I can't help but think they're going to play it up like he's a victim in all this, just like you, and throw his nephew under the bus. If the judge is sympathetic to his situation...that is, if the uncle's successful in claiming to love this horse as much as you do and is convincing in what I'm sure will be his argument that he had NO CLUE that his nephew didn't actually have any right to sell the horse...then the judge could leave the horse with him and force the nephew to pay YOU for the horse and the trouble.
If I were him, that's what I would want because the whole situation would suddenly become a battle over money between you and the nephew....allowing me to wash my hands of the whole situation and effectively affirming my legal ownership of the horse, which would give me the right to do whatever I wanted with him.
If I carry that thought forward just a little bit more, I'd sell Max immediately afterward -- for cash, sticking the profit under the mattress -- and wash my hands of the whole thing...but I digress..
Here's the thing, though...
If, the judge restores Max to your possession, the nephew would really only owe to the uncle what the uncle paid for the horse. As I recall, it wasn't very much.. Well, I guess he'd owe the purchase price plus whatever else the uncle wants out of him (vet bills, etc)....but that's it.
That's probably
do-able for the nephew.. That's probably a judgement he could actually fulfill.
If, however, she leaves the horse with the uncle, the nephew will be on the hook for the horse's
actual value, which was much, much more than what he got for him from the uncle...that probably
won't be do-able for the nephew, which means he'll just default on the judgement and never pay anyone one thin dime. In that case, you'd win the "moral victory" by virtue of having been awarded judgement, but that's it.. The uncle, on the other hand, would not only come out scot-free, but would also be WAY AHEAD FINANCIALLY by virtue of having gotten "a steal" on this horse from his nephew.
I'd be inclined to use that phrase in front of the judge, too -- "a steal." Not maliciously...not sarcastically...I'd just use it and let it sink in on its own, like a little idea grenade.
Since it may very well come down to a judgement call for the judge, I would do my very best to get those points across..
To recap:
A) Awarding to you gives you your horse back, and you
gain nothing; you're just restored one horse...it gives the nephew a judgement he can probably pay...the uncle simply gets
a refund from nephew on a horse he shouldn't have sold in the first place..
B) Awarding to uncle means uncle is
rewarded financially, at your expense, for buying the horse at "a steal"...the nephew is given the impossible task of paying you the
actual value of the horse, of which he'll never pay a dime...you get nothing but an empty moral victory.
Clearly, A) is more equitable than B), because B) is waaaaay lopsided in the uncle's favor. The judge may not pick up on that right away, though.. To the judge, it may look like the nephew's gonna have to pay someone, and that someone's gonna lose a horse, sooooooo...he pays eeeny meenie miney YOU.
Especially if the uncle's lawyer is slick!!
So you've gotta make absolutely sure the judge is forced to look at it your way because, frankly, I can't help but think that any reasonable person would pick A) when it's all laid out in the terms above..
Good luck.. I've been watching this thread for months now, and I really hope it turns out for ya..
