Well if the rescue has half those horses are safe enough. Us not knowing who owns the other half doesn’t mean they are worse off?
3 Likes
The owner of the horses claims that she never knew where the horses had been taken. I question whether they should have been removed, in the first place, and why she wasn’t told where they are.
I know for a stone cold fact that, at least in PA, you can have a lease on a “hand shake”. Now, should you celebrate it in writing? Sure. But the fact that it wasn’t makes it no less valid.
1 Like
If half of them were sent through an auction that is frequented by kill buyers, that doesn’t really bode well for the other half in my mind.
1 Like
Arm’s length refers to transactions between “interested” or “related” parties. So for example, if my Dad thinks he may loose his farm to foreclosure and he writes me a lifetime lease does the person that buys his foreclosed farm have to honor my lifetime lease? No bc my lease’s validity is questionable due to the relationship between my father and myself.
The horse owner knew the name of the “gentleman” and called him out on FB. There are / were videos of the horses at “Gentleman’s” property taken by the horse owner on her FB. Obviously anyone can post whatever on FB but it does question the concept that owner had no idea where horses were
3 Likes
We don’t know there was a lease. Horse owners boyfriend owned the property. Both were living there, even if he moved into a separate suite at one point. I really doubt there was a lease or that she was paying rent to him. My guess is this is all made up stuff to delay their eviction.
6 Likes
The property should be in good standing at that time. It is up to the seller to disclose that there is a lease on the property, in theory. However, if I was buying the property, and I saw a bunch of horses wandering around, it would beg the question, “hey, what’s up with the horses?” A life lease is a different beast all together.
Your understanding of the owners knowledge of the horses location differs from mine.
1 Like
All we do have is the owner’s representation. You may think or feel that it was different, however, that is really of no consequence.
1 Like
I am truly disturbed that the owner doesn’t know where the others are. given the fact that I do not think that this entire process was " according to Hoyle", I am worried for them.
I have heard that the total number isn’t actually 41; it was in the low 30’s.
1 Like
The point I was trying to illustrate is the questionable validity of the lease due to the relationship between the foreclosed property owner and the horse owner. Because that’s a real thing that gets examined in real estate transactions. Wether it was a factor in this case of course I don’t know but it seems likely.
1 Like
I think the owner named the person who has (or had) the horses on her Facebook page. Has she tried to contact him to get even some of the horses back? If he still has any of the horses, there might be room for negotiation for her to pay the fees owed for at least a few of the horses.
Just a note - totally different situation, but I seize animals on behalf of a federal agency. We never tell owners who is caring for their animals because there are an unfortunately high percentage of owners who would harass the people caring for the animals, and a very rare few who would even try to steal the animals back. Even though storage of property removed after eviction is a different situation, I see why the farm caring for the animals would be kept secret. If the owner pays for “storage” of animals removed from a property after eviction, then the person caring for the animals may be willing to have the owner come to the farm to pick them up or they may prefer to meet in a neutral location to transfer the animals, just to minimize the chances of any problems.
6 Likes
Thirty years in Real Estate and Development causes me to understand your point. I have no idea how much information actually made it to a court. I do not tend to think that too much did. That’s probably some of what the court will review on the appeal that I believe is in front of the court.
ETA- many years back, my neighbor leased me his farm for my young horses. I liked having them over there because of the sheds and hills. At that time, his wife had filed for divorce, and they had also entered into an agreement with a real estate developer on the property. The husband and I had a handshake deal, and I paid him on time every month. I did not have any deal with the wife, so she thought that it might be fun to turn my horses loose back into my farm through my back gate. I disagreed.
Ultimately, it was upheld that my handshake deal with my neighbor was valid. The developers deal fell apart for a number of reasons not related to my horses, but the wife had to stop screwing around with my babies, or risk being charged.
1 Like
It certainly would be totally different if an agency had actually seized them, documenting each step of the process.
But it doesn’t appear that was the case.
3 Likes
True, very different. The similarity is that property removed after eviction is often associated with unhappy owners, who sometimes try to harass the people caring for the animals and bully them into releasing the animals without payment. Or, like with seized animals, will try to just take the property back. It’s generally safest for all to keep the location quiet until the owner pays for the care or the animals are sold.
(I am not saying that would have happened in this case, just that it’s pretty common. Though I wonder if the owner had permission to be on the property where she videoed the horses just before the sale?)
ETA, why would the owner need to know? If she can pay for their care, then she can just make the payment and get directions to the farm at that point to take them home. If she can’t afford to pay, then what need does she have to know where they are?
2 Likes
I think that boils down to, under what or who’s order they were taken.
1 Like
I did post a copy of the eviction order upthread and it directed the sheriff to remove the tenants and all of their personal property so that would have given the sheriff’s office the authority to have the horses removed. There aren’t any public documents that indicate who actually contacted the person who picked them up, but given that the judge’s order authorized the sheriff to remove property, it was probably the sheriff’s office (or local animal control acting at the sheriff’s office’s direction).
3 Likes
Regardless of how the alleged lease was formed, the transaction was not “arm’s length” and thus it’s validity as it pertains to the new property owner is very questionable. With your experience I can only presume you are very aware of that fact. Is that why you left out the relationship in your OP or perhaps you only heard of the relationship after making the OP?
Another poster pointed out court records that reference the relationship.
So the horse owner was given the option to pay back rent to the new property buyer but didn’t follow through on that. But wants to argue they are a legitimate tenant with a lease that should be allowed to stay. $750 a month to rent a farm is a bargain.
2 Likes
Mhmm.
I believe early on ASB Stars said she was unaware of the personal relationship. I have no reason to question that. She has been very straightforward about what she knows and didn’t know.
2 Likes
Yes, my guess is that the horse owner was looking for help and support locally, but wasn’t entirely honest about the situation.
3 Likes
