why would a BO WANT to keep a dead-beat boarder's horse around? every day the horse is there it costs money to keep, and even if you manage to obtain permission to sell the horse, and sell it, you're probably going to lose A LOT of money overall from having to care for the horse for many months.
If you think it through, why would a barn owner want to be stuck with someone's horse. Even if you take the steps to execute a lien, who is to say you can sell them for enough to get your money back? Yet you must feed and care for them and take responsibility while they take up a stall. This happened to an acquaintance. She seized a horse for non payment but could not sell it.
Nope. Much better to never let them get in arrears and cut your losses by turfing them out asap when they don't pay. As for sueing for breach on contract, if you don't let them get in arrears, your exposure should be such that it's often better to cut losses than throw good money after bad trying to get water out of a stone.
Horses didn't cost BO anything. It was self-care, so HO's responsibility to pay for feed, etc. The only cost the BO had was rent on the place, and she's paying that amount regardless. She can't fill stalls, so no waiting list for horses to fill those stalls.
Bo was prepared to let the horses suffer?
ETA: by padlocking, the BO prevented HO and myself (co-op board buddy) from feeding, watering, and cleaning stalls