Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Lea's Facebook page lists her birthday as July 20, 1987, while Nikki's Fauna profile has hers as 1988. As others have attested, they are two different people.

Originally Posted by KenyaChams

No. I have had nothing to do with her faunaclassifieds account though she has logged into it on my computer before.



You are very much missing the point that I am not legally able to ship the gecko, even if I wanted to. Brittany seems to understand this so I am unsure why you can't grasp the legal gravity of the situation. I have already said that I intend to help this be right for Brittany but that it will take time because I am in a legal battle with Lea and have to take this one step at a time.

I am happy to answer any questions I am able to but must be vague for sensitive information until the legal side of things are taken care of. I won't be responding to personal attacks or nonsense. Brittanys best bet still remains getting a refund from Lea because I really have nothing to do with their transaction.

Help this be right for Brittany how? By reselling her the gecko? Nobody asked you to respond to personal attacks. But surely you will conveniently catagorize tough or possibly incriminating questions as "personal" attacks. Who didn't see that coming? As far as legality is concerned, did your lawyer say you will go to jail if you ship the ALREADY PAID FOR gecko? Oops! Sorry for asking another insult.

Originally Posted by Pogaf

I think you make the point here though that her doing that would remove Lea of the burden of the transaction, when Nikki received no compensation for the animal; no one in this ordeal needs to be left in debt. After hearing from both sides, I do not expect Nikki to just send me Fangorn for the sake of morality. I think it's clear that the animals were left in her care and my money was taken by Lea. If she sent him to me, she would be in debt, I would be neutral, and Lea would be ahead. I'm trying to even this out, not dig someone else into a hole.

Right now my goal is to get back my money and let the two of them go about their personal lives without me causing either more trouble. My transaction was not with Nikki and she has none of my money. Lea has my money and does not have the "item" I paid for. If a shop is out of stock of something you paid for and will not be getting more in, you should be refunded. That's how I'm seeing this. The two of them can then work out which of them Fangorn belongs to.

If Nikki were to send you that gecko, and the courts decide that they are her animals, than the court will find Lea responsible to pay Nikki for it. Both of them reek of laim excuses. Equally.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

If Nikki were to send you that gecko, and the courts decide that they are her animals, than the court will find Lea responsible to pay Nikki for it. Both of them reek of laim excuses. Equally.

I definitely see where this makes sense, but at the same time, that would add another layer of complication to the case. It shouldn't be Nikki's responsibility to collect the money for the gecko when she wasn't part of the transaction in the first place. The only reason she's involved right now is because she is in physical ownership of Fangorn and because I was led to think there was an agreement about him being shipped. I'd honestly like to see legal documentation from Lea and her lawyer that states that 1) she isn't allowed to issue refunds until things are settled and 2) there was an agreement about shipping sold geckos.

I'd rather the idea of the gecko being shipped be dropped and the focus to be on me getting a refund. As of right now I am seeing that as the only viable option.

If one or both of you have a lawyer, then post their information here. If a lawyer is legally allowed to practice then their basic information is public record.

Additionally, provide documentation from said lawyer that can be verified by sending the documentation to the office to ask of its authenticity pertaining to advisement of not sending out the gecko or refunding.

There should be a paper trail for this entire scenario. If you are not lying, prove it.

If either of you wants to make this right for Brittany then she needs her gecko or the money she paid for said gecko. Your personal issues, she said/she said nonsense is not her problem.

If legal proceedings are already being made towards Lea then going after her for the money would not be an issue for Nikki. You both lived together, you shared a joint account, you claim the funds used to paid for said gecko were yours Nikki, but when the account is joint and the funds come out of said joint account, it does not matter who's paycheck primarily funds it; it belongs to both of you, as do the funds within it. That is why few people are ever able to reclaim funds when a bitter spouse/boyfriend/fiance drains a joint account prior to taking off.

Stop airing out your dirty laundry, grow up and fix it. Whoever steps up to do that will certainly look better; just a thought.

Personally? I'd have already refunded or sent the gecko out, depending on what side I was on. "If not but for" is an important phrase here.

My opinion? It is complete BS. As a Criminal Justice major, I know a thing or two about civil law:
After 30 days, if property is left in someone elses home, it is considered surrendered, which means those animal. Anything left there is no longer theirs and they would have absolutely no standing in a court to get that property back. A lawyer would tell their client this, and if you were to go in front of a lawyer, they would simply ask how long the property remained there and if there was an agreement to keep it there. Also, a lawyer wouldn't represent someone without a case.

Unfortunately for Lea, no matter how she tries to spin her refund policy, she accepted payment and by doing that, she legally agreed to provide that animal. If it is not provided, the money must be returned. Simple as that.

I'm curious - Brittany Brownell has said multiple times that she can't ship the animal due to legal proceedings - that's fine - but after the legal games are all over and ownership of the animals has been determined, if the ownership has been assigned to Ms. Brownell, will the gecko be shipped to the purchaser? That question seems to've been dodged with "patience" "wait" "legal" a few times, and I think the buyer deserves a solid yes or no answer - if one wants to keep the animal, just say so so that the buyer can concentrate on the original seller.

Similarly, if ownership is assigned to the original seller, will the gecko be shipped to the original purchaser?

I don't know if I missed it, but how much was this gecko?

Originally Posted by orphia

I'm curious - Brittany Brownell has said multiple times that she can't ship the animal due to legal proceedings - that's fine - but after the legal games are all over and ownership of the animals has been determined, if the ownership has been assigned to Ms. Brownell, will the gecko be shipped to the purchaser? That question seems to've been dodged with "patience" "wait" "legal" a few times, and I think the buyer deserves a solid yes or no answer - if one wants to keep the animal, just say so so that the buyer can concentrate on the original seller.

Similarly, if ownership is assigned to the original seller, will the gecko be shipped to the original purchaser?

Nikki stated to Brittany. "I would be willing to give you first refusal on Fangorn at a discounted price when this is all settled".

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Nikki stated to Brittany. "I would be willing to give you first refusal on Fangorn at a discounted price when this is all settled".

That is a joke.

So, what all of this really comes down to (because now it is obvious with me being shown that quote) is that Nikki is bitter, not that Lea sold an animal she claims is hers, it is that Lea sold an animal that Nikki did not get the funds from because the joint bank account they both held together (<--- important to note) was liquidated by Lea. So, Nikki is going to sell this "beloved" gecko regardless, but only so she can have the funds from said sale because things did not work out in her favor when things went bad between her and her girlfriend.

That's low, Nikki. Everything Lea has done is low too. Neither one of you are anyone to do business with if this is how you treat customers. My goodness.