I think you should probably edit that to eleusis

Quote :

"itt flatline offers dumbass advice on shit he knows nothing about."

Sofar, you have confused the concept of conversion and larceny, and I am giving dumbass advice? Your lack of educated commentary proves who gives the dumbass advice.

1/31/2011 3:27:59 PM

so far, I'm going with flatline

1/31/2011 3:30:58 PM

it's not conversion; it's larceny. The person has taken the horse and is not allowing the owner to have the horse back. You've just proven yourself a dumbass beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1/31/2011 3:41:59 PM

lets break it down eleusis

You think that the possessor is guilty of larceny?

Larceny has five elements
1)trespassory taking - the possessor acquired lawful possession of the horse through a "contract" or at the least, a boarding arrangement. This element requires unlawful possession
2) carrying away
3) tangible personal property
4) of another
5) with intent to permanently deprive - the "contract" gives rise to several conclusions, none of which appear to be with intent to take away without any lawful right

Where is there anything stated ITT that gives rise to all the elements of larceny eleusis? Or do you just get on TWW and post stupid shit without an idea of the legal definition of the term? Where do you give advice which is legally relevant or even correct?

1/31/2011 3:44:33 PM

Quote :

"Skack, maybe you should read what you post. You have to go put up the amount in contention in order to get the property. Pay up. Nothing in life is free, and take it as a lesson."

Maybe you should read what I posted.

Quote :

"A complaint has been filed alleging that you are holding the plaintiff's property described below for a lien for storage, repairs or towing. (A copy of the complaint is attached.) The amount of lien the plaintiff states you claim is listed below and that amount has been deposited in cash with the undersigned Clerk of Superior Court. The amount the plaintiff agrees he/she owes you is stated below as the undisputed amount."

Quote :

"You are entitled to come to the office of the Clerk of Superior Court at any time and have paid to you the amount undisputed by the plaintiff. The magistrate or judge will decide who is entitled to the remainder of the amount paid into court by the plaintiff at the trial of the lawsuit that has been filed."

Do you not see the difference between giving the guy $500 versus giving the court $500, collecting your property (and thus preventing further fees from accumulating), and letting the court decide whether the guy is entitled to any money?

If that doesn't force it's way through your thick skull I can't help you.

1/31/2011 3:46:29 PM

Quote :

"No, a contract price is not stated, that doesn't mean the contract price is 0. Given that the paper does not state terms, and it seems unlikely that someone would board a horse for free, its very likely a court will find a reasonable contract price."

I don't really get how you read stuff like "will be fully responsible for the care of", "general upkeep and care of Freedom is also the responsibility", and "No additional fees will be required" and conclude that there aren't terms and the contract price is anything other than $0. As far as boarding a horse for free, there are advantages to the free lease that another poster outlined before (I mean just google the terms: free lease horse, it's not like it's unheard of or anything).

Quote :

"She didn't go to the farm, or take any action besides calling, to get the horse for three months? That does not seem very reasonable to me. I am sure that the owner is just a lazy ass who thinks she deserves a free ride."

I agree with you here to an extent. If she did halfass attempt to contact the guy(s) and just let it slide thinking that it would be free anyways then she should have to pay. OTOH I don't know the details of the situation and won't jump to conclusions based on anything I didn't read from the posts. It says in the OP that she has been trying to contact them and not knowing any other details directly relating to what extent it seems unwarranted to assume the worst.

On top of all that the fact that the dad mentions his son had "done something like this before" leads me to believe that he should be held accountable to some extent. I mean what is the due diligence involved in something like this? The son just gives his dad a horse and says what, "Free horse!" or "Here is a horse I got to take care of, we'll get paid something sometime from somebody."

I don't really know or care if it's "larceny" but it sure doesn't sound airtight legit on the father/son end.

1/31/2011 3:47:39 PM

what about trespass to chattels? sounds like it depends on what happened back in September which we haven't heard yet. how hard did your friend try and contact them?

1/31/2011 3:49:03 PM

No, that is not what the document states. Try again.

She would go give the court $500, in order to get a deputy to ride out with her. He collects anything that is above what she thinks she owes him. 0? Then she has to get the court to agree with her. She is potentially out $500.

[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ,]

1/31/2011 3:49:26 PM

How do you get that...

Quote :

"He collects the $500, and then she has to file an action in order to try to get the amount back."

From that...

Quote :

"You are entitled to come to the office of the Clerk of Superior Court at any time and have paid to you the amount undisputed by the plaintiff. The magistrate or judge will decide who is entitled to the remainder of the amount paid into court by the plaintiff at the trial of the lawsuit that has been filed."

It's pretty clear that he can pick up the "amount undisputed" which in this case would be $0.00.
Then a magistrate or judge will decide who is entitled to the remaining $500.
Reading comprehension man...Seriously.

1/31/2011 3:53:03 PM

^ you are partially correct, I agree. She is going to be out ~$90 to file a lawsuit, then put up $500 to hopefully win. I do not dispute she can get the property, but she will have to pay up in order to have a legal right to do so.

goodlock, correct, it could be trespass to chattels, conversion is a more serious interference with the owner's property, and is more likely in the scenario if he had a legal obligation to surrender the property and refused to do so.

keep thinking eleusis.

Quote :

"The person has taken the horse and is not allowing the owner to have the horse back. "

Is that larceny eleusis? Or mayhaps the law is a mite bit more complicated.

Quote :

"I don't really get how you read stuff like "will be fully responsible for the care of", "general upkeep and care of Freedom is also the responsibility", and "No additional fees will be required" and conclude that there aren't terms and the contract price is anything other than $0. As far as boarding a horse for free, there are advantages to the free lease that another poster outlined before (I mean just google the terms: free lease horse, it's not like it's unheard of or anything)."

The problem I see, is that the contract does not clearly state that the possessor is taking the horse without any compensation but his enjoyment. I read those terms as stating the possessor has the duty to meet stated expenses while it is in his possession and it seems not to speak as to whether the owner is paying him to do so in total.

I think that the OP's friend probably thought she was going to get a good deal, and discovered that people are not exactly honest. Rather than deal with it in a reasonable time, the horse is still with the possessor. That seems pretty lazy to me, and she probably will have to pay them some boarding fees before she has a right to get the horse.



[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM. Reason : bah]

[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2011 3:55:44 PM

a horse is a horse
of course
of course

1/31/2011 4:06:12 PM

fucking alias trolls in the Lounge are annoying. you've gotten shit on by everyone in this thread, yet you keep at it.

yes, it's larceny. the minute the horse was not made available to the owner as stated in the contract, the horse was taken through trespass. the rest of your trivial bullshit is just laughable.

1/31/2011 4:07:44 PM

I'm sorry eleusis. In North Carolina, the elements of larceny are stated above. Please walk me through and explain how those elements are met? Or do you just think if "someone wont give me my stuff" it is larceny?

If a person takes possession of property lawfully, and refuses to surrender it when the owner has a right of possession, the intentional tort is that of trespass to chattels or conversion. The elements of larceny are not met.

Thus, you are a fucking moron.

1/31/2011 4:14:09 PM

The real problem is that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Unfortunately, it does not stop you from posting comments which purport to have knowledge of the subject matter, but in truth, you are just making shit up. You just got called out.

Let's go over your advice.

Quote :

"Call the guy and make arrangements to pay him and pick up the horse. Ask a sheriff's deputy to go with you to the farm and confront the guy boarding the horse. When you get there, just tell him you don't owe him anything and you've come to pick up your livestock. If he refuses to turn over the horse, he'll get arrested for stealing livestock."

So you advise the friend to lie to the guy. Then state that you don't owe him anything in front of a sworn officer? Then "he'll get arrested." Great legal advice.

1/31/2011 4:56:09 PM

my advice is still the best advice in the thread. The guy in possession of the horse knows he's in the wrong, and he's not going to cause a scene in front of an officer.

If you don't lie to the guy, odds are you're not going to catch the guy at home or he's going to claim to not know where the horse is. Telling him you have money for him ensures that he'll be there when you tell him to and he'll have the horse around. A person that's shady enough to cook up some halfass extortion scheme over $500 deserves to be lied to if that's what it takes to get your property back.

1/31/2011 5:41:41 PM

if he has been in possession of the horse for an extra 5 months, how is requesting boarding fees extortion?

1/31/2011 7:39:03 PM

i don't know the first thing about horses, but flatline's advice so far has been completely in-line with what i had to do when a mechanic tried to keep my car over some bullshit

the problem with eleusis' advice is that a sheriff will not just go out there and compel the guy to give you the horse because you ask them to. they are not judge and jury, they serve the court. you need the court to compel them to help recover your property.

[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 7:46 PM. Reason : advice which was instruction from my lawyer]

1/31/2011 7:43:55 PM

the sheriff is only there to keep the property owner from doing something stupid and to also serve as a witness to when the guy says he has the horse. Most people aren't going to put up much of an argument when the realize they're about to get drug through court and possibly get charges against them. A sheriff will definitely escort you if you tell them you have reason to believe the safety of you or the animal is in jeopardy.

If you try to take this guy to court, then he's just going to get rid of the horse.

1/31/2011 9:48:35 PM

Quote :

"If you try to take this guy to court, then he's just going to get rid of the horse."

Is this going to turn into something like the opossum thread?

1/31/2011 9:51:00 PM

Quote :

"Have you considered going to see a man about this issue"

also, is the horse dead? because if so, you should try to beat it.



just my 2 cents.

1/31/2011 10:33:14 PM

This is not a case of larceny; criminally speaking. If X gives me their lawnmower so I can mow my lawn, I now possess the lawnmower and don't have to give it back. However, if X comes and takes the lawnmower from me (even though it belongs to him), he has committed criminal larceny.

2/1/2011 12:22:39 AM

I know you're an officer, but I don't buy that shit for a fucking second. Show me a general statute backing that up.

2/1/2011 12:28:22 AM

It's the basic elements of larceny. G.S. 14-72:

1) takes personal property in the possession of another
2) and carries it away
3) without the consent of the possessor and
4) with the intent to deprive the possessor of it use permanently
5) knowing that the taker was not entitled to it

Regarding element 3:

"Thus a property owner may be guilty of larceny if the owner steals his or her property when it is in another person's lawful possession (North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime, Sixth Edition, 2007)."

See also 89 N.C. 466

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 12:47 AM. Reason : g/s/p]

2/1/2011 12:44:08 AM

^If that's true, how can repossession companies do what they do?

2/1/2011 7:41:35 AM

i think the language in the contract with the finance company entitles them to do so

2/1/2011 7:46:18 AM

Its not larceny. Could probably do a civil suit on the grounds of conversion....but I don't know how this horse shit goes.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 9:21:49 AM

Quote :

"This is not a case of larceny; criminally speaking. If X gives me their lawnmower so I can mow my lawn, I now possess the lawnmower and don't have to give it back. However, if X comes and takes the lawnmower from me (even though it belongs to him), he has committed criminal larceny."

So you essentially own anything anybody lets you borrow until you voluntarily return it? I feel like this a incorrect application of:

Quote :

"It's the basic elements of larceny. G.S. 14-72: 1) takes personal property in the possession of another 2) and carries it away 3) without the consent of the possessor and 4) with the intent to deprive the possessor of it use permanently 5) knowing that the taker was not entitled to it Regarding element 3: "Thus a property owner may be guilty of larceny if the owner steals his or her property when it is in another person's lawful possession (North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime, Sixth Edition, 2007)." "

Point 5 "knowing that the taker was not entitled to it" being the condition not met by this situation (it has to satisfy all 5, right?). So X is entitled to his own lawnmower unless he relinquishes his entitlement to it, like leasing it to you. Once the lease is expired he can legally remove from your property.

2/1/2011 10:02:03 AM

Quote :

"I know you're an officer, but I don't buy that shit for a fucking second. Show me a general statute backing that up."

Quote :

"The real problem is that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Unfortunately, it does not stop you from posting comments which purport to have knowledge of the subject matter, but in truth, you are just making shit up. You just got called out."

Damn, you are a stupid fuck. Take some PO and a statute over an attorney.

Et all, larceny can be a crime charged against the owner of the property, because larceny is a property crime depriving the POSSESSOR of his rights, not the owner.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 10:38:19 AM

I will gladly pay you tomorrow for my horse today

2/1/2011 10:41:56 AM

Quote :

"5) knowing that the taker was not entitled to it "

his whole argument goes to shit over that statement in the GS.

2/1/2011 11:24:24 AM

Still pretty sure it's conversion and not larceny.

2/1/2011 11:37:37 AM

you redneck moron

Quote :

"his whole argument goes to shit over that statement in the GS."

Several people in this thread are your betters in the legal field. Rather than listen to them, you try to make up some stupid shit, because you think you are always correct.

I am not a alias, just someone who rarely posts. I am tired of you, noen, fecaljapan, etc who post made up shit on every subject on earth. Cross over into a field which I am an expert in, and I will call you the fuck out.

2/1/2011 11:41:21 AM

So just to clarify: Girl buys horse. Girl gives horse to son and gets a contract saying that the Son will raise the horse for free for X period of time. The period of time expires, but Girl isn't able to get in touch with Son. Once she has Father gets involved and says "if you want the horse back, that'll be $500"?

So, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that ultimately come down to exactly what the father is saying she owes money for? Assuming the Son was 18+, the father would have no claim to any money from her for raising the horse. The only thing he could claim is that he boarded the horse from October to now, but if she can show she made a good faith attempt to contact the son and couldn't (which will be a stretch if she knew where the barn was), then he might not even have those grounds.

That doesn't seem to be the case though. It sounds like she maybe made a half-ass attempt to get the horse back and now it's just been sitting there for four additional months. Dude deserves to get paid for that.

That said, from what little I know about horses, it doesn't seem like $500 is that outrageous a price to pay for the amount of service you've gotten.

2/1/2011 11:51:05 AM

2/1/2011 11:59:33 AM

the facts in the OP are very poorly described. I wouldn't really even attempt to decipher the meaning of the post.

If there was a "free lease" and the possessor failed to return the property when the owner attempted to retrieve the animal in Sept, he would be possibly liable for conversion. He would not be able to collect board from Sept-Jan in that scenario.

Still assuming a "free lease" or whatever it is, if the owner was lazy and attempted to get the horse in Dec-Jan, the possessor probably has a right to demand some boarding fees from owner before releasing the horse.

2/1/2011 12:01:54 PM

who's this flatline asshole?

He's being quite the penis head in this thread.

2/1/2011 12:03:16 PM

He may be an asshole, but between him and eleusis trying to claim this is larceny, you kind of have to side with flatline.

2/1/2011 12:22:49 PM

Quote :

"He's being quite the penis head in this thread."

Which is what eleusis commonly is in threads like these. That guy should have his own personal wikipedia site...

2/1/2011 12:24:36 PM

he knows everything, duh

2/1/2011 12:28:43 PM

Quote :

"If there was a "free lease" and the possessor failed to return the property when the owner attempted to retrieve the animal in Sept, he would be possibly liable for conversion. He would not be able to collect board from Sept-Jan in that scenario. Still assuming a "free lease" or whatever it is, if the owner was lazy and attempted to get the horse in Dec-Jan, the possessor probably has a right to demand some boarding fees from owner before releasing the horse. "

I was under the assumption that she went to where the horse was being boarded and it was no longer there, and that after finally contacting the father she learned the horse was now in his possession at some other location. If the horse has never even been moved from the original location, then I can understand why you are saying this isn't larceny. This girl would have to be incredibly stupid to not have even known where her horse was located for 2 years straight.

2/1/2011 1:06:19 PM

....backtracking itt.....

Quote :

"yes, it's larceny. the minute the horse was not made available to the owner as stated in the contract, the horse was taken through trespass."

wait, wut?? I think you're thinking of trespass to chattel. You need to forget the word larceny, because you obviously don't know what it means. Conversion and trespass to chattels are pretty similar and the plaintiff usually picks one depending on what exactly they are trying to recover (restitution versus the actual property).

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 2:45:01 PM

has Noen weighed in yet?

2/1/2011 3:15:20 PM

only 2/3 of my posts are made up shit. the rest are completely legitimate

2/1/2011 3:28:38 PM

Pull an OJ simpson.

2/2/2011 9:30:47 AM

kill a white girl?

2/2/2011 10:22:06 AM

If the saddle doesn't fit, you must acquit.

2/2/2011 11:10:19 AM

itt, eleusis pretends to be a lawyer

does his expertise know no bounds??

2/2/2011 11:32:07 AM