NO, not stableman’s lien to remove the horses…stableman’s lien in order to sell them.
A Stableman’s lien by the person that took the horses and held them for $20/day and wouldn’t tell her where they were located. New owner should have been required to “store” tenant’s property for 30 days at New Owner’s cost per NY law.
It’s clear you don’t understand the process and I am done explaining it. That is simply not how an eviction proceeding works.
There was a chance that you might have found the legal assistance you wanted, so on behalf of your friend that was worth doing.
Otherwise COTH is not the place to come for a nice chime-in of agreement. There will be different perspectives and opinions. There will be deep dives into the backstory, there will be nitpicky unraveling of the details. That’s what a forum is. It isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
Choosing to stay and make additional points should be done in the spirit of discussion and exploration. Not thinking to persuade or find agreement, as that will be a disappointment.
It’s great if you want to continue discussing. But do so understanding that you will never like all of the answers, you will never persuade everyone, and just let it go without feeling frustration and anger. It isn’t worth stressing over.
But wasn’t that what the new owner was doing? Putting the property into specialized storage? They weren’t sold until after they’d been in storage for more than 30 days so what are you thinking was done incorrectly?
And you keep saying that the new owner must store property as per NY law - again, what law, specifically?
Well since the horse owner didn’t pay the 4500 needed to stay the eviction, the presumed back rent, the new property owner had already stored the horses on their property for an excess of 30 days free of charge and at a disclosed location. Then some “Gentleman” is contracted to collect the abandoned horses and offers them back to HO if she can pay for the cost of their care since in his possession. HO doesn’t pay; Gentleman dispositions the property. IMO it’s nice and tidy. Might be why there aren’t lawyers lining up to take the case.
I dunno but it’s pretty hard to muster a lot of sympathy when it’s clear the woman must have known her boyfriend was going into foreclosure 3 yrs ago. Plenty of time to make other arrangements. But she failed to act. And these are the consequences.
Well, and half of them are lost it appears, no one knows where they are… and the point of that is, someone took custody of her property, and half of it went…where?
This isn’t about cars.
Living, breathing animals. Shipped where?
(1) But at who’s authority?
(2) we don’t know where half of them are. We don’t know if he shipped them to slaughter. To me that’s not nice and tidy, its not offering the property at an open sale such that they are sold to repay the cost of care, after which the overage funds go back to the owner.
Is that nice and tidy, that only half were offered for public sale, as some suggest is required by law ?
My sympathy is for the consequences the horses paid.
Half are missing. They didn’t go to Unadilla, which would be bad enough. So, I’m assuming they went on a slaughter truck.
Maybe one of the slaughter dealers picked them up while at the sale.
So those are the consequences, paid by the horses, that I’m unhappy with.
I would guess this man is contracted by the sheriff or bailiff or etc to collect and manage stray livestock for the municipality. The sheriff or bailiff is working to excute a warrant for eviction signed by a judge earlier in the year. I went back and looked at @ASB_Stars first posts, and they don’t quite line up with what @FoxyFizz later claims, but close enough.
The owner forfeits the seized goods or animals by not paying up the daily impound charge and arranging to take the goods or animals away. After 30 days they are considered abandoned and can be sold.
This is not a lien. There is no money coming back to the person who abandoned their horses. And there may be no requirement to sell at public auction.
If horse owner wanted her horses she could have moved heaven and earth to get a few thousand dollars together to pay the rapidly adding up $700/day pound fees ($20 x 35 horses) and arranged a trailer to take them to a new home. But she didn’t. She abandoned them.
@ASB_Stars very early posts say that the couple were living in the house right up until the late August date when the horses were seized.
I feel like this horse owner was not being completely straight even with her supporters.
So many unanswered questions regarding removing and relocating of the horses.
So many unanswered questions about the person (and assistants) who removed the horses. What were the negotiation terms with whom - new property owner or another entity?
As per Auction manager, who was listed as owner. seller or as the agent of the seller?
Some posters say 35 horses were taken from the original owner. Do they actually know first hand, observed or were just told? So 20 +/- finally ended up in very poor condition to be sold at auction.
And the other 15 +/- horses allegedly known to have been removed ? - If those posters personally saw the horses, – under what circumstances? Taken by whom? and taken/held where? And where are they now?!
As per value of the horses sold at auction - some said they were sold as unregistered (but they actually are registered to original owner. ) Low price also due to poor condition.
So, if they were had been presented properly, in good condition, well groomed and with transferable registration papers and a bit of info on pedigree and background history, might some sales prices have been higher if ASB community was aware?
As already posted ** by others
, site below gives some info on some procedures (not known to have been properly followed) and some possible remedies.
It appears that the horses were not well fed while in gentleman’s care. Their health could be jeopardized. The original owner may seek remedy for foal reported as dead at the auction. And for improper lien procedures that hampered her rights in the matter…
Site easy for layperson though quite straightforward in others’ posts
Equine Legal Solutions
https://www.equinelegalsolutions.com/new-york-law-non-paying-boarders-legal-remedies.html
Question for those who know her -
She must have talked to her current attorney about it. What did her current attorney tell her about the sale of the horses?
Also, there was a man who used to post on COTH who was involved in litigation regarding a botched seizure of livestock by a humane society - @Guilherme. I don’t think he practiced in NY but if someone knows him IRL, he might be able to recommend a NY attorney. Completely different situation but I got the feeling from reading his posts that he was pretty knowledgeable. He hasn’t been posting on COTH for several years but if anyone on COTH knows him IRL, it might be worth trying to reach out to him.
I apologize then, I have never heard of a part time judge position. Fair enough.
You seem to think that we don’t care about wrongs. I DO care, but in my opinion the entities that have been wronged in this situation are the horses. Yes, the owner was in financial and legal trouble, but that was caused by her own lack of responsible decision making over the course of years and years. The horses didn’t have the choice to go find a responsible human to own them. I hope they are in better hands now. If they aren’t, a large part of the blame rests firmly on the shoulders of the horse owner.
That’s generally my take as well. Some posters are arguing that the new land owner had to store the horses for free for a longer period due to a tenant law but it seems to me that due to the horse owner’s relationship with the previous property owner and her failure to pay the 4500 to stay the eviction while she appealed that her status was determined and treated as family of the foreclosed property owner and therefore the tenant law did not apply.Horses were treated as abandoned property. Gentleman contracted by the local authorities or perhaps even privately contracted by new property owner is retained to remove the abandoned property. Horse owner doesn’t redeem her abandoned property in a timely fashion. Gentleman at that time becomes the owner of said abandoned property.
@Angela_Freda the poster apparently involved with the rescue at one point implied that the more poorly horses were brought to auction. Perhaps the remainder he sold to private owners.
This for me is the takeaway. I’m not a lawyer, but obviously I believe things need to be done within the scope of the law.
But putting the law slightly aside, this person with tenuous financial status kept breeding horses, did not sell enough to keep the operation financially sustainable, and did not have assured access to a rental or owned property to support the breeding operation.
I absolutely don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the “Horse Guy Storage, LLC” didn’t give the horses the best of care, and I’m sure they lost even more condition in his hands. You’re not going to get white glove care, especially for broodmares and foals, at a $20 a day storage facility for horses. But the reason most of us aren’t sympathetic to the owner is I’m sure we all know horse people who keep breeding every year, don’t sell (except maybe for discounted rates to family and friends), brag about the horses’ bloodlines and high value, and yet also mysteriously have no money to care for the horses.
How quickly could he do that? Do we know he did?
If the horses have diminished value because they aren’t registered, who did he sell them to? For how much, and why do we assume that’s a good thing?
That region is not an ASB hotbed.
It’s not a region known for having high end horses or many horses at all.
It’s a very poor area.
I hold all involved responsible for where these horses ended up. If the owner is a hoarder, incapable or unwilling to do better, that’s why we need reputable authorities to step in an insure these animals are treated ethically and humanely imo.
Giving them to some dealer who quickly disposes of them doesn’t sound like that to me, knowing that area and the types that frequent that sale and brokers of that type.
The eviction warrant states that “… execution of this Warrant shall include removal of the Respondent’s personal property from the premises …”
I don’t know if the horse owner could argue that the horses were part of a commercial business, and therefore not “personal property?” I doubt that would be a valid argument because her attorney would have brought that up immediately, but that’s the only possible loophole I can see. Otherwise, the court order authorizes removal of all property. warrant PII removed.pdf (270.8 KB)
ETA: I redacted PII. Original version is online through the court system referenced above, document number CI2022-15033, pages 8 & 9.
Do we actually know any of this?
Horses on the ground were bred a year earlier, do we know she was in financial straits then?
That she hadn’t, at the time, secured the resources… which perhaps fell through between then and now?
The pandemic certainly made many things uncertain.
I’m just not willing to make these leaps of assumption.
I’m not assuming it’s a good thing per se. I’m presuming from the information we have that it was a legal thing. I find lots of things done with horses to be not “good” in my opinion but my opinion has no bearing on how other people legally handle their property.
The horse owner lady knew in 2019 that her boyfriend was in foreclosure. If that’s not sign / time enough to make arrangements then nothing is
Yes bc the boyfriend was in foreclosure in 2019. Who keeps breeding horses when the farm owned by your boyfriend is in foreclosure and one hasn’t secured other living arrangements for the horses?
We don’t know she didn’t.
I agree that the person that removed the horses may not have given five star care. But who were you going to get to take the horses - 20, 30,40? semi feral horses. And I say semi feral because you have a herd that size and two people caring for them, one of which travels for business, there is no way all of the young stock were well handled. And several stallions that were running with mares. The person that took on the bet that if he took the horses and she didn’t pay, he could get back what he had spent on feed and care. Probably very few people applying for that “opportunity”. I don’t see that the new owners of the property were required to care for the herd. Especially since they had their own horses that they were having to board while they had to wait her out. And she refused to take any of the opportunities offered to her.
And as far as the original horse owner knowing they were in financial trouble. The foreclosure started in 2019. Banks do not foreclose on a home owner if they miss one payment. Contrary to popular opinion banks do NOT want to foreclose. It is expensive and time consuming. So the boyfriend was having payment issues for a while which I am sure the bank communicated prior to foreclosure. Most likely lots of communications for a long time. And the girlfriend was still breeding in 2021 evidenced by the foals born in 2022.
I agree it was a clusterf*ck and the horses suffered. But it wasn’t anybody else’s fault besides the horse owner.
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
