I think the line is “here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?”
2 Likes
I had hoped her landlord/tenant attorney would be more helpful. He seems intent on solely focusing on the appeal and the wrongfully carried out eviction. The local town court judge (despite being shown there was an issue of fact) proceeded without a hearing and issued the 1st Warrant.
The irregularities are what is being litigated in the appeal.
The wrongful seizure/removal of personal property is not my area of practice and there are so many dirty hands in this one it has proven a challenge to get a litigator on board.
There is a possibility to get them returned as the rescue involved was not a bona fide purchaser for value meaning that it was “in on it” from the time the horses were originally taken or seems to have been. The director of the rescue and the Tenant have a prior relationship which made her privy to many details about the horses, etc. The rescue has resold a number of them or that is the belief of the Tenant.
2 Likes
Wow. Extremely awful.
2 Likes
Oh the plot thickens. The people who have the horses were out to get her all along! Are we implying the “gentleman”, the auction, and the rescue are all colluding to steal the tenants horses?? And that it had nothing to do with years of non payment??
Its no wonder no one wants the case.
The way I’m reading this is…
Foreclosure notice sent to former owner in 2019
Foreclosure process paused due to covid until 2022
Tenant pays rent to former owner from 2019 until 2022
Foreclosure complete/property sold in Mar/Apr 2022
Tenant given 10 days notice to vacate by new owner around time property was sold.
7 Likes
I realize that you are a legal eagle, but let’s do the math.
Who sold the horses and got the money? In your world, who was due the money? Was there any money due at all? To whom?
You can’t even put together a decent smear campaign. Try a flow chart.
8 Likes
@endlessclimb, you might want to go find another thread to be always right in, this is not the thread for that. This thread is truly people trying to help someone. If you do not want to help, there is no reason to be here.
16 Likes
That’s how I understand it. Who knows what the tenant was told by the former owner. The former owner may have been living on tenants payments, at least partially, and simply not paying the mortgage. I’m fuzzy on my understanding of that detail.
6 Likes
Thank you!
7 Likes
On the face of it, that is exactly how it looks, at least to me.
2 Likes
Thank you for this timeline!!
It really helps my brain out lol
Now just wondering what the $4500 was for?
2 Likes
Well I’d have thought as a frequent participant on the Barisone threads we’d all have something to say about horses and evictions, and getting out if you’re not wanted somewhere.
I’m not “right.” I want the whole story. Admit the truth and maybe an attorney might take it on. Implying that multiple layers of people were colluding to steal tenants 5 figure saddlebreds while entirely neglecting years of non payment is disingenuous.
And all that said, there’s no prerequisite to posting on threads. Appreciate the moderation attempt though!
I thought it was for fees applied to seizing and holding the horses, but it is quite likely that I am not right.
These weren’t “five figure Saddlebreds” to the best of my knowledge. There might have been potential, but they weren’t going to bring that in New York.
The rescue knew who the horses were. They also thought, IMHO, that they could get the papers on the horses, based upon their being a rescue, and the ASHAs rules on that. So, they get sold as grade, the rescue obtains them, and sells them with their papers- yes SELLS. Not adopts.
Your choice to be completely judgmental and determine that this individual is so far beneath your contempt is hideous. Kindness does matter.
9 Likes
There is nothing here that even implies the horse owner knew they were not wanted until the new owner served them.
But truly, the whole point is someone took the horses without proper notice and sold them.
None of this has anything to do with the Barisone case except the fact that it seems like the law once again failed someone.
I am all for someone paying their bills and such. I do not like people who do not follow the rules. From what has been posted here it does not sound like the people who took the horses and sold them, and the new home owner, followed the rules.
9 Likes
The undertaking is something the appellate division ordered. From reading the transcript, it is unclear what was the actual point of payment of $4,500 as it was simply to be held by the Court. It was not a payment to be made to the New Owner. However, it was a condition for the Stay of Execution of the Warrant of Eviction.
4 Likes
The last part is not true.
“On or about August 26, 2022”
So we have how many months between the new owner, and the seizure? March. April. May. June. July. Most of August. At least for that time period, no rent was being paid. Early August, a stay was requested and granted, with $4500 paid to the courts. Tenant did not pay, stay was recinded. Eviction proceeded. She stayed on the property rent free for at least 150 days.
We all do realize what “Tenant” is saying here, with the implication that the rescue was ‘in’ on this, right? That the judge who granted the order, the “gentleman” who picked up the horses and the sheriff who escorted him, the auction who sold the horses, and the American Saddlebred Association who will grant new paperwork is in on this too.
Tell me you’re crazy without actually saying it.
Also, to the tenant: where that’s meme “well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions.”
1 Like
Ah ok, thank you for that correction.
There has been a little more due diligence done than just believing the “tenant”. I trust and verify, and I am familiar with the alleged business practices of the “rescue”.
None of what you are saying takes anything away from the fact that no one had any legal grounds to remove those horses.
I mean, unless you say that they do… 
6 Likes
Name them. If it’s all true, we should all know who they are.
1 Like
