• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Sinofmen said:
It looks to me like Nikki should just send the gecko. They were obviously in the buisness of breeding and selling them together prior to their personal problems. Now that there is personal problems, Nikki don't want to send the gecko because of a legal disputes? What dispute? Lea clearly says that the buyer is entitled to the gecko. I see no dispute over who owns this gecko. Clearly the buyer owns the gecko and Nikki is the one causing a dispute between herself and the buyer.

Bad buisness practice on Nikki's part. I deffinetly won't EVER deal with Nikki considering she is keeping a gecko she knows for a FACT has already been paid for!
Click to expand...

There seems to be a dispute over property including the gecko, and that sort of dispute is not uncommon during breakups. And property ownership can be complicated.
We don't know for sure who actually owned the gecko when it was sold to the buyer. If Lea did not own it, she cannot give good title to another merely by accepting money.
If Lea decided to sell Nikki's car and pocketed the money, you would not expect Nikki to just send the car, would you?
What we do know is that Lea took money from the buyer and did not send a critter. Lea should refund the buyer.
 
Lucille said:
There seems to be a dispute over property including the gecko, and that sort of dispute is not uncommon during breakups. And property ownership can be complicated.
We don't know for sure who actually owned the gecko when it was sold to the buyer. If Lea did not own it, she cannot give good title to another merely by accepting money.
If Lea decided to sell Nikki's car and pocketed the money, you would not expect Nikki to just send the car, would you?
What we do know is that Lea took money from the buyer and did not send a critter. Lea should refund the buyer.
Click to expand...

If they was living together and doing all this together, it's just like a marriage. THEY BOTH OWNED THE GECKO. One person in the relationship sold the gecko, that's what happens when relationships fall apart.

I think your missing the point. Lea obviously don't care if her name is smeared as mud but Nikki does. Lea is obviously not going to refund the money and no amount of smearing her name on this thread is going to make her refund the money.

Nikki on the other had states clearly in her email to the buyer that she knew the gecko was advertised for sale

Nikki said:
"never told me that they sold when she advertised them."

So she clearly knew that they was being advertised for sale!

What does it matter that she was informed by HER partner wether they sold or not?

They obviously did sell and a personal drama between Nikki and Lea is keeping the buyer from getting what clearly belongs to them.

Nikki is the one that is going to continue to breed and sell geckos on FaunaClassified. Here again she makes that very clear.

Nikki says:
"I am very sorry that Lea lied to you and I want you to find a good resolution. I would love to offer you Fangorn (or any gecko) at a discount later if you are still interested after all this mess is settled."

Lea says:
"Remind her when you contact that you paid shipping as a part of my promotion, and therefore expect to receive Fangorn shipped overnight at your convenience, with no charge."

So Nikki is willing to sell it, Lea is saying it already belongs to the buyer because it was already paid for.

Why does their personal problems have to involve a third party, that has nothing to do with their personal lives?

The only problem I see here is Nikki is causing problems over a gecko that they was willing to and did sell while things was not so rocky in their relationship.

Nikki needs to just ship the gecko to the buyer and stop dragging the buyer into her personal problems.

Yeah, Lea has piss poor business ethics but Nikki is acting the same way and a customer is suffering because of it.
 
Sinofmen said:
It looks to me like Nikki should just send the gecko. They were obviously in the buisness of breeding and selling them together prior to their personal problems. Now that there is personal problems, Nikki don't want to send the gecko because of a legal disputes? What dispute? Lea clearly says that the buyer is entitled to the gecko. I see no dispute over who owns this gecko. Clearly the buyer owns the gecko and Nikki is the one causing a dispute between herself and the buyer.

Bad buisness practice on Nikki's part. I deffinetly won't EVER deal with Nikki considering she is keeping a gecko she knows for a FACT has already been paid for!
Click to expand...

With the current state of evidence, your perspective and mine do not align.

If an ex-partner tries to sell my car when I have no intention to and have given no consent to sell my car that is legally owned by myself and not co-owned by/with my partner, I do not owe my car to someone who pays money to my ex-partner.

Unless evidence is produced showing that Nikki agreed to the sale of her animal to the OP, she is not to be counted as a party owing the OP.
 
Lucille said:
There seems to be a dispute over property including the gecko, and that sort of dispute is not uncommon during breakups. And property ownership can be complicated.
We don't know for sure who actually owned the gecko when it was sold to the buyer. If Lea did not own it, she cannot give good title to another merely by accepting money.
If Lea decided to sell Nikki's car and pocketed the money, you would not expect Nikki to just send the car, would you?
What we do know is that Lea took money from the buyer and did not send a critter. Lea should refund the buyer.
Click to expand...

Heh.

I should have read ahead. My perspective aligns with yours.
 
Sinofmen said:
If they was living together and doing all this together, it's just like a marriage. THEY BOTH OWNED THE GECKO. One person in the relationship sold the gecko, that's what happens when relationships fall apart.

I think your missing the point. Lea obviously don't care if her name is smeared as mud but Nikki does. Lea is obviously not going to refund the money and no amount of smearing her name on this thread is going to make her refund the money.

Nikki on the other had states clearly in her email to the buyer that she knew the gecko was advertised for sale

Nikki said:
"never told me that they sold when she advertised them."

So she clearly knew that they was being advertised for sale!

What does it matter that she was informed by HER partner wether they sold or not?

They obviously did sell and a personal drama between Nikki and Lea is keeping the buyer from getting what clearly belongs to them.

Nikki is the one that is going to continue to breed and sell geckos on FaunaClassified. Here again she makes that very clear.

Nikki says:
"I am very sorry that Lea lied to you and I want you to find a good resolution. I would love to offer you Fangorn (or any gecko) at a discount later if you are still interested after all this mess is settled."

Lea says:
"Remind her when you contact that you paid shipping as a part of my promotion, and therefore expect to receive Fangorn shipped overnight at your convenience, with no charge."

So Nikki is willing to sell it, Lea is saying it already belongs to the buyer because it was already paid for.

Why does their personal problems have to involve a third party, that has nothing to do with their personal lives?

The only problem I see here is Nikki is causing problems over a gecko that they was willing to and did sell while things was not so rocky in their relationship.

Nikki needs to just ship the gecko to the buyer and stop dragging the buyer into her personal problems.

Yeah, Lea has piss poor business ethics but Nikki is acting the same way and a customer is suffering because of it.
Click to expand...

You can say they both owned the gecko, but making the assertion does not make them both own the gecko.

Lea received money, but is delivering no gecko. Nikki seems to have received no money for what appears to be her gecko. The money should be refunded to the buyer by Lea.

Nikki has had no transactional dealings with the buyer and does not owe her anything. It is not her doing and is not her responsibility unless new evidence comes to light showing otherwise. Lea, on the other hand, is free to refund the money she took from the OP for the sale of a gecko that seems not to be her own and which she cannot deliver (breach of fulfillment of the order).
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
You can say they both owned the gecko, but making the assertion does not make them both own the gecko.

Lea received money, but is delivering no gecko. Nikki seems to have received no money for what appears to be her gecko. The money should be refunded to the buyer by Lea.

Nikki has had no transactional dealings with the buyer and does not owe her anything. It is not her doing and is not her responsibility unless new evidence comes to light showing otherwise. Lea, on the other hand, is free to refund the money she took from the OP for the sale of a gecko that seems not to be her own and which she cannot deliver (breach of fulfillment of the order).
Click to expand...

I fully agree that Lea should return the money but that's obviously NOT going to happen.

Lea says:
"I think at this point starting a BOI thread would be a good idea. You can include my name if you want, I don't care/mind."

"I do not and cannot offer refunds on live animals after 30 days"

It just seems pretty obvious to me that Nikki and Lea are in a pissing match and the buyer is suffering because of it.

Nikki says:
"She abandoned those animals with me and told me to keep them because she no longer wanted them and "they didn't sell"

It all still comes down to a personal dispute between Nikki and Lea. If Nikki is the honorable person that she is proclaiming to be, she should take the monetary loss and ship the gecko to the buyer.

Everyone seems to be avoiding the fact, that these 2 people lived together, raised these animals together and both benefited (in the past) from the sell of them.

Now that the relationship has fallen apart, during which time there was a sell made, the unfortunate nature of their personal life is hitting a customers pocketbook.

I have nothing invested in this either way, just hate to see a customer suffer over these 2s relationship that declined during this sell.

People are free to do as they wish, I'm just stating that because of the way this situation has been presented to me, I won't ever purchase anything from either one of them.
 
Sinofmen said:
If Nikki is the honorable person that she is proclaiming to be, she should take the monetary loss and ship the gecko to the buyer.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Nikki does not have to follow Lea around cleaning up her messes. If she does she is in my opinion making a huge mistake, because Lea might just see what further messes she could create.


What if Lea tries to sell Nikki's car? Her house?
Property is complicated, and the subject of marital property (or relationship property) is very complicated.
We do not know the details of the breakup (and I certainly would not take Lea's word about any details at this point) but expecting someone to give away their stuff because their former partner sold it (and possibly had no right to do so) is too much to expect.
 
I wanted to clarify- the link to a post by Lea was NOT the same one I purchased Fangorn from. That one has since been deleted and was from mid June. At that time she was advertising free shipping if the gecko was paid for before late June. Obviously my shipping weather was not ideal at the time and she agreed to hold him for me until October. The posting after that advertised holding until appropriate weather.

I agree with many of you that this just seems to be a case of very bad timing that I'm now suffering from. I'm trying my best to give both parties the benefit of the doubt in that none of this was planned.
 
Sinofmen said:
I fully agree that Lea should return the money but that's obviously NOT going to happen.

Lea says:
"I think at this point starting a BOI thread would be a good idea. You can include my name if you want, I don't care/mind."

"I do not and cannot offer refunds on live animals after 30 days"

It just seems pretty obvious to me that Nikki and Lea are in a pissing match and the buyer is suffering because of it.

Nikki says:
"She abandoned those animals with me and told me to keep them because she no longer wanted them and "they didn't sell"

It all still comes down to a personal dispute between Nikki and Lea. If Nikki is the honorable person that she is proclaiming to be, she should take the monetary loss and ship the gecko to the buyer.

Everyone seems to be avoiding the fact, that these 2 people lived together, raised these animals together and both benefited (in the past) from the sell of them.

Now that the relationship has fallen apart, during which time there was a sell made, the unfortunate nature of their personal life is hitting a customers pocketbook.

I have nothing invested in this either way, just hate to see a customer suffer over these 2s relationship that declined during this sell.

People are free to do as they wish, I'm just stating that because of the way this situation has been presented to me, I won't ever purchase anything from either one of them.
Click to expand...

There is no onus for self-sacrifice here or for trading victims.

Buyer: negative balance

Seller: positive balance

Owner: even balance

Who has the buyer's money? That is who owes the buyer.

There are two separate relationships here. There is the relationship between the buyer and seller and there is the relationship between the seller and owner. The latter need not impact the former if the seller returns what is being unlawfully kept. Considering that the seller uses words like "cannot" when referring to refunding money she can just so that she can keep the buyer's money, I have no faith (nor great care) in her "story" on any level. The owner is not obligated to pay for the crime (theft) of the seller that was perpetrated against the buyer.
 
Pogaf said:
I wanted to clarify- the link to a post by Lea was NOT the same one I purchased Fangorn from. That one has since been deleted and was from mid June. At that time she was advertising free shipping if the gecko was paid for before late June. Obviously my shipping weather was not ideal at the time and she agreed to hold him for me until October. The posting after that advertised holding until appropriate weather.

I agree with many of you that this just seems to be a case of very bad timing that I'm now suffering from. I'm trying my best to give both parties the benefit of the doubt in that none of this was planned.
Click to expand...

The only reason you are in a state of loss is that Lea is not returning the money she has that is yours. She has taken from you. She has given you nothing.
 
The only completely innocent person in this deal is Brittany. It seems obvious that Lea is a thief. Nikki may only be guilty of poor judgment when she entered in to a personal and business relationship with Lea.

Nikki,
Do the right thing and ship the gecko. Your reputation is worth more than the cost of a crested gecko. Brittany just wanted to buy a gecko...she didn't sign up to get stuck in the middle of someone's relationship drama. If you honor the sale it would clearly define who the "good guy" is in this situation and it would spare everyone from another 100 page BOI thread that should have been resolved before it got here.
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
Brittany, what was the funding source for Paypal?
Click to expand...

As I stated in the OP- my funding was an ACH bank transfer. My Paypal was connected directly to my bank account for deposit purposes, but for some reason also withdrawal purposes. I thought it was to my debit card, but I was mistaken. I have already contacted both Paypal and my bank. Paypal obviously couldn't do anything because it was over the 45 days. My bank says they cannot reverse an ACH payment. I find that a little odd, since I work with ACH payments and we definitely see reversals from time to time, but it might be different for large corporations over a personal account.
 
Pogaf said:
As I stated in the OP- my funding was an ACH bank transfer. My Paypal was connected directly to my bank account for deposit purposes, but for some reason also withdrawal purposes. I thought it was to my debit card, but I was mistaken. I have already contacted both Paypal and my bank. Paypal obviously couldn't do anything because it was over the 45 days. My bank says they cannot reverse an ACH payment. I find that a little odd, since I work with ACH payments and we definitely see reversals from time to time, but it might be different for large corporations over a personal account.
Click to expand...

I apologize for not having noticed before. Thank you for reiterating.

Not sure if Lea still works here, but this may also be another means of contact.

http://house-of-reptiles.com/about-us
 
gila7150 said:
The only completely innocent person in this deal is Brittany. It seems obvious that Lea is a thief. Nikki may only be guilty of poor judgment when she entered in to a personal and business relationship with Lea.

Nikki,
Do the right thing and ship the gecko. Your reputation is worth more than the cost of a crested gecko. Brittany just wanted to buy a gecko...she didn't sign up to get stuck in the middle of someone's relationship drama. If you honor the sale it would clearly define who the "good guy" is in this situation and it would spare everyone from another 100 page BOI thread that should have been resolved before it got here.
Click to expand...

Unless Nikki has received payment for the gecko she owns, she owes the buyer as much as you do.
 
No worries Nickolas- gave me the chance to get into a little more detail about it :)

I just sent this email to Lea

(August 12, 2014, 7:45am PDT)

Good morning Lea,

Since it doesn't seem things are going anywhere with all this, I would like to formally ask for a refund on Fangorn. I don't want to put pressure on your personal legal issues and I think it would just be easier if I could remove myself.

I understand that you brought up your 30-day policy, but as far as I'm concerned those are guarantees on the health of the animal once it arrives and I never received any live animal for the 30 days to apply to.

Thank you,
Brittany
 
gila7150 said:
The only completely innocent person in this deal is Brittany. It seems obvious that Lea is a thief. Nikki may only be guilty of poor judgment when she entered in to a personal and business relationship with Lea.

Nikki,
Do the right thing and ship the gecko. Your reputation is worth more than the cost of a crested gecko. Brittany just wanted to buy a gecko...she didn't sign up to get stuck in the middle of someone's relationship drama. If you honor the sale it would clearly define who the "good guy" is in this situation and it would spare everyone from another 100 page BOI thread that should have been resolved before it got here.
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. The buyer is caught in the middle between relationship drama between Lea and Nikki. If Nikki was to step up and make it right, it would speak wonders for her credibility as a seller on Fauna.

I admit I'm fairly new, I don't know the ends and outs of how business is conducted around here. I will say though that I have spent thousands on reptiles since I have joined. It's situations exactly like this that keeps me away from smaller breeders and pushes me to only deal with the bigger names like RainbowBeardedDragons, BloodBank, SpiceDragons and JoshD.

I keep reading these BOI and get nervous I'm going to get screwed out of my money dealing with the smaller guys, although they often times have beautiful reptiles and cheaper prices.
 
Sinofmen, we're boyfriend and girlfriend and you just bought a cool gecko. I just sold it and gave you no money and no say in the matter and no heads up that I did it. Now I'm breaking up with you. Send the gecko or else I'll encourage people to say bad things about you on the BOI. Oh by the way I bought myself a cool new ipod with the money, bye, seeya later.

Now do you understand what's going on here or are you still not getting why Nikki has no reason to send this gecko, offer a refund or otherwise do anything? The circumstances of this are literally no different than if it was a stolen picture because the picture of the animal is all Lea owned in the first place.
 
Back
Top