Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Originally Posted by MedusaCoil

Webslave seems to be simply concerned about the names which I understand more. Webslave, she simply has multiple email accounts like many of us do. One is her business acccount. Lea did not give the buyer that account's email address. I can certainly see where you're confused because multiple accounts can, indeed, become confusing. Still, much of what's being said is being said in a very unnecessarily accusatory way. Having multiple emails isn't a crime. I've had dozens over the past 18 years I've been online, myself. Several are still active. I'm sure you're both the same, or your kids are.

I really don't care about email account labels or addresses. What I care about is the REAL FULL NAME registered here for an account that people will post under in this forum. And yes, that is my self assumed job (and burden). This is no different than enforcing any of the other rules and guidelines that I have created for this site.

Enforcement of the rules is my ONLY concern with threads of this nature here. I don't know any of the parties personally, and likely never will. I really don't personally care WHO is right or wrong beyond hoping that it WILL get resolved in favor of who is actually in the right. I have no control over how that might proceed. I will never be a judge in this matter, which is by choice as much as circumstance.

But as for the rules here, yes, I DO have control over this environment somewhat, which is an authority that I use as a judge to enforce my responsibility as diligently as I am practically and feasibly able to. So yes, when I feel my involvement is needed, I will REQUIRE information when a possible violation of the rules MAY exist.

If someone requires more involvement from me, then I am sorry, but I respectfully decline.

Originally Posted by allesuberschildkroten

I'm just curious as to if she even really has a lawyer or if this just isn't the run around to not give a refund.

It's obvious Lea took the money, and her possession of the gecko has nothing to do with a refund. I'm trying to figure out why she can't/won't give a refund when the OP has nothing to do with their "legal business." Seems to me Lea just doesn't want to give the money back. Lea doesn't own the gecko but took the money, and now won't refund it. To me that sounds like theft of money, and has nothing to do with Lea & Nikki "legal" issues.

I agree. Both have the opportunity to do the right thing. If I seem hard on Nikki, it's for a reason. She at least had the guts to come here. I don't know if I believe her about everything she said, thus the questions. I personally hoped Nikki would make this right which would put Lea in a bad light here. Lea should have taken the sold animals with her. She took the money. She should pay it back. She used the OP to sneakily relay her messages here. Sad.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Warning: There have been some rather snarky comments thrown from one member to another here and there in this thread, and I would like to see that cease as of now, please.

Please conduct yourselves (you hopefully know who I am referring to) as adults and professionals (whether you really are or not) and leave the personally derogatory and flame baiting taunting at the door when you walk in here.

Got it.

Rosa, with all due respect, it does appear you have a vested interest and bias toward one of "these two ladies", despite living 1,000 miles away.

It would seem you have "insider" knowledge about the dirty laundry that they both divulged in emails to the buyer ... no one here dragged that crap out of them, nor does anyone here really care!

It's about an animal purchased and a timely refund not received, despite the buyer's request, due to all the personal BS by the "two ladies" involved ... which I might add was initiated by the "ladies" themselves, NOT the buyer.

The three of you can all comfort Brittany, the OP, with your "I would if I could", or "I hope it works out", or, "Sorry, I'm bound by the law" crap, or "it's not my responsibility", but no one has done a blasted thing to see her compensated, just made excuses.

Nikki's identity has already been confirmed and established. No argument there. Nikki has no legal responsibility to ship the gecko to the buyer since she did not receive the funds. No argument there. Nikki didn't sell the gecko or collect the funds. Lea did.

No one is encouraging anyone to break the law over $225.00! No one is "egging" anyone else on. No one is enocouraging Nikki to "scam herself".

Bottom line is, Lea advertised, sold the gecko and received compensation for the gecko; now the gecko is the subject of a court battle and ownership is in limbo. Since Lea actively advertised, sold and received payment, Lea is now responsible for refunding the buyer since she can't deliver. Bottom line.

No one is breaking the freaking law by refunding for product not received. The gecko is still in Nikki's possession, still part of the collection of whatever legal action they claim is pending.

No competent attorney representing Lea would advise her NOT to refund a buyer for an animal/product she advertised, sold and was paid for, but is currently in limbo, and still in possession of the parties pending a civil hearing.

You should never feel morally obligated to give away your pets because someone else is trying to get one over on you!

No one here is giving "pets" away. The gecko was advertised for sale and sold. Money was exchanged, but the buyer never got the gecko. There's no "pet" here, and no giving away. It's all about property, money and personal baloney.

[quote=No competent attorney representing Lea would advise her NOT to refund a buyer for an animal/product she advertised, sold and was paid for, but is currently in limbo, and still in possession of the parties pending a civil hearing.[/QUOTE]

That's my point exactly, this is theft of money and the animal has nothing to do with the refund.

I am, however, disappointed by the moderators in this thread. Dennis is outright egging all of you on, which is rather surprising since I'm used to him conducting himself in a completely professional manner.

Rosa, There are a 145 posts on this thread and I have only made a handful.

There were more than 50 posts here before I posted. In that first post I stated it was complicated but the bottom-line was Lea owed the buyer. She sold the animal.

I asked a few questions because there were some inconsistencies in the emails. Others brought up those same points up. That's what happens here. If there are inconsistencies in what people are stating then we look at them.

Then I also posted the original ad for the buyer.

My next post was in response to the OP posting a email from Lea.

I responded that it was Well, basically hogwash and that's my opinion. She has no restraints on sending the funds back.

At the same time Nikki posted to clarify her positions on why she couldn't send the gecko.

I haven't stated anything about that. I actually found it more reasonable and logical reason than what Lea is stating why she can't send the funds.

I haven't egged anybody on.

Lastly, I didn't know either of these two ladies. If they were in business together or not. When people make multiple accounts here they usually regurgitate the same information in the profiles such as the same birthday.

Since Nikki stated they weren't in business and didn't share the same accounts, It was a sincere question to see if the same person made the accounts for both of them. That would imply they were in business together selling the animals.

She answered my question. They share the same birthday.

That was my six posts out of this 145 post thread so far.

I'm egging people on? I asked questions just like everyone else here, AS a member of this site.

I haven't issued any warnings in this thread or moderated this thread and I most certainly didn't demand Nikki send the Gecko or state that she should if she has been ordered not to by a court.

My posts have been pretty mild considering some of the other statements here. The only reason you addressing me is because I'm a moderator here has well. I'm allowed to post my personal opinions and ask questions just like everyone else.

I did state that it sure did appear that Lea did have permission to sell the geckos since they have been advertised since February and the inconsistencies in the emails posted. That it appeared they were in business.

That's it.

And I would do the same for you as well (ask questions) if you paid for something and it seemed like you were getting screwed. That's why the BOI is here.

Lea Hurst also does business as LCH Reptiles, I am adding this because I saw an ad on another forum from earlier in the year which only had the company name.

Rosa, every state does have their own abandonment laws, in the state of Orgeo. It is 15 days, rather than 30 with a written notice to get their property. Yet again, a lawyer would advise a client to give said written notice, then collect the property. (ORS 90.425 and 90.675)

And I'm sorry, but a small claims court nor a civil court will take a case on dividing property because these two weren't marrie; in the eyes of the court they do not have shared property to divide up. The only way there is a true case would be if Nikki is not letting Lea retrieve her things (which she said she left the animals with her) or if there is damaged property. There is no court to divide up personal property between friends, partners, etc, unless in the eyes of the law it was shared property.

Originally Posted by Pogaf

Nikki Pardalis <nakedmolecat@gmail.com>
Sun 8/10/2014 4:33 PM
To: Freeman, Brittany;

She abandoned those animals with me and told me to keep them because she no longer wanted them and "they didn't sell" and I had been arguing that they were rightfully mine the whole time anyway as I paid for them, chose pairings, paid for their food, cleaned their cages, and generally cared for them.

Originally Posted by Kristen0888

And I'm sorry, but a small claims court nor a civil court will take a case on dividing property because these two weren't marrie; in the eyes of the court they do not have shared property to divide up. The only way there is a true case would be if Nikki is not letting Lea retrieve her things (which she said she left the animals with her) or if there is damaged property. There is no court to divide up personal property between friends, partners, etc, unless in the eyes of the law it was shared property.

If the parties dispute ownership of property there is certainly a valid case.