[Amwrider]

http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.co...ks-New-Law.php

She states that in her research there are no state laws in any of the states that would cover this?

[JSwan]

She needs to do better research. My state has such a procedure - AND a procedure and a separate statute for unpaid board for kenneled dogs. It's simple. My state does not require the owner to sell at auction - the statute leaves it to the discretion of the lienholder - but spells out the procedure for sale at auction. Unless it's changed in the last couple of years.

[Halt Near X]

The article says this is what she researched:

In her research Passero has not found one state with a law determining when the boarding facility may take ownership of a horse after non-payment of board.

That may be true. Every stableman's lien law that my layman's self has ever read has spelled out the steps that can be taken, and these almost always end with the horse being sold at an auction of some sort, with any money over the amount owed going to the owner.

I don't think I've ever seen anything that would allow a stable to simply take ownership. And I think that would be a very bad thing to have in law, actually. The auction process protects everyone.

[Halt Near X]

Oh, here. Google found the PA lien law:

Pennsylvania Liens for the Care of Horses

I suspect the boarding barn's owner problem here is that they want to keep the horses rather than sell them.

[Lord Helpus]

Try loking it up under: "Livestock Lien"

[TheBarnRules]

Or under "agister's lien"

Illinois has one.

[Chall]

Is the pertinent word "when", as in when a BO may take ownership, a month, 2 months, 6 months? Or is it as said above, the issue that she wants to own the horses rather than sell at auction.

[Guilherme]

A pretty good site:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/

G.

[grandprixjump]

They could find an auctioneer that will run the auction for like $50 and buy them thru the auction herself. Then she is only out the additional of the auctioneer and cost of running the ad for the auction.

Put the ad in a paper that has NOTHING to do with horses, but has a big enough circulation to be legal announcement..

[caballero]

My head hurts at the stupidity of that article.

Every state's stableman's lien law is so grounded in precedent and common law that there is nothing to argue.

That idiot argues that essentially there is no finality to the disposal of a stableman's lien. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[caballero]

Is the pertinent word "when", as in when a BO may take ownership, a month, 2 months, 6 months? Or is it as said above, the issue that she wants to own the horses rather than sell at auction.

"When" is when the conditions for discharging the lien are met pursuant to the laws of whatever state the horses are stabled.

It varies. But there is due process to follow for a good reason.

[Ajierene]

I always find MD laws very interesting.

http://www.northamericanequine.com/A...-Maryland.html

The lien is allowed after 30 days late. A letter needs only to be sent to the last known address and if there is no last known address, a notice is put on the courthouse door.

They have to publish notice of the sale once a week, for two weeks, in the county the livestock is in and give the owner 30 days notice. So yes, there is a very specific timeframe and 60 days after you have gone late, a stable owner can sell your horse.

[CHT]

This is a good example of why a business should use a lawyer when coming up with their contracts.

Her arguement is silly; she had a recourse to recover her expenses, which was to sell the horse at a public sale. She could have bought the horses back, but this method of sale is meant to ensure the horse is sold for fair market value (and the defaulter is paid any overage).

[nashfad]

You know, I do not want to hold my boarder's horse under a lien. I don't want their horse! I notify them that if I am not paid/contacted by them by such and such date (usually 5 days after receipt) their horse will be at their house, not mine. So far, I've had no one to challenge me on that. They contact me and show up. And trust me, I'd take a horse to the boarder's place ---- downtown, wherever. Of course, I would NEVER endanger a horse by leaving it in an non-secure situation but they do not know that. And I'd call the news while en route to their place. I know it is extreme, but hey, I do not like getting screwed over by a boarder when I bust my ass to take great care of their horse(s). Because again, I do not want their horse(s).

[pluvinel]

This might be interesting.....could be argued under contract law.

Boarder signed a contract.....boarder failed to meet terms of the contract.

In May of Last year, Debra Passero took on a new boarder with four horses at her Rock Ridge Ranch in Dingman’s Ferry, PA. “She signed my boarding agreement and paid me for May’s board. My boarding agreement states that after one month I may in lieu of unpaid board put the horse(s) and her equipment up for sale, notifying her of the sale two weeks prior. It also states that in the case of non-payment for two consecutive months the horses will become the property of my ranch in lieu of board.”

Passero stated that after the initial payment in May, the board went unpaid and bills started piling up. “After sending numerous certified bills and letters I did not hear a peep. The owner signed for one certified letter which was the one that stated the horses were taken over for unpaid board,” she said. “This letter was sent in August - well after the two month time frame. She then contacted me via text and said she would have the money to pay me at the end of August. I had possession of the horses and as per my boarding agreement and relayed to her that they were owned now by the ranch.”

From a stable owner’s point of view, it seems like a straight forward case that should end there, but it didn’t. Passero reports that she received service of a lawsuit stating that the owner wanted the horses back or a monetary amount of over $30,000. Passero has secured a lawyer and has now countersued for possession of the horses. “My feeling is that these horses are owned by the ranch and I shouldn't even be at this point,” she said.

[caballero]

A contract may be unenforceable if it conflicts with an already well settled area of law.

So if this BO did not follow her state's lien law to take posession of the horses and instead relied on her own procedure defined in her "contract", the boarder in arrears may have recourse.

So bottom line, the BO should have known that her state already has a due process to cover her problem. She either did not do her due dilligence in researching that, or did so but chose to write her own terms.

[LauraKY]

That's why you have a lawyer prepare your contracts. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather get the horse off of my property ASAP to the owner, then go to small claims court for the back board. Why accumulate more expenses that you probably won't be able to recoup at the sale?

ETA: Oh, so the barn owner just doesn't want to follow the law. OK, now I get it.

[7HL]

They could find an auctioneer that will run the auction for like $50 and buy them thru the auction herself. Then she is only out the additional of the auctioneer and cost of running the ad for the auction.

...

I know a stable owner, that if you don't pay your board, the horse vanishes. Thirty days, the horse must have escaped and ran away.

The person in the article was a fool to let this happen... "At this time I am owed over $13,000 for back board, vet and farrier bills, etc"

[FineAlready]

The article is confusing, and, I would guess probably not an accurate representation of the legal issues (the media is typically really bad at reporting on legal issues).

That said, a lot of people have trouble understanding the difference between a lien and actual ownership. A lien gives a person an interest in an item as collateral. It does not give that person ownership. For example, MOST of us have a bank lien on our homes. We still own the home, but the bank has a lien on it. If we don't pay our bank debt, the bank can foreclose the lien and dispose of their collateral (our home). They can't show up after we don't pay the debt, take our keys, and start watching our T.V., though. They have to take the legal steps to foreclose the lien.

A lien permits a person to take further legal steps to dispose of the collateral to satisfy the lien (sometimes that includes a right to credit bid the lienholder's debt and "purchase" the collateral; sometimes it does not). A transfer of ownership is totally different. One problem here is probably that the horse could be worth more than the value of the lien - so the barn owner taking "ownership" of the horse would be a windfall for the barn owner.

The whole thing sounds sort of like a cluster to me, and one that could have been avoided by having the boarding contract either drafted or reviewed by an attorney.

[Sonesta]

This Passero person obviously doesn't know how to do legal research and I am gobsmacked that the author would not do some fact checking before writing this drivel.

Most states have a statutory method of handling unpaid board on horses.