If anyone is interested, here is a guide on holdover tenants in NYS from the state government: https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/pdfs/TenantsGuide_holdover.pdf
It isn’t updated with recent changes, but the guides I have seen on that deal with nonpayment, not holdover tenants. I have to go feed so won’t be looking into this more today.
It’s not a matter of being allowed to stay forever and that isn’t what Tenant has appealed for. If the predicate (prior written notice) notice was improper, it makes the eviction improper which then leads to the situation of the horses being wrongfully taken and sold.
It’s a matter of following the proper procedures and that isn’t what transpired in the underlying matter. The foreclosure appears to be properly completed by the bank attorney.
It’s the post-foreclosure eviction where the matter went sideways.
Most of the group posts have relied on arguing the merits of the eviction. That’s secondary to the issue surrounding the horses and a 3rd party selling them without proper legal authority. When I contacted the auction, they told me it was due to the foreclosure and that’s how they got legal authority to sell. That is from the auction manager- the foreclosure did not convey any legal authority to the New Owner, nor Gentleman to sell Tenant’s horses.
There is a stableman’s lien wherein horses being boarded can be sold if board not paid. But, it requires due process in a court and then public notice published in papers and served on the owner of the horses.
You’ve gotten a bit into the weeds.
The eviction was served on Tenant. It made no mention of the horses because since it was her personal property. The eviction procedures were not followed in that she was entitled to a 90 day notice. Minimum since she was a tenant of the former owner (not the new owner) which is an exception when dealing with foreclosures.
Under NY law, if a Tenant is evicted and leaves behind personal property - the Landlord is required to store that personal property for 30 Days and inform Tenant as to the location as to where it may be retrieved. Landlord may not charge Tenant storage fees during that 30 day window.
IN the instant case, Tenant’s property (horses) were removed and should have been stored and their location divulged to Tenant. It was not. After the 30 day storage period had passed, only then could the Gentleman have achieved a stableman’s lien. he didn’t seek one.
He had no legal authority to sell the horses, whether using the eviction or a stableman’s lien as a basis for that claim.
The sale barn knew. Tenant contacted them multiple times pleading with them to release her horses. They banned her from attending the sale.
I do not know who authorized the Gentleman (3rd party ) to remove the horses. He apparently kept them at a secluded location -theorized to have been located at Cold Brook Hunts or something like that in Homer, NY.
You sure know an awful lot about the ins and outs of this for being an attorney not interested in taking the case.
Something smells fishy!
I don’t litigate. It’s more than 4 hours from where I practice and litigation for various torts involved here is not my area of practice.
If you must know, I am a Rule Follower. As a Judge and an Attorney, I have to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethics and I take that seriously. I hate to see people take advantage of by people that have more money or are more devious.
The original town court judge did not give Tenant a hearing. Basically the parties appeared and he did not permit Tenant to put on her case in chief. He signed the Judgment of Possession and Warrant and the parties were there for less than 15 minutes apparently.
I had heard the horses would be at the sale. I do not know the players, but have heard of friends of friends about the situation, and there are many different sides.
Legality or not, NO ONE would be taking my horses. Once I sniff an issue at a barn, like a foreclosure, even a sale, my horses are gone. Just my opinion.
This being the internet, it’s on your side of the screen.
It’s a CONSPIRACY !!1!
A consPIRANAHcy!
I am wondering, if Tenant had paid $4500 when case was held, would she still be in this situation? Surely the sale of one valuable horse would have tided her over?
I’ll share this. Someone whom I know well had a similar situation with this rescue. Fewer horses were involved, but they were of significantly more value. Allegedly, the rescue claimed that the horses were rescues, and then attempted to obtain their papers from the registry, based upon the new rules. Much to their disagreement, the rescue could not obtain the horses papers. They actually tried USEF at one point, IIRC. Ironically, they never attempted to return them to the owner, which the rescues that I am aware of generally try first.
So yes, there is a pattern here. There are people in rescue who, IMHO, give rescue a bad name.
Name them! If they do this habitually, they need to be outed!
Especially their relationship with the sheriff and the judge. Because there are a lot more players in this than the rescue and the “gentleman” - the rescue didn’t act alone here!
Look at you Perry Mason! No. Just no.
Unless you are offering to underwrite all of this person’s legal fees.
If the allegations are true, there’s no risk.
It’s when they’re not that people act shady… like this thread.
Lordy Lordy. I must have touched a nerve.
Well, hopefully your friend learned her lesson. Because all of this could have been prevented if she wouldn’t have tried to freeload for an addional 80 days.
The truth sucks, huh.
When you are capable of entering the zip code of the truth, I guess we will see.
I have never met the individual involved in this particular situation. However, I posted this because I feel deeply that she has been harmed in this situation.
Ultimately, all you have proven on here is that you are incapable of any kind of empathy. I sincerely hope that someday you have to deal with a situation in your life that is as challenging for you as this has been for her. Clearly, that’s the only time that your eyes might be opened to any form of understanding. Your heart certainly is not.
I have empathy.
Someone with 20 horses she isn’t trying to downsize, and is instead breeding them to increase the size of the herd, all while not paying rent for a minimum of 150 days?
Not deserving of empathy.
Eta: empathy from me is reserved for non-self inflicted troubles. Your friend could have prevented this. At the very least, minimized the damage. She chose not to, and is instead whining that there was a conspiracy to take her horses. No, lady. You didn’t pay rent. If you’d have paid rent, or moved when the property owner clearly didn’t want you there anymore, you’d still have all 20. But instead she wanted to squeeze those last 90 days of dollars out of the situation, not giving a damn how that impacted the new property owner. I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider people who do those sorts of things “friends” because you’re next.
Do you have empathy for a home invader who gets caught and serves time? I don’t.
WTF are you even talking about?
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
