Quote:
True...he didn't have the right to sell, nor to move the horse. Which is a violation of the terms of the lease agreement. Nobody but the former lessee is disputing the claim that the terms of the lease agreement were violated.. The
real here question here, though, is whether or not the violation of the terms of the lease agreement constituted a criminal act or just a violation of RoPo's rights. If it was criminal, then yeah, the horse could probably be deemed stolen and they may even be able to go after the uncle for receiving stolen property, etc., and take the horse back by whatever means necessary. If, however, it's deemed simply a violation of her rights, then the horse may still be ordered back...or I can imagine a scenario where the guy may simply be ordered to pay restitution or do whatever the judge thinks is fair.
That's my worry, actually....that it won't be found a criminal act, but rather just a violation of rights, and that the jerk will be ordered to pay instead of being ordered to return the horse.
In any case, the bottom line is that it's come to the point where it's gonna take a judge to sort it out.