Clearly everyone has their own idea of what “in the area” means. In this case, it means in the same state, just almost four hours away (3hours 45 minutes per google maps).
1 Like
And if you had to drive it, with trailers… Muuuch longer.
1 Like
2 hours from the auctionhouse where the horses were dispersed. Unless we’re saying the rescue was the ones who took the horses off the property? I haven’t heard that.
1 Like
You have no clue, do you?
Clearly.
3 Likes
I’m just trying to work out which rescue is involved. If they were nefarious in this, it’s important to know who they are. If the parties don’t want to name them, that’s fine - I’m just going to list the closest saddlebred rescues, because there aren’t going to be 50 of them in a single state.
There’s another one in New Jersey, about the same distance away from the auction:
1 Like
She doesn’t. And I am not going to play. She’s getting way out there now. She’s been given facts, but clearly feels the need to make what happened fit her narrative. That simply won’t work.
6 Likes
It’s pretty simple.
Susie rescue helps with all kinds of local issues, becoming a resource and basically the expert to Bobby animal control and Clarence cop who know zilch about horses. George Judge knows very little about the law wrt livestock and less about livestock itself.
So when Bobby and Clarence present George with a warrant that they tell him Susie says needs to be signed to take animals which Susie says need to go… Do you really think they think about it very long?
No. They don’t
In the end, the horses are property and it’s a civil matter. Their response to “they took my horse” is “sue”.
Which is ironic in light of the idea that threatening the auction with legal action as they sell your horses is kinda hilarious and sad at the same time. If someone took my 1-100 head of animals and was selling them at a low end auction, damn straight I’d threaten legal action.
Isn’t that what you should do, get the legal process involved to get your property back??
🤦
2 Likes
Yes, via an attorney. A hot-headed desperate woman screaming on a telephone is not a good way to be taken seriously.
I haven’t spoken to the sale, or the individual, but I will say that if someone took my horses and tried to run them through a sale, I believe that I would be more than “hot-headed and desperate”. And, if I was involved with the sale, I might want to determine if there was any truth to her story.
6 Likes
Sadly this sale, and the dealers who frequent it, who also work with “rescues”* aren’t like us.
I’m guessing who the “gentleman” who took, housed, tried to exhort fees and then took the horses to the sale is. These “gentlemen” are known to the sale, they’re there at every sale.
*I use the term very loosely
1 Like
Ok, my memory is fuzzy, but wasn’t it Chambers or his son who had horses on a semi sitting on the hwy with their ears frozen off?
And last I knew he hadn’t even paid the fine for…?
I have gone into the “weeds” because that is where you have to go to figure out if a procedure was followed.
It is not my interpretation of what I have seen if the law that she was entitled to a 90 day notice. That is your perspective, but what I have seen it is at least debatable process was followed. The trial court ruled against her, then the eviction process was triggered according to that ruling. A stay was offered but for whatever reason the horse owner chose to not to pay the required amount.
If anything, this is a good example of why burying your head in the sand doesn’t work in litigation. I am sorry for all involved but the missteps made here may well mean the sale of the horses was legitimate. When is the appeal being heard? You won’t have a leg to stand on really unless she wins that, as the horse seizure case depends entirely on which time frame is applied.
I am ignoring the endlessclimb debate because that isn’t helpful.
6 Likes
Right, I agree that I would be beside myself. What I wouldn’t do is berate the auction individually. They’re doing what auctions do. If the horses were taken legally, which it is STILL not clear if they were or weren’t, they aren’t the ones to blame here.
Send someone as a proxy to buy them back, if she herself was kicked out?
Yes, unfortunately, I let myself get down the rabbit hole and in the dirt with that one. The sole purpose of the original post was to locate an Attorney that might be able to provide counsel to the Tenant/horse owner to get her horses returned to her. It went off the rails because perhaps too many details were provided.
The foreclosure action was legally conducted. The eviction process in the town court was not conducted in an appropriate manner as there should have been a hearing on the issues of fact raised (squatter vs. legal tenant of former owner) which did not occur and which is one of the issues on appeal. I believe the appeal may be heard/decided sometime in December, but that is only based on the return date for the Opposition of 11/30. There may be a Reply to the Opposition.
4 Likes
Yes, there was a landlord/tenant relationship between the prior (foreclosed) owner and the Tenant. It should have transferred to New Owner and then properly terminated with a 90 Day Notice. That is the crux of the issue as to the eviction and whether it was properly conducted. New Owner did not recognize prior landlord/tenant relationship and indicated Tenant was actually a squatter which was an issue of fact that should have been decided at the town court level.
4 Likes
Was the person aware this was happening…the foreclosure and sale before it closed? Or were they kept in the dark.
I know you think the details outside of the legal things don’t matter, but they really do on this forum. It gives the entire picture of what exactly went down.
3 Likes
Did former owner provide a copy of this contract during the sale? Did tenant have a copy of the contract?
In say a properly conducted sale of a condo with an existing tenant all this will be upfront.
But if the property is foreclosed and possessed by the bank, the original owner is out of the picture where the new buyer steps in. I doubt the tenant had a rental contract with the bank. At that point whether they were still paying rent to the former owner doesn’t matter because that’s not the property owner.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like tenant was able to survive in the limbo of being on a foreclosed property but caught out when the resale process started to move forward fast after the sale.
3 Likes
As a tenant how would I know a property was being foreclosed in order to take action, such as, for example, pay my rent to the appropriate entity??
It’s my understanding that the only requirement for notice is in the newspaper and or at the town building.
1 Like
You can’t seize someone’s animals because they lost their barn (ie it sold, it was closed, etc)
Ime horses get seized over claims of neglect or abuse.
1 Like
A few decades ago, I was leasing a farm. We made a deal with the guy who lived in the house on the farm, who told us that he had the right to lease the barns and pastures. We paid him his rent, each month, on time. He died about a year in.
An attorney showed up, and explained that the guy in the house had a life lease on the house- not the rest of the 144 acre property. Since he had died, his family needed to vacate, and so did we. The attorney also shared with me that if I filed a supersedeas with the Court of Common Pleas, I could buy myself several months. He was very kind, and he knew that it would take a while to find a similar facility.
I went to the law library, determined that there were two types of supersedeas, figured out which one looked appropriate, typed it up, and went and met with a judge- I had no idea what I was doing. He was also very kind. In any event, you can do some things Pro Se, but you need to actually do them. The person in question doesn’t have that skill set, and here we are.
8 Likes
