Just Stop. You’re not helpful, but thank you for keeping the post at the top of the Forum 
3 Likes
I have the address, I’m just trying to understand the relevancy? Thanks,
1 Like
That’s not the address.
1 Like
90 days of not paying rent, to keep her 20 luxury pets.
After 3 years of not paying, to keep her 20 luxury pets.
And you want a pro bono lawyer to take this on? You have got to be joking!!!
Why was she paying rent to the former owner and not the new owner?
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]
3 Likes
The new owner only became the New Owner in April/May 2022
1 Like
So did she then start paying the new owner? Did they have a contract?
I’ll just address the “20 luxury pets” issue. If you’d like to see it that way, clearly, no one is going to attempt to dissuade you- especially not me.
This is about whether or not this person was afforded the correct protections and procedures under the law, or whether she was not. Clearly, she was not.
Foxy Fizz doesn’t have “skin in the game”, just knowledge that you do not have. A law degree will do that in these situations.
You’d like to say, well, she was a bad, wrong and evil person, so she doesn’t deserve to be protected by the law. You have an opinion? Great. Not relevant to the law.
5 Likes
I will eat my hat if this lady continued to pay rent through the COVID moratorium.
She was served an eviction notice PRIOR to the moratorium. She was asked to leave for 3 years while landlord’s hands were tied, basically - and did nothing.
New owners, moratorium lifted. Get out, here’s your eviction notice. Tenant plans on dragging this out as long as they possibly can, 90 days. Is offered a stay for $4500 which she can’t be bothered to pay (why pay now, when you haven’t paid in 3 years and don’t plan to pay for another 90?).
Regardless of law, this person is a total money-sucking scumbag. I have no sympathy for her. Sell some of the 20 horses and find a new place prior to the maximum 90 days, why don’t you? She’s not a victim.
3 Likes
I will always have problems seeing someone in a positive light when they aren’t paying their landlord, but have 20 horses.
I’m not sorry about that [edit].
1 Like
No because the new owner had her served with a 10 Day Notice calling her a “squatter”. It’s a legal distinction, but she was a tenant. The bank should have done an eviction proceeding prior to selling the property, but for whatever reason did not.
In any event under NY law, a tenant of a property that has been foreclosed upon is entitled to legal notice to terminate of a minimum of 90 days.
There didn’t need to be a contract to received the 90 days Notice.
3 Likes
She was not served with an eviction notice PRIOR to the moratorium. Where are you getting that information from? It’s not true.
She was served with a notice of foreclosure as is required under NY law by the bank’s attorney. It was the one notice she received and it was NOT an eviction notice.
You are a ignorant entitled know it all that in fact has complete ignorance of the due process afforded to those under NY law.
No one said she was a victim. She’s seeking an attorney. You are NOT an attorney, which has become abundantly clear by your ignorant comments and your inability to read for comprehension.
6 Likes
It sounds like the transfer of the horses wasn’t technically a seizure, but has the horse owner tried contacting any civil asset seizure/forfeiture attorneys? It’s a long shot, but worth trying.
I’m surprised the tenant/landlord attorney hasn’t been able to provide more help. Technically, the horses are property, and I would have hoped that a tenant/landlord attorney would be familiar with the legal requirements for disposition of property remaining on site - they should have been able to identify any irregularities and address it.
Unfortunately, I think it’s likely that the return of property that has already been sold isn’t going to happen in any case. She might be awarded monetary damages if she sues and wins, but I think it’s unlikely any court (other than possibly the court that handled the eviction) would order the return of the horses.
3 Likes
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ON THE PROPERTY ANYMORE
Pay. Your. Bills.
She had TWENTY (20!!) horses, and was BREEDING THEM.
2 Likes
OH wait, actually, you’re right! But… even better!
So, you’re saying she paid rent to the guy who owned the property being foreclosed on, from 2019-2022? The guy who wasn’t paying the mortgage, and who couldn’t evict her due to the moratorium?
Are you NUTS? Not a blazing CHANCE.
I’ll take that hat, please. To put on my head, not to eat.
The foreclosure is with the property owner, correct? I just guessing that a tenant isn’t copied on that. But then, I am not an attorney, either. You have virtually no idea of what kind of communication was going on between the property owner, and the tenant. You’re just nasty. You are ASSuming an awful lot, and castigating someone whose circumstances you have no knowledge of.
Once again, Bless Your Heart!
11 Likes
No that is not what that means.
6 Likes
The issue is that the person who removed the horses from the property had no legal standing to do so. Then, they went to a sale where the sale owners apparently did not do anything to verify that the individual had any right to be selling those horses. As a layperson, I wonder where fraud or any kind of criminality comes into play here? Theft by taking? Accepting money for the horses that they had no legal claim to? And the sale? Selling horses that did not belong to the individual- whether sold as grade or not, they are still representing that they had a legal right to sell, accepted the proceeds, and the sale was paid a commission.
Lots to consider-- but time is of the essence.
4 Likes
