Steve Markevich/ Serpent's Den

Did I miss something? Steve says his animals were stolen, but it sounds like the landlords locked him out, because bills weren't paid. Laws vary from state to state, but here in CA if you fall to far behind on your rent. People can lock you out eventually and auction off your stuff to recoup the money lost. This time live animals were involved which makes the situation unfortunate. How far behind on the bills was Steve? That seems to be an important question here that is missing (or I missed it). You usually don't get locked out for being behind a months rent. Was it 1,? 2? 3? or more? The landlord does have a rights here to. He has the right to try and recoup money lost. I agree with everyone that there is more to this than meets the eye. In my opinion we are walking blind, because Steve (only in third person) and Chris aren't talking on here. We know the landlords, newspapers, and police aren't going to tell us anything on here. We're just piecing together a few details that could be true or not.

Originally Posted by dberes

Did I miss something? Steve says his animals were stolen, but it sounds like the landlords locked him out, because bills weren't paid. Laws vary from state to state, but here in CA if you fall to far behind on your rent. People can lock you out eventually and auction off your stuff to recoup the money lost. This time live animals were involved which makes the situation unfortunate. How far behind on the bills was Steve? That seems to be an important question here that is missing (or I missed it). You usually don't get locked out for being behind a months rent. Was it 1,? 2? 3? or more? The landlord does have a rights here to. He has the right to try and recoup money lost. I agree with everyone that there is more to this than meets the eye. In my opinion we are walking blind, because Steve (only in third person) and Chris aren't talking on here. We know the landlords, newspapers, and police aren't going to tell us anything on here. We're just piecing together a few details that could be true or not.

How the residential (I'm not sure if there's a difference with commercial) landlord/tenant system works in PA is as follows (I myself am a landlord and did have to do this):

•A signed 30 day eviction notice must be physically handed to the tenant (this must be witnessed by someone on "your side")
• After that 30 day eviction notice is passed, charges to remove the tenant must be filed through the court house or magistrate
• You can not have the tenant or his/her belongs removed until after the court makes a decision on the matter
• After the court makes a decision, the tenant is granted an additional 15 or 30 days to vacate
• After those 15 or 30 days are up, the tenant can be locked out and any property remaining becomes the property of the landlord

Their is an active Magisterial District case against Steve Markevich in Carbon County dated July 23, 2008. If you use this website you can pull up the Docket Number and I think details (the website is not Mac compatible, when I click on the magnifying glass it just doesn't work for me, so I have no idea what details are actually available).

Is there a clause that deals with folks who are in jail? He may have gotten out within the time frame, but being that his belongings were animals they could not just be left there waiting for him to come back when he got out.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

Is there a clause that deals with folks who are in jail? He may have gotten out within the time frame, but being that his belongings were animals they could not just be left there waiting for him to come back when he got out.

Not that I'm aware of. I can stop in on my magistrate Monday and see if there's anything (they were EXTREMELY helpful when dealing with my tenant issue). I know in the oddles of paperwork and information they gave me their was nothing mentioned. I believe you would still have to go to court and have them decide though...You can't just take things without getting your butt in trouble, legally, later.

Originally Posted by 3toe

Jerry,

you are way wrong about Steve, but i guess we all have the right to voice our opinions.
but before anyone goes and judges him, they should know all the facts, not just an article
in the papers.

Dave

What is the answer to him having the animals in an area that it's not legal to have them? Why did he let things get so far out of hand to get it get to the point it did financially? If the business wasn't doing well it's time to cut your losses and sell off the animals at cost just to keep your head above water for a while. If that doesn't work then it's time to get a real job.

The link shows 339 charges against him, most of which are for keeping prohibited animals and cruelty to animals. Charges 1 and 2 are Recklessy endangering another person, and public nuisances.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

The link shows 339 charges against him, most of which are for keeping prohibited animals and cruelty to animals. Charges 1 and 2 are Recklessy endangering another person, and public nuisances.

Is that what the pop up thing shows? Is it a PDF or something you can save and then upload to a post's attachments?

It does appear the case is still open...and if so...If the law in PA is like the law in Maggie's state...Those animals/supplies should not be being sold on Kingsnake.com until the case is closed (if that is in fact true).

Originally Posted by LakesideBoas

In order to remove animals from his facility Steve would have had to have someplace to move them to. Relocating that many animals also takes time.

Steve does not mention an eviction notice just that the landlord was taking him to court (probably for the eviction proceedings). So he may have felt he had some time to do this. Once the electric was disconnected he would have had to provide heat for them somehow. He stated he was using propane heaters in addition to a generator.

The timeline Steve provides that the animals left at the store that had not been relocated was April 16th (when he was arrested and his GF asked to move the animals) to April 21st (the day they came to take the "neglected/abandoned animals). That is five days. Five days that they might not have had their water changed and most likely were put into temporary housing in order to move them. Thus explaining to those of us who care for these animals an explanation for their "sub-standard" housing.

The authorities turned off the generator. I asked Steve if they had turned off the propane heaters also, as if they did, they created the very conditions they came to the "rescue" of: conditions conducive to RI and death to a reptile. He hasn't had a chance to get back to me yet, but if they did turn off the only heat in the building, knowing it was used to house and maintain reptiles I feel that makes the so called authorities entirely culpable for the health situation described in the article.

Would I have done things entirely the way Steve seems to have? I do not know as I have never been in a situation such as that and I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Sound like an excuse if the animals needed that much heat but it wasn't cold then. They would have survived a few days.

How long had Steve been in this store on Main street prior to April 16th?