At first, I thought the lessee's uncle probably didn't actually buy the horse, but was simply playing along and keeping him hidden...now I kinda think he actually bought Max. I'm thinking that the uncle bought the horse and is taking the line that the sale was fair and square as far as he was concerned at the time, and that if someone's gonna get screwed, it won't be him.
I mean...maybe he got double-crossed by his own nephew. Maybe the lessee told his uncle what he told everyone else, which was that he couldn't get ahold of you to take your horse back.
If that's the case, then the uncle didn't knowingly buy stolen property. The fact that he's apparently told the sheriff's department that he'll 'protect what's his' or whatever leads me to believe he's at least aware of the fact that all he has to do is deny knowing the horse was stolen to avoid getting in trouble. Even if you challenged his assertion, without some convincing proof that he did know at the time of the sale, he'll win that battle anyway.
The downside to him actually having purchased the horse is that it makes him look like another victim in the lessee's scheming. The upside is that he'd at least have something invested in the animal and wouldn't likely just let him deteriorate.. Also, if he disposes of the animal in any way, it makes him look like he knew he was doing something wrong and tried to ditch the evidence..
As bad as I hate to say it...I'm starting to think that the most surefire way to get the horse back would be to buy him back from the uncle, then sue the original lessee for the amount of the sale. There's a chance that you might lose the case, though I doubt it...but even if you win, there's a good chance you'll never see the first dime of any court-ordered settlement from the lessee.
To come to that conclusion, I started thinking about it like this.. Say someone stole your TV and sold it to your neighbor. If the neighbor bought it without knowing it was stolen, you can't just walk in to the neighbor's house and take the TV, saying "Sorry, but this is mine." That shifts all the burden onto the neighbor, who is simply another victim. You can't make it his problem like that. If you buy it back from the neighbor, however, it would seem to me that you can sue the thief for the purchase amount if you can prove, in court, that the thief stole it and that you had to buy it back.
Here's the thing, though... If the neighbor gave $40 for your TV and quotes you $100 even after you explain to him that it was stolen.........well, I can't help but think there's probably something illegal about that. Point being, perhaps if someone -- a lawyer, for instance -- explained that to the uncle, he'd turn loose of the horse for what the lessee sold it for.
I dunno...I'm mostly just spitballin' here, trying to think of things as logically and objectively as possible.
I mean...maybe he got double-crossed by his own nephew. Maybe the lessee told his uncle what he told everyone else, which was that he couldn't get ahold of you to take your horse back.
If that's the case, then the uncle didn't knowingly buy stolen property. The fact that he's apparently told the sheriff's department that he'll 'protect what's his' or whatever leads me to believe he's at least aware of the fact that all he has to do is deny knowing the horse was stolen to avoid getting in trouble. Even if you challenged his assertion, without some convincing proof that he did know at the time of the sale, he'll win that battle anyway.
The downside to him actually having purchased the horse is that it makes him look like another victim in the lessee's scheming. The upside is that he'd at least have something invested in the animal and wouldn't likely just let him deteriorate.. Also, if he disposes of the animal in any way, it makes him look like he knew he was doing something wrong and tried to ditch the evidence..
As bad as I hate to say it...I'm starting to think that the most surefire way to get the horse back would be to buy him back from the uncle, then sue the original lessee for the amount of the sale. There's a chance that you might lose the case, though I doubt it...but even if you win, there's a good chance you'll never see the first dime of any court-ordered settlement from the lessee.
To come to that conclusion, I started thinking about it like this.. Say someone stole your TV and sold it to your neighbor. If the neighbor bought it without knowing it was stolen, you can't just walk in to the neighbor's house and take the TV, saying "Sorry, but this is mine." That shifts all the burden onto the neighbor, who is simply another victim. You can't make it his problem like that. If you buy it back from the neighbor, however, it would seem to me that you can sue the thief for the purchase amount if you can prove, in court, that the thief stole it and that you had to buy it back.
Here's the thing, though... If the neighbor gave $40 for your TV and quotes you $100 even after you explain to him that it was stolen.........well, I can't help but think there's probably something illegal about that. Point being, perhaps if someone -- a lawyer, for instance -- explained that to the uncle, he'd turn loose of the horse for what the lessee sold it for.
I dunno...I'm mostly just spitballin' here, trying to think of things as logically and objectively as possible.
