss with an attorney).
I do hope the horse owner finds an attorney who will at least provide a few hours of work and consultation so that if there are any legal avenues to pursue, she’ll at least know what she needs to do to move forward.
The horse owner would be due any proceeds from the sale, minus the cost of care. The problem is that the horse owner would have to prove that the horses were worth more than what they sold for, and given that the horses could not be sold as registered, I think she’ll have a hard time proving that they actually were worth more at the time of sale.
I understand all that.
I’m asking if this is how it was considered
I’m not sure that is legally accurate.
Wouldn’t there have to be documentation of that process initiating, before removal, and then approval to sell it at some point… somewhere??
A Stablemens lien, after she had no choice in where they went and was charged $20/day for a muddy field with a roundbale… For only a few weeks??
That just blows my mind…
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
