Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Originally Posted by Pogaf

The original listing does state that she has a 50% non-refundable deposit policy. My only question is, because she essentially terminated the transaction, is that still to be upheld? It would seem unfair for a seller to have that policy so they could cancel a transaction at any time and know they could keep half the funds. I always felt those were if the buyer backed out, which I don't feel like I am doing, despite having requested a refund.

Nothing in that applies to your transaction.

Originally Posted by gila7150

Brittany, you may want to consider sending Lea's boss a link to this thread.
http://house-of-reptiles.com/meet-staff
He may be interested to know how trustworthy his employees are. Especially since her reputation in the reptile community could negatively affect his business.

Thanks for the idea, but I think it's best to avoid bringing more people into this than need to be- I want to keep it as professional as possible. I'm not trying to muddle her name, especially in a place not associated with this transaction. Plus, it'll be far more difficult to get a refund if she doesn't have a job!

Originally Posted by Sinofmen

This is what I have been saying since the beginning. They were living together and conducting business together when the money was sent.

Co-habitation does not confer the rights, privileges, and responsiblities of either a marriage or a formal business partnership.

Nikki states she has the gecko in her possession now but won't ship it to the buyer. The buyer even offered to send more money to pay for the shipping, yet Nikki still refuses to ship the gecko to the buyer. Instead she wants the buyer to file complaints through paypal and her bank to further fuel the fire of tension between the two.

Bad business ethics on Nikki's part however you choose to twist it.

Lea and Nikki went into this "business" as individuals. Not real bright, but that's water under the bridge at this point.

Nikki has no contract with the OP. If Nikki and Lea had formed a partnership, corporation, or LLC, and that business entity owned the gecko, and OP had paid that business entity, then Nikki should ship.

We don't know what, if any, contract exists between Nikki and Lea regarding the geckos, and both have intimated that the dispute over who owns what is likely to end up in court.

Lea got paid but can't ship what was promised, so she needs to refund the buyer.

Lea answered my email to her requesting a refund:






As far as I'm aware, they did not share financial accounts. The money I sent Lea is still held by Lea, regardless of the gecko's owner. I don't think my transaction with her should be impacted by a court case. If I was demanding Fangorn be released to me, that's one thing, as his ownership is in question, but the money I sent is not.

I would like to clear a few things up.

First and foremost, I am in a legal battle with Lea over a restraining order I requested against her in order to protect myself. Regardless of if I felt I should send Brittany Fangorn to right Leas wrong against her, I am not legally able to at the moment as the legal ownership of the animals is up in the air. Shipping him would be a huge mistake legally so unfortunately, patience is all we have to deal with the situation for now.

Part of the issue is that Lea left many, many animals here at my home purposefully when she vacated including animals that are hers and court ordered to be removed yet she refuses to take back. Many of the animals in this legal grey area are the gecko collection that I purchased, she bred and advertised, and told me "never sold".

I wasn't thrilled when I found out she was advertising them in June but didn't want to make waves. I figured if she managed to sell a few babies, she would back off and leave me with the adults that I had paid for and was attached to. The nature of our relationship at the time meant that Lea did as she pleased and to be honest, I was not active in the reptile community and just trying to hold my personal life together. I wasn't aware of how long she was advertising the geckos and our main dispute is over the breeding pairs of parents anyway, not the juveniles that are already produced so when she did mention she had been advertising a few of the babies but without luck, I didn't think much of it beyond annoyance that she hadn't asked me before doing it.

We agreed that the cresteds would stay with me when we were originally negotiating her moving out in very early July (before things got bad and I requested a protective order) because she had no interest or means to care for them and I had already been arguing for months that they were rightfully mine and I should be allowed to keep them since I paid for them, their housing, their food, and generally cared for their needs. Lea agreed that they were mine and I should keep them at that point and didn't say a word about the ones that apparently had sold.

When she left, she had plenty of time to grab what she wanted. She chose to not take the geckos even though she had ample opportunity, wouldn't take them later when told to remove her animals via a police escort and third party, and made zero attempts to notify me of Brittanys existence before sending her my personal information.

This is a very tenuous legal issue and I am so sorry that Brittany is caught in the middle. I told her to pursue a refund from Lea not as a brush off but because it is the quickest, most direct way to find a resolution. Brittany, you absolutely deserve a full refund at the very least but it needs to come from the person who took your money, Lea. I'm sorry that I can't right her wrong but I'm not responsible for her errors. I sympathize but this is just another manifestation of the reasoning behind all the current legal issues I'm facing.

Originally Posted by Pogaf

Lea answered my email to her requesting a refund:






As far as I'm aware, they did not share financial accounts. The money I sent Lea is still held by Lea, regardless of the gecko's owner. I don't think my transaction with her should be impacted by a court case. If I was demanding Fangorn be released to me, that's one thing, as his ownership is in question, but the money I sent is not.

What a load.

Lea, send the funds back to the person you took them from and provided nothing. Then deal with whatever accusations you have with your former partner.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how accusing your former partner of theft prevents you from returning the funds to your buyer.

Even if it did, the ethical thing to do is refund your customer.

My reply to Lea:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

What a load.

Lea, send the funds back to the person you took them from and provided nothing. Then deal with whatever accusations you have with your former partner.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how accusing your former partner of theft prevents you from returning the funds to your buyer.

Even if it did, the ethical thing to do is refund your customer.

I think the "lawyers said" talk is what's getting me the most frustrated in this whole thing. I understand how sending the gecko when its ownership is in question is a potential problem. But I feel like the "my lawyer said/advised" is being used as an excuse at this point. It's like saying you can't pay your electric bill because your lawyer said your former roommate might be responsible for some it... you still pay the bill and figure that out later.

Property division can be complex. That said, there is zero proof from either of them that there are indeed any lawyers involved. The FIRST thing an attorney ordinarily tells a client is to be quiet, (not even 'my lawyer said this') yet here Lea is, chirping away to try to excuse her action (or inaction).

Originally Posted by Pogaf

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Lea Hurst <leathehurst@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm getting out of the reptile world for good.

I think Lea Hurst believes that since she is getting out of reptiles, this thread will not have an impact on her future. I think she forgets that this thread will come up on searches of her name.
Based on her shenanigans, I would not hire her, have a relationship with her, or trust her with money at all, whatsoever. Anyone planning on doing so would be well advised to look at what she has done here to an innocent third party before having any sort or relationship business or personal with her at all, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

What a load.

Lea, send the funds back to the person you took them from and provided nothing. Then deal with whatever accusations you have with your former partner.

^
This

I still think they are both full of crap!!