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?
If its not boarding, what was it?
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.
So this post bothers me.
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.
**[quote=“FoxyFizz, post:68, topic:778980, full:true”]
Stop commenting. It’s embarassing.
She paid rent from 2019-2022 to the Owner of the property (Mark O’Malley).
90 days is the statutorily required amount of time in the State of NY.
No one said anything about Pro Bono - you are making many assumptions.
[edit]
[/quote]
But he was her spouse or partner?
So here is your timeline. It looks like the original eviction notice stands and horse owner did not pursue her appeal of being a squatter.
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.
Meant to copy this.
Meant to copy this.
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.
Also, if someone is struggling to produce $4500, how can they support all those horses?
fordtraktorSchoolmaster
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.
With apologies that this has to be said with a heart of pure frost - pictures or it didn’t happen. Photos in some way validated to be the foal, the trailer, the date, the location, etc.
Not only does it have to be proven that the foal died but also that it existed in the first place. If it is documented that the mare did have a foal at side, and that she was taken with the foal, and that she arrived at the destination but the foal didn’t, that’s a start. But this is being recounted anecdotally and no documentation is being mentioned.
What people are sure or know happened just isn’t going to matter to her getting some or all of the horses back. No matter the stature of the people making the claims.
I do not know if this former tenant/occupant is using emotion and manipulation to solve her legal & equine problems – but a lot of what is coming out about her side is beginning to sound that way to me.
The laws on property left behind are all over the place from one state to another. Vastly different in many cases. On this point, what one state does is not much of an indication of the law in another state.
A friend who is a citizen of another country says “It is the United States in name only.”.
fordtraktorSchoolmaster
FoxyFizz
So this post bothers me.
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”….
Where are you located exactly? I am a judge in the Town where I live. A town court has jurisdiction over summary proceedings for that town. I am not permitted to appear before other attorney judges in the County where I am seated as a judge.
I will be happy to share the exact ethical responsibilities for town court judges.
My role as town court judge is a part time position. I am permitted to derive an income as an attorney in the State of New York.
I find your level of scrutiny very concerning in that you have questioned now my ethics, truthfulness and knowledge of the law at every step. I now recall why I left COTH more than 10 years ago and never looked back-
The point of the post was to find an attorney to assist the Tenant. Nothing more. The point has failed miserably.
My obvious bias? I hate to see people wronged - What I cannot reason is your apparent bias in everything the OP has stated and anything I have said.
For the record, you can see court records as a Guest - you apparently are not particularly gifted with websites. I am a guest on the site and all records are public.
For the record, you can see court records as a Guest. I am a guest on the site and all records are public.
Yes, that’s why I’ve been trying to find the NYS law, if it exists. Someone upthread said that their state requires landlords to hold property for 6 months. Versus VA, where the property can be put out in the curb in 24 hours (live animals excluded, I assume.)
In any case, this situation is a mess.
I don’t have pictures. I have an acquaintance that works at the sale with the onsite veterinarian. She saw the foal and saw that it was deceased.
I honestly have gotten to the point with this post where I regret having ever commented here.
I absolutely wish you all well and hope that you never find yourself in a bad position legally or financially, but if you do, I hope it all comes back to you times 10.
The appeal continues in the Tompkins County Court. I provided the link. If it doesn’t work, google it. Tompkins County Clerk, online records and the case number.
[quote=“Scribbler, post:555, topic:778980, full:true”]
The farm was foreclosed, sold, and on May 6 the new owners served a ten day eviction notice on a family member of the previous owner who was still ensconced with a large herd of horses. I’m going to guess that you don’t go ahead and serve a ten day eviction notice on people who are moving out in a timely manner. The person had likely already overstayed a first notification to leave.
The person still doesn’t leave, initiates an appeals process claiming to be a tenant of previous owner, but fails to follow through on this process because it’s not true that she was a tenant plus she has no money for the appeal. It’s just to delay and obstruct.
On August 26, so more than 4 and a half months after the original ten day eviction notice was served, and a week after the stay of eviction is lifted because horse owner didn’t do her part, the bailiff or sheriff or whatever descend on the farm and take the horses as part of the eviction process. It’s not clear if horse owner and/or foreclosed boyfriend were still actually living there or if they had moved out but left the horses behind.
Sorry, not a timeline that generates a great deal of sympathy for me. The farm buyers basically lost a whole summer fighting these deadbeat former owners in court.
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
