Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Originally Posted by Lucille

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

Nikki said she had been arguing that the animals were rightfully hers, yet stated that Lea had plenty of time to grab "what she wanted". To me this implies that at one point in time ownership didn't seem to be an issue. Nikki also stated Lea was ordered to get animals with a police escort and a third party. I asked what animals Lea was supposed to take. That question was avoided for a reason that has no relation to a gag order.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Nikki said she had been arguing that the animals were rightfully hers, yet stated that Lea had plenty of time to grab "what she wanted". To me this implies that at one point in time ownership didn't seem to be an issue. Nikki also stated Lea was ordered to get animals with a police escort and a third party. I asked what animals Lea was supposed to take. That question was avoided for a reason that has no relation to a gag order.

From what I understand, Nikki is referring to a specific animal that belongs to Lea. I believe the whole "take what you want" was an attempt to avoid conflict and just get the situation over with.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Nikki said she had been arguing that the animals were rightfully hers, yet stated that Lea had plenty of time to grab "what she wanted". To me this implies that at one point in time ownership didn't seem to be an issue. Nikki also stated Lea was ordered to get animals with a police escort and a third party. I asked what animals Lea was supposed to take. That question was avoided for a reason that has no relation to a gag order.

I agree.

When Nikki posted careful statements about never having been business partners with Lea, in my opinion she was trying to avoid the appearance of legal partnership, which if established would make her liable, personally liable, for the debts of the partnership.

Saying that one is not a business partner does not make it so.

To me, partnership is a critical point. IF Nikki was completely innocent, I feel she should not be guilted into sending this critter.
But her avoidance of questions casts clouds on her innocence, and the prattle about having to be quiet for legal reasons is wearing thin after seeing her post all sorts of stuff, invoking silence only when it is to her advantage to do so.

Originally Posted by Pogaf

From what I understand, Nikki is referring to a specific animal that belongs to Lea. I believe the whole "take what you want" was an attempt to avoid conflict and just get the situation over with.

Post #65. Nikki's exact words were "part of the issue is that Lea left MANY, MANY animals here at my home purposefully when she vacated including animalS that were hers. The only thing I see in her statement there that she is sure of ownership is her home.

Nikki - Even if the ownership of "fangorn" is disputed, you admit Lea abandoned MANY of her own animals. There is no ownership dispute on those by your own admission- they are Lea's. Why not send the OP one of Lea's geckos of equal value? Then you can go to court over fanghorn and whatever else and leave the OP out of it.

OP - I know you wanted fangorn, but at least you'd be getting something. Lea is never going to refund your money.

JUST MY OPINION!

You could go through her adds she posted on fauna, that way she couldn't dispute valuation...

OP, if you are ever so inclined to go to Oregon, I would file a suit against Lea with small claims personally. While waiting for the summons you could check out Crater Lake NP, Sisikyou Nat'l Forest, the Oregon coast etc.

Unfortunately to me, that seems like the only viable option other than reporting Lea (and/or Nikki) to ic3.gov or a similar law enforcement agency at this point. Both are full of excuses, and honestly wasting your valuable time. So if time is going to be wasted, why not use it on a nice vacation to their home state with direct action of a court. On the more time efficient side, filing a report with ic3.gov is quite easy.

Originally Posted by DanGill

Nikki - Even if the ownership of "fangorn" is disputed, you admit Lea abandoned MANY of her own animals. There is no ownership dispute on those by your own admission- they are Lea's. Why not send the OP one of Lea's geckos of equal value? Then you can go to court over fanghorn and whatever else and leave the OP out of it.

OP - I know you wanted fangorn, but at least you'd be getting something. Lea is never going to refund your money.

JUST MY OPINION!

It's not Nikki's responsibility to send me a gecko, especially one of her personal ones. Plus I paid for Fangorn because I have a project for him. I don't just want a gecko to have a gecko, no matter the value.

If Lea doesn't refund me I will sue her. So it can either be done the easy way or the hard way, where she'll end up paying much more.

Originally Posted by Pogaf

It's not Nikki's responsibility to send me a gecko, especially one of her personal ones. Plus I paid for Fangorn because I have a project for him. I don't just want a gecko to have a gecko, no matter the value.

If Lea doesn't refund me I will sue her. So it can either be done the easy way or the hard way, where she'll end up paying much more.

I think in the state of AZ you can open a small claims in AZ because the transaction, on your end, was completed in AZ (when you sent payment form your account). If that is the case, you'd win by default if she doesn't show up should they accept the claim (and they should).

Originally Posted by ShadowAceD

I think in the state of AZ you can open a small claims in AZ because the transaction, on your end, was completed in AZ (when you sent payment form your account). If that is the case, you'd win by default if she doesn't show up should they accept the claim (and they should).

Interesting... I haven't explored that option. Collecting on that might be very tricky though. I will most certainly look into it!