Steven Spielberg lost 4th Courtcase against Dutch horsetrader

[freestyle2music]

Steven Spielberg lost his 4th consecutive courtcase against the Dutch horsetrader Reesink Horses about the sales of the horse Nastros.

But as he stated : We will continue.....................

I can give you a very extensive write-up, but it all comes down to the same old riddle. ;).

Theo

[Mozart]

Who in his family rode?
I gather he sued in The Netherlands.

[AMDressage]

Spielberg's wife, I believe, is the [dressage] rider.

[ideayoda]

Kate Capshaw

[Coreene]

Who in his family rode?
I gather he sued in The Netherlands.The wife. I think one of the kids did as well. Major drama in LA a few years back when they wanted to build a giant barn in Brentwood, which fortunately for the neighborhood never materialized.

[sm]

Nevertheless, Reesink is paying much money for these court proceedings. They have to pay their own legal fees. Wonder if Spielberg will sue yet again... maybe he's not out to win in court but to bankrupt (or atleast annoy the heck out of) Reesink.

here's the story
http://www.eurodressage.com/news/focus/foc_spielberg.html

[oldschool]

I've heard that they pick up Guenter seidel by helicopter to their place and Robert Dover when he's in town. I saw them at some selection trial in San Juan Cap one year. I think Bruce Springsteen sued an Olympic jumper or vice versa concerning the sale or promise thereof for a six figure horse. It was settled out of court for a non disclosed fee.

[SGray]

I've heard that they pick up Guenter seidel by helicopter to their place and Robert Dover when he's in town. I saw them at some selection trial in San Juan Cap one year. I think Bruce Springsteen sued an Olympic jumper or vice versa concerning the sale or promise thereof for a six figure horse. It was settled out of court for a non disclosed fee.

the other way around - it was Todd Minikus that sued Springsteen

[oldschool]

I knew it was something like that. That's why I added the "vice versa" part.

[SGray]

maybe the Spielbergs should have used the Neal's attorneyhttp://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/270/328/

[dalpal]

Wow to live a life where you pick up your trainer in a helicopter. I wonder what it must feel like to write a check for a 250K horse or more and not bat an eye....I'd have to ask someone how to write that amount out on a check. :lol:

[ToN Farm]

Reading this has given me a very bad impression of Spielberg and wife. If I were a sale agent, I wouldn't get involved selling them a horse.

[Spectrum]

No kidding! Not without making them sign a waiver that they were purchasing "as is," and probably not even then!

Spectrum.

[pinecone]

Ditto that. I can't imagine any sane person wanting to sell them a horse now.

[Classical DQ]

Not just representing them in a sell...I'd be concerned with training/teaching...anything with them. If they are that happy to sue!!!!!!!!!!

[Irish Momma]

Really too bad for all the "regular" US buyers - Cr*p like this just keeps reinforcing the awful rep that Americans get labelled with in Europe.

[dalpal]

Call me crazy, but if I made 276 million per year and I bought a 500K horse who went lame...instead of making a big lawsuit issue out of it (which I had already lost ONCE), I'd either try to get him sound or, gasp..retire him. For heaven sakes....500K is pocket change to these people.

[canyonoak]

As the Reesinks pointed out, the horse is now sound, 13, trained through GP (shown successfully in England at National Championships through Intermed. Two) --and quite sellable. Again.

But the Spielbergs apparently do not care about any of that.

They are treating this entire circumstance as though embroiled in a Hollywood vendetta--biggest boy with biggest toys win.

barf.
I hope they all grow up and move on, finding much more positive ways to spend money by maybe giving back to the community at large instead of just squandering so much on lawyers and silly lawsuits.

Because the horse just sits in a stable, all the training, all the schooling, all the POINT just getting lost as he gets less supple, older, and less happy.

Not that they have to have a charitable foundation and do good, if that is not their personal choice. More that they can just stop doing so much negative and bad.

[WrenTF]

There are 2 sides to every story....one shouldn't necessarily condem base on "facts" found in a news article. There may be other factors involved. And I'm very sure they've been very good to their trainer and their grooms...so saying you would never get involved with them, based on this story alone, may not be fair.

[sm]

I hope they all grow up and move on, finding much more positive ways to spend money by maybe giving back to the community....

well, the Speilberg's donated $1.5 million each to aid in the post-tsumani and post-Katrina recovery, and several huge undisclosed amounts to Equestrian Aid Foundation (equestrians living wth HIV/AIDS).

My guess is they feel screwed by Reesink and want to get back somehow... just sending a message with these lawsuits to Reesink. When you think of the millions of deals Speilberg has handled with all kinds of characters, this Reesink thing must be really something.

[JRG]

What gets me is they vetted the horse 3 times. I wonder if it is just a case of buyers remorse that owning a Grand Prix horse and being able to ride one may be two different things.

I feel bad for the people that keep getting dragged into court and keep having to pay. Don't they have an "enough is enough" law somewhere...I don't know.

[sm]

What gets me is they vetted the horse 3 times.

Reesink's vet? The vet's name was never disclosed. And the plot thickens...

Maybe Speilberg'll hire a screenwriter and do a movie :eek: Wonder who'll he'll cast as Eugene Reesink . Jeez, come to think of it, Reesink would be much better off getting hauled back to court again instead.

[Denali]

I'll take the horse... I promise to take care of him too.

Actually, wait... I might end up getting sued if I can't train him to poop gold. Nevermind.

[canyonoak]

The horse was vetted by the Spielberg's vet; was vetted by vets of their own choosing twice more, including the day of departure from Holland to U.S.

Of course there are three sides to every story; nevertheless, at least two sides have been told now FOUR times, with the same result each time.

of course the Spielbergs feel they got screwed--that is what this is all about--sending a message.

if they just wanted to move on, they would have either the Reesinks or any of their American trainers sell the horse.

But this is a HORSE, a live creature with short shelf life. A Grand Prix horse--which has a shorter shelf life than most.

No matter how much money they have given to charity, it is time to find some charity in their hearts for the horse--and move on.

[petitefilly]

I have trouble wondering why anyone would care at this point! :) Does Capshaw ride? Is she able to ride the horse even with supervision? This could be the crux of the whole problem: saving face. If there is something wrong with the horse______then you do not have to cut bait. ???

Just asking!

[poltroon]

I find it a little obnoxious that everyone calls this Spielberg v Reesink when it seems more likely that it is Kate Capshaw who is making the decisions, since she owns the corporation in question and she is the one who rides.

[Donella]

If you have that much money and so little of your own time what in gods name are you doing worrying about something so trivial. Speilburg needs to get a life and find something better to do with him time AND MONEY. This just shows REALLY bad charicter.

[oldschool]

In Hollywood, it seems that bad karma can be remedied with large $$ to charity. Oh yeah, it doesn't hurt to adopt an orphan here and there. Just like the Spielbergs and Angelina Jolie. Of course Kate can't ride. Has anyone here in L.A. ever seen her? We see Steven and Kate at the functions and big buck tables at selection trials and I know for a fact that the BNT's they fly in do it for the $$ and hopes they have someone to sponsor their next trip to the short list. Like they say,"the woman who marries for money earns every penny." The same can be said for the trainer who relies on high maintenance clients. Maybe speilberg got screwed? POSSIBLE? But unlikely after 4 verdicts. Methinks its a cultural speilberg thing or a "Don't you know who I am?" thing. A real horseman would have accepted the horse, rehabbed it, made his spoiled wife be glad for her good fortune in life and apologize profusely to sellers who have obviously sold many fine horses with no problem.

[FancyFree]

I find it a little obnoxious that everyone calls this Spielberg v Reesink when it seems more likely that it is Kate Capshaw who is making the decisions, since she owns the corporation in question and she is the one who rides.

No doubt it's Capshaw calling the shots.

[ESG]

No kidding! Not without making them sign a waiver that they were purchasing "as is," and probably not even then!

Spectrum.

IIRC, they did. Didn't stop them from suing, did it. :rolleyes:

[poltroon]

It seems likely there's a professional representing Ms. Capshaw in the sale.

At least she has good taste in trainers. Would y'all be happier if she was helicoptering in our favorite Craig from Washington? :D

[ESG]

I've read part of the story of this mess. From what I gleaned, Ms. Capshaw could have had Craig as a trainer and it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference. From what I read (and this is only one side of the story), the fault lies almost entirely with Capshaw and her minions. Apparently, the judges hearing the case, concur.

Congrats, Eugene. :yes:

[ise@ssl]

I think this is a disgrace. People with endless money dragging other people into lawsuits they won't win, over and over again in an attempt to financially punish them. SHAME ON SPIELBERG/CAPSHAW.

[Dressage62]

I think Viggo Mortensen should play the horse dealer for the movie.

[RhythmTempo]

From the article, bold letters mine for emphasis:

Eugene Reesink regrets this case tremendously, especially because the welfare of the horse is being jeopardized. Even though he has won every lawsuit, he does not feel victorious. Reesink considers it most regrettable that Old Dogwood is throwing the horse away like a broken old toy.

Yes, there are two sides to every story & the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. If the article is factual regarding Spielberg/Capshaw's treatment of the horse, it does seem they do not even CARE about the horse or what becomes of it. I find that apalling. :(

[FancyFree]

I think Viggo Mortensen should play the horse dealer for the movie.

I would see Viggo in anything.

Yes, there are two sides to every story & the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. If the article is factual regarding Spielberg/Capshaw's treatment of the horse, it does seem they do not even CARE about the horse or what becomes of it. I find that apalling.

Yes that's what bothers me too. But the very rich apparently are very different from you and me. Anything I've ever read about Kate Capshaw would suggest she's not very nice. Just ask Amy Irving. :lol:

[sm]

I think Viggo Mortensen should play the horse dealer for the movie.

What a great choice! I was thinking Philip Seymour Hoffman.

It's too bad we don't know the horse's injury. If OldDogwood did have their own vet look at the horse, I'm not sure they did, it seems Capshaw/Spielberg would have sued their own vet for malpractice. Hmmmm. I'm sure we don't have all the details.

[remarque]

For what it is worth,
The "Equestrian Aid Foundation" is a nonprofit charity set up to help riders who are injured or facing life threating illnesses. They just raised over $200,000.00 for Darren Chiacchia for his recovery. It is not an Aids/HIV Foundation.

[Mel0309]

Just thought it was interesting that Reesink has a stallion named Spielberg. Wonder if he named him that or if he bought him with that name.

http://www.eurodressage.com/market/stallions/reesink/spielberg.html

[STF]

Im sure there are two and even three sides to this story. I dont judge anyone, no honestly do I care. Fun read, but wont effect my well being 5 mins from now, so I dont care.
I think Tami Hoag needs to write a story about Speilllllllburg and his horse drama. :lol:

[S A McKee]

For what it is worth,
The "Equestrian Aid Foundation" is a nonprofit charity set up to help riders who are injured or facing life threating illnesses. They just raised over $200,000.00 for Darren Chiacchia for his recovery. It is not an Aids/HIV Foundation.

True, but it was originally set up as an AIDS foundation and it's evolved into a different type of support group.

http://equestrianaidfoundation.org/history.html

[sm]

from what I understand the Speilbergs' donations were specifically earmarked for equestrians with AIDS, as opposed to "just take the money and do whatever you please."

Wow, and Reesink has a stallion called Spielberg? You just can't make this stuff up...

[Calhoun]

I like the Tami Hoag book idea.

[sm]

And Speilberg can buy the movie rights to it? Or just hire his own screenwriter and create the story his way. He's pretty good at that...

[Glimmerglass]

We're they embroiled in a lawsuit back (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,618842,00.html) almost a decade ago (but not resolved for several years) when they proposed building their multi-leveled (five story in fact) dressage facility on 2.8 acres and the Brentwood, CA neighbors pitched a fit?

I always thought it was amusing that a stolen Norman Rockwell painting that ended up in his collection (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202133.html) and he won't relinquish it.

[sm]

Although in the article you linked:

"The Oscar-winning filmmaker purchased the painting in 1989 from a legitimate dealer and didn't know it was stolen... Spielberg is cooperating with the FBI and will retain possession of "Russian Schoolroom" until its 'disposition can be determined,' the bureau said."

It happens often enough. In WWII, much art was stolen -- confiscated by Hitler and others. Then turns up, the buyer thought the sale was legit because it was through a gallery, and the original owners claim it.

[vanheimrhorses]

actually i dont know anything about this case but think of all the little people getting screwed over by trainers all the time who can do nothing about it in court because one it costs too much to get anything back or two the trainer makes sure they have nothing in their name so they can rip people off and not be sued, or three the little person cannot afford a big time lawyer, so i think we would see more lawsuits in the horse business if it was financially feasible for the little guy to actually prevail if they were to sue

[ESG]

I think this is a disgrace. People with endless money dragging other people into lawsuits they won't win, over and over again in an attempt to financially punish them. SHAME ON SPIELBERG/CAPSHAW.

Amen. :yes:

Too bad all their money couldn't buy Spielberg/Capshaw some class. Or, compassion for the horse they bought. :rolleyes:

[STF]

Thing that just erks me is its the BUYERS responsibility to have THEIR vet do a vet check. From draw blood to 100,000 xrays. Its THEIR responsibility to make sure the horse is sound before signing a sales agreement. If they sign a sales agreement prior to this, then shame on them and someone hit them in the back of the head with the manure fork please!!
Second, as soon as those papers are signed on an expensive horse.... you get your ass on the phone with your insurance agent and get the #$$#%#$ horse insured for the valued price.
Then, as the new owner its THEIR responsiblity to oversee the well being of the horse, the transport of the horse and the care of the animal. Once those papers are signed and you say you have fully agreed to its condition (medical, mental, training, etc) then YOU ARE IN CONTRACT.
Now, with that said, anyone can sue anyone for anything and what it seems like to me is Mr. Speeeelllllburg is throwing a temper tantrum for not cover his arss correctly and now using his wealth to make Mr. R's life hell and for him to have to keep shelling out money to his (Mr. R's) attorney as that is the only was Speillllburg can "get back" at him since the courts wont side for him.
Its a power play, thats all.
And all I gota say in my very onery mood today is.........
WHAT A JACKASS!

[arnika]

Without knowing anything else about the situation or the principles involved, I just have to say this. As well as the buyer's responsibility it is also the Seller's responsibility to represent the horse honestly. Period. No matter who they are.

Hence the new laws in California, Florida and Kentucky, hopefully soon to follow in the other 47 states.

[Pommederue]

Without knowing anything else about the situation or the principles involved, I just have to say this. As well as the buyer's responsibility it is also the Seller's responsibility to represent the horse honestly. Period. No matter who they are.

Hence the new laws in California, Florida and Kentucky, hopefully soon to follow in the other 47 states.

Totally agree. Buyers are getting ripped-off all the time! Horses are injured, injected up, shockwave therapy, etc., and perhaps not rested and then sold w/o ever telling the buyer there has been a problem so they don't even know to keep an eye one it.

Arnika, what 'new' laws are there?

[fiona]

Second, as soon as those papers are signed on an expensive horse.... you get your ass on the phone with your insurance agent and get the #$$#%#$ horse insured for the valued price.


Yes you can do all of that but, when your new purchase turns out to have a pre existing condition you will find they don't pay out.

[freestyle2music]

First I want to say that Reesink is one of the most reliable and honest horsetraders I know. But like every horsetrader in the world you run into the problem of "will there be a constant click between horse and rider".

Or in other words is the rider and trainer capable to read the horse's mind ?, or even better does the rider and trainer give the horse enough time to adapt to a new rider and the new circumstances.

Giving back a horse to the trader and telling them that the new rider can't ride, is obviously not an option, so the buyer will start the medical game.

It seems that SSpielberg did his best to create a construction to buy this horse through a company:cool:. But when he had done his homework he should have established a Dutch firm (US 100,= foundingcosts) which had bought the horse. Because our new laws even covers the "there is no click" problem.

Theo

[Marieke]

In the Netherlands, most of the time, if you sue and you loose, you pay all the court costs plus the lawyer costs of the defendant. I'm not sure if that applies here as well.

Eitherway, from the Dutch grapevine, it seems like a terrible shame for that horse, I guess money is more then animal welfare.

[arnika]

There are new laws that were just passed and some that are pending to ensure penalties for misrepresenting the health and prior injury/illness status of a horse by the seller. Also the bill of sale has to list the buyer, seller and agent and any/all commissions given to all persons in the transaction.

[arnika]

Again, I don't the circumstances of the case other than news stories but if it was only an incompatability between rider and horse, it must have been fairly severe. After all, they only took possession of the horse in the beginning of March and had sent him back by the beginning of April. Usually someone would give a horse a longer trial than that if it was just a case of working out some bugs. Especially with an upper level horse.

[sm]

Giving back a horse to the trader and telling them that the new rider can't ride, is obviously not an option, so the buyer will start the medical game.


Both sides agree there is a medical issue. Maybe it is chronic lameness: medical issue was never disclosed. However, it's not a "click" problem.

Quite often riders can't ride the horse and the trainer does at first, this is common. If the deal went bad, and the horse was returned immediately, what's the problem cancelling the sale and let bygones be bygones--- unless Reesink really can't resell the horse?

[ESG]

IIRC, the horse is not re-sellable in its current condition. And if memory serves, Reesink is trying to rehab the horse, something Capshaw et al deigned not to do.

There was an article in Dressage Daily about it. I'd post the link, but I can't find it. Gave a lot of details. Well, of at least one side of the story, anyway. ;)

[Coreene]

IIRC, the horse is not re-sellable in its current condition. And if memory serves, Reesink is trying to rehab the horse, something Capshaw et al deigned not to do. Old news. The horse is fine.

[poltroon]

I think y'all would have a fit if your accomplishments or actions were attributed to your husbands. ;)

I got a little taste of all this many years ago when a friend was attempting to develop a horse property. She too had it in the name of a corporation, for a variety of reasons. Because her name wasn't attached, someone in the neighborhood decided that the company was a front for Kate Capshaw, which caused all kinds of mischief and delayed a perfectly good and perfectly reasonable project - building nice arenas and nice barns on a property that previously held horses in a horsey neighborhood.

It was eye-opening.

[poltroon]

Old news. The horse is fine.

I am surprised, then, that the court has not ordered him sold and put the proceeds into escrow.

[SGray]

I kinda think that with as much money as the director and the actress have, with the top tier coaches/clinicians they use, etc that there is some underlying situation that offended deeply for them to persist like this -- otherwise I think they would have settled out of court a la Springsteen

[Coreene]

I am surprised, then, that the court has not ordered him sold and put the proceeds into escrow.Without knowing the exact wording of all four lawsuits that they did not win, I can't comment on whether or not that was a legal option in Dutch court.

[ESG]

I kinda think that with as much money as the director and the actress have, with the top tier coaches/clinicians they use, etc that there is some underlying situation that offended deeply for them to persist like this -- otherwise I think they would have settled out of court a la Springsteen

True. But this has the sound of a good old fashioned p!$$ing contest, to me.

[sm]

maybe more to it. Chronically lame horse is now protected by a court. Legal guardian assigned because Old Dogwood refuses to be screwed and take posession. The horse can not have an *mortal accident* now and insurance money collected by either the agent or another new owner. Horse is maintained nicely by the legal guardian.

If Old Dogwood believes the horse is chronically lame and the sale agent is not to be trusted and do what's right for the horse... it's really not a bad solution.

[Rusty Stirrup]

The moral: Don't piss Mrs Spielberg off.

[slc2]

Do y'all know a great deal more about this case than what has been published? Because it seems there are a great many assumptions being made.:no:

[not again]

In business transactions it is important to know the laws applicable to the seller and buyer. If the transaction had taken place in the US different laws would apply. The average buyer would never have a pocket deep enough to pursue action against a seller in a foreign country.
Let all buyers learn from this one.

[ESG]

The moral: Don't piss Mrs Spielberg off.

Pretty much. :yes:

[kayandallie]

As someone who bought an expensive pasture ornament from a dishonest seller, represented by an incompetent trainer, and vetted by an incompetent vet, and who was advised by two lawyers that I have no recourse (well I can try, but the expense will more than equal the cost of the horse due to the vet's association fighting tooth and nail against malpractice suits) I hope Spielburg wins.
It has been almost three years and I am still very bitter, and yes, I blame myself, but I did things the advised way to buy a horse. The thing I kick myself most for, though, is that after I agreed to buy the horse (not a written contract) I had a bad feeling about it, but kept telling myself that my word is as good as a contract.
That was me in my naivete. Now, in a situation where I've given my word, don't count on me to follow through if something seems fishy to me, and I don't care if it seems fishy to you. I finally have come over to the dark side where I don't trust horse people.

[ESG]

Well, since he's lost four times, it doesn't look likely. :p

Sorry for your bad experience.

[slc2]

What are the facts? I don't mean what are the stories, I mean what are the facts?

I can't see where anyone actually knows what happened. So it is just getting intepreted based on individual's experiences. I got a bad horse sold to me, so bravo Steven Spielberg. I don't like rich people throwing their weight around, so bravo Mr. Reesink.

OK, Great. Now what actually happened?

Fact is, I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

Fact is, both things happen all the time.

I know some folks who sold a nice horse to someone who assured them they could ride it, and the next thing they heard the buyer was taking them to court. They got into a horrible court case in which an 'expert witness' was hired that said the horse suffered from a made up 'condition' and was of no value...after paying an immense amt of money to lawyers they get the horse back finally, and wonders of wonders, horse is completely crippled and useless from an injury that was rather bad and also was not attended to. Looks like someone who did not know what they were doing was trying to breed the horse.

I also know some folks a big bad dealer sold a bad horse. Its lameness was covered up and they fell for it. They weren't very experienced and their vet exam was the seller's vet, that's all. Bad idea. They now have an unridable lame horse.

And...I also know...that there are horses that are fine as long as you don't mess with their shoes and trim, and the seller tells you horsey is 100 % sound as long as he has the shoes and trim you don't really like, and as soon as you get your horse to your barn, you get your new farrier and tell him how YOU feel the horse's shoes should be changed, and how bad the previous farrier was, and your man shoes your horse textbook perfect, and he's LAME. He's DEAD lame.

Not all cases are so clearly black and white. IF a horse needs to be maintained a certain way and the buyer is told that and the new owner doesn't do that, and then they try to return the horse when it's ruined...that happens too.

[Touchstone Farm]

This string should be sent to Entertainment Tonight. Might be interesting to see Spielberg "defend" his actions there...after losing FOUR times!!

[ESG]

Do a search on Dressage Daily. Many of the facts of the case are there. Makes for interesting reading. :winkgrin:

[wildpony]

I agree. there are few facts and lots of hateful, jealous speculations in this thread. what does someone's income level, riding ability or capacity to fly Olympic trainers to their facility have to do with what is right in this case? We all know people who have tried horses on drugs or who have been prepared for their sales rides and none of us know why this is happening between the Spielbergs or the Reesinks. If Reesink believes this is a good sound horse, why wouldn't he offer to take this horse back and find another horse acceptable to the Spielbergs. Most of the large respectable barns in europe are willing to do this for buyers in this price market. something isn't right here and none of us know what it is so its very bothersome to see either side slandered and ridiculed just because there is an opportunity. What about sticking together as a dressage community?

[Foxtrot's]

"What about sticking together as a dressage community" That proves you are a newbie! This said with a knowing wink and a grin.

[magnum]

The entire article linked up here is written by and presented from the standpoint of the European defendent.

We have no idea what the real issues are from the view of the plaintiff. They were (conveniently) left out of the article ...

Maybe it's a pissing match and egos battling ... maybe not.

We don't feel we can criticize one way or the other until we know all of the facts involved with the plaintiff's side of the case and from the plaintiff's perspective ... also what laws are applicable to the arguable issues, etc.

Personally? I am taking the Patriotic standpoint and defaulting on the side of a fellow countryman ... it seems that as wealthy as the Spielbergs are that they could afford one VERY EXPENSIVE pasture ornament ... ( and go buy 40 more to replace him while he grazes peacefully, :winkgrin: !) .... To take it this far, it is likely that there is more to this issue than what the referenced article has revealed.

Magnum

[Marieke]

I'd rather choose the side of the horse.

[ESG]

As did Mr. Reesink, if what was written is to be believed. ;)

Apparently, the judge did.

Whoever signs their posts, "Don't go throwing effort after foolishness." should forward this sentiment to the Spielbergs.

[riverbell93]

I wonder what about the situation has stuck in either Kate Capshaw or Steven Spielberg's craw so badly they've kept this up. I could believe they're just so used to being Hollywood's most feared and powerful people (from what I've read, the entire industry is in thrall to Spielberg, obsessed with pleasing him) that they can't tolerate any irritation. But then, maybe they're just rich enough to persevere in a case that has merit but is so hard to win due to issues beyond their control that nobody but a zillionaire could afford to persist. Because we all know there are plenty of cases like that; I think most normal people have had a situation where everyone else involved was crooked or incompetent, you got royally screwed and then didn't have the money to really pursue any form of justice.

Hard to tell. The idea of a rich man dragging you into court over and over just because he can is scary, but that's assuming you're innocent.

[Marieke]

supposedly, the horse was shod wrong, and against advice and by the time he got to the Netherlands he was wearing 2 sizes smaller then when sold. So he didn't move like he did while the sale process was going on (I wonder why?). (this is all over the Dutch media and they are being 'accused' of abuse so I bet that is getting into their socks)

[fiona]

supposedly, the horse was shod wrong, and against advice and by the time he got to the Netherlands he was wearing 2 sizes smaller then when sold.

Tulips, windmills, canals and cheese are some of the things Holland excells at - shoeing a horse not so much.

Think this whole thing is a bit more complicated that changing the shoes and i really wouldn't do business with either party.

[sm]

Who shod the horse wrong? Reesink's lawyer Wensing reportedly explained it this way (can you see the clarity):

"Change of stable, the shipping, the climate, the footing could all have caused this lameness," Wensing explained." http://www.eurodressage.com/news/focus/foc_spielberg.html

[Ambrey]

Tulips, windmills, canals and cheese are some of the things Holland excells at - shoeing a horse not so much.

Well, I asked Coreene to stop while she was in Holland and ask the horse his side of the story, but she said she'd be busy tack shopping.

Maybe he would have said that he never wanted to come to America and faked lameness so he could go back?

3 sides to every story :yes:.

[fiona]

Yeah maybe but he told me he wanted to go to America but his legs hurt so he didn't get the gig.

Crocs v Clogs.
Always a difficult choice.

[SGray]

I'd rather choose the side of the horse.

wouldn't choosing the side of the horse involve taking it back and refunding $s to the unsuitble buyers?

[Marieke]

wouldn't choosing the side of the horse involve taking it back and refunding $s to the unsuitble buyers?

I'm not taking sides (human sides that is).

I had heard from via via that the horse had too small shoes on, that it was later confirmed by a vet, that the original farrier in the netherlands confirmed the size difference and that Reesink believes that laming a horse through wrong shoeing is animal cruelty and he isn't taking the horse back. Point was that after just 1 shoeing the horse was not lame anymore and got back into training where it left off, more or less.


And there are bad farriers EVERYWHERE, and I assume mr and mrs Spielberg have a great one. But in general, very few farriers know how to shoe a warmblood. I've had my struggles.

[sm]

that Reesink believes that laming a horse through wrong shoeing is animal cruelty and he isn't taking the horse back.

So he would rather leave the horse with cruel or incompetent owners? hmmmm... and the farrier isn't up for malpractice? hmmmm.... and Ms Capshaw can't hook up with a competent farrier in her elite circle? Nope, there's more we don't know yet.

[Marieke]

Well, 3 different courts agree with the Reesink brothers. The courts find that the Reesink brothers don't have to refund the money for damage that was out of their control, ie the lameness was due to the shoeing according to experts. (they wanted money for the horse and emotional damage totalling 500k euros???). The courts found that Old Dogwood was responsible for neglect of the horse (improper feeding, shoeing), and the courts found that they did so to prove their case thus they appointed a legal guardian for the horse (and after taking possession of the horse and 1 shoeing the horse was sound). The courts found that Old Dogwood was responsible for the lameness of the horse and on purpose kept the situation such.

It's too bad you (collective you) can't read the Dutch newspapers which provide much more information.

What they are doing now is a 'bodem procedure', which really means nothing, well not entirely either. It means you have exhausted your legal options and you request that the highest courts look at the justice of the law. THis will take YEARS, 5-10-15, depends. IF those courts determines that the LAW is injust and against the constitution etc, then the lower verdicts will looked at again adn you can refile.

So either Old Dogwood has a really bad lawyer, that can not represent them well, or the legal documents as provided to the courts prove that Old Dogwood has never acted in the best interest of the horse.

[poltroon]

And there are bad farriers EVERYWHERE, and I assume mr and mrs Spielberg have a great one. But in general, very few farriers know how to shoe a warmblood. I've had my struggles.

In the neighborhood where Ms. Capshaw lives, you could have a farrier practice consisting EXCLUSIVELY of warmbloods. :)

[Marieke]

In the neighborhood where Ms. Capshaw lives, you could have a farrier practice consisting EXCLUSIVELY of warmbloods. :)

I'm sure, but the horse only went to New Jersey, not further.

Incidentally, I sent my stallion to NJ, same area. And then on to Wellington Fl. One would expect to see some good farriers there. My guy lost his shoes 5 times before I ever heard of it. His feet are pretty beat up, and he can't be jumped because of it. Now mind you, he has perfect feet, a nice size 5 in front and 4 in back, perfectly shaped naturally. Textbook feet (Doug Butler actually has pictures of his feet that he uses to tell farriers how a warmbloods feet should look). He walked onto the trailer this morning and lost his shoe while walking on it. That would then be the 7th shoe in 4 months. (he's coming home for breeding season).

I would have to see for myself but I will bet $100 that this farrier put the wrong size/head nail in him for his size (he's a big boy). And that would be from a farrier that I pay $400 per month for shoeing.

[ToN Farm]

Incidentally, I sent my stallion to NJ, same area. And then on to Wellington Fl. One would expect to see some good farriers there. My guy lost his shoes 5 times before I ever heard of it.
Do not assume because a farrier charges $500 a horse and only services the wealthy clients, that he does excellent work. For one thing, the apprentices work on some of the horses. Do not assume that BNT's understand farriery, because many do not. Can a horse be lamed after one shoeing? You betcha...and I've seen it more than once on my own horses. Most farriers do not even watch the horse move before they shoe it, and if they did, they wouldn't know what to look for anyway.

However, do not judge a farrier by whether a horse loses a shoe or not. A good farrier will put on a shoe such that if it is pulled, it won't take part of the foot with it.

[Marieke]

Do not assume because a farrier charges $500 a horse and only services the wealthy clients, that he does excellent work.

Exactly my point.

[Coreene]

It's too bad you (collective you) can't read the Dutch newspapers which provide much more information. And for those of us who do, here's a jolly piece from De Telegraaf on April 4:

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3713555/_Proces_Spielberg_tegen_NL_broers__.html

And another from the Twentsche Courant:

http://www.tctubantia.nl/regio/haaksbergen/2930619/Omstreden-hengst-briest-tijdelijk-in-De-Watermolen.ece

[arnika]

The main thing that I keep coming back to is this....The horse has been stabled at Egbert Kraak's Stable De Craecken in Zwaanshoek, The Netherlands, since 25th April 2007.
Confiscation
"Reesink found out that the horse was not being taken care of. Old Dogwood deliberately ignored the recommendations of their own veterinarians," Wensing added. On 2nd January 2008 Reesink had the horse confiscated. A legal guardian was appointed for the horse, who stabled it at equine clinic De Watermolen. "The horse was shoed wrongly which prevented it to recover from its injury."

The areas of bold are my emphasis. The horse was in the States for a maximum of 4-6 weeks before being back in the Netherlands. A pretty short time to have it arrive, be reshod, found to be lame, arrange transport back to Holland and get back through quarantine and to the farm.

It also reads as though the horse was not found to be shod wrongly until Jan. 2, 2008 when it was taken to De Watermolen clinic. If there is some article that discusses that in more detail, I would be interested.

[Coreene]

If you could read Dutch and read the two very detailed articles, it would answer your questions. They explain everything quite well.

Edited to say that I am not being flip, but it is all there in BW in detail, and it seems that what is in the equestrian press is just bits and pieces.

[sm]

Arnika, I see your point because Reesink and his lawyer were clueless on what caused the lameness in response to a letter to them dated June 21, 2007:

"On 21st June 2007, Old Dogwood repealed the sales contract. In a letter, Old Dogwood communicated that the horse is lame due to an injury which had to be present before the acquisition of the horse by Old Dogwood. Reesink disagreed and both parties got involved in a legal procedures. "Change of stable, the shipping, the climate, the footing could all have caused this lameness," Wensing explained." http://www.eurodressage.com/news/focus/foc_spielberg.html

That's about 2 months after the horse had been returned on 25th April 2007. and stabled at Egbert Kraak's Stable De Craecken in Zwaanshoek, The Netherlands. Then it wasn't until sometime in January 2008 it was disclosed the horse had been shod wrong.

The other reason I see your point: I don't read Dutch!!! It just doesn't add up.

[Marieke]

Supposedly the Reesink brothers didn't know the horse was in the Netherlands and as soon as they did they went to court to get legal custody. Their in-house veterinarian (at least I believe he is) got the custody.

It wasn't until the 2nd court case that the brother's learned that the horse was back in the Netherlands, when they heard, they requested to see the horse and have it investigated, this was denied by Old Dogwood, so back to court, who put them in the right, they saw the horse, back to court for legal custody.

The 2nd court case wasn't started until the fall (August-Sept-Oct) of 2008

Old Dogwood had an MRI scan done before sending the horse back, and the injury was apparent on that scan. This scan was much later (2008?) disclosed to the Reesinks who had experts in Austria and Switzerland look at the scan, and according to both just based on this scan you can not say when the injury happened.

I guess the horse was in the US between 1 March 2007 and returned by the 25th of April. Why didn't they sent the horse right back to REesink?

[frisky]

and according to both just based on this scan you can not say when the injury happened.


What exactly (nearabouts) is the injury? It seems that I've missed this point. Thanks.

[poltroon]

And for those of us who do, here's a jolly piece from De Telegraaf on April 4:

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3713555/_Proces_Spielberg_tegen_NL_broers__.html

And another from the Twentsche Courant:

http://www.tctubantia.nl/regio/haaksbergen/2930619/Omstreden-hengst-briest-tijdelijk-in-De-Watermolen.ece

I tried running these through Babelfish, and well, :D


If there a oscar exists for the most sour scenario, then are steven Spielbergs woman Kate Capshaw in advance genomineerd.

The wereldberoemde actress and spouse of American film-driven drags the Eibergense brothers Patrick and Eugene Reesink of the one right to the other, because the renowned horse foresail cherry her for largely a quarter million euro will have split up a crippled horse in flatulence.

Mri-scan

Wensing flew to authoritative university horse experts in Austria and Switzerland to present mri-scan to them. Were of the opinion that certified that on the basis of mri cannot be determined when the kreupelheid have arisen.

I can consider, however, hundreds of causes of the kreupelheid. The animal can have lain underway to America klem in the transport box or have stumbled themselves. But can be also in America of everything happened. A horse comes in a another climate, other fodder, other people, other coaches, other ground. Then the danger of kreupelheid lies in wait.

Meanwhile Nastros stood ' legally parked ' in a stable in swan angle. Because the horse was neglected there according to the Reesinks, the brothers let levy an attachment on the animal. The court in Haarlem remunerated their request take away the horse by means of a bailiff and to a stable in mountmount mounts to bring. The animal got the correct hoefbeslag, could train and is no longer crippled.

The beslaglegging by the Reesinks led again to judicial steps of Capshaw, which correct savage show that it with the crippled Nastros a cat in the pocket had sent got. The company required suppression of the judicial preservation of the horse and an amount of € 442,000 of the Reesinks.

I love this line: "Then the danger of kreupelheid lies in wait."
What the heck is kreupelheid? It sounds far more glamorous than whatever happens to my horses. ;)

[oldschool]

I think I ate kreupleheid with sourcraut. Isn't it served during passover?

[Marieke]

stallion is home. And I kid you not. His textbook size 5 feet have been squoosed into a size 4 in front and the farrier used the wrong kind of nail, a city head instead of a euro head.

A city head is a common nail and there is nothing wrong with it, but it's head is different and with the heavier (this is a 17h 5000 lbs horse :D) horse the sheer stress causes the head to break of and thus a horse will 'walk right out' of it's shoes, usually very little damage to the hoof. It is like walking out of slippers when the side breaks because you are running. The euro head doesn't have a 'head' but is more tapered gradually, thus the stress does not generally cause the head to break of and the horse to walk out of it's shoe.

If you jump this type of horse with the wrong nail, he will again and again loose the shoe. He will loose the shoe walking to his pasture. He can be doing nothing and step right out of it.

So most certainly the vet bills I have been paying for his lameness have been due to this incompetent farrier, who charges $450 per shoeing, shoes supposedly only warmbloods and some of the top trainers in NJ. Yet he doesn't know how to use the right nail.


kreupelheid is lameness.

[Marengo]

This horse weighs as much as a rhino? No wonder the shoes didn't hold.

[Marieke]

I guess you can't read a joke?

[arnika]

Thank you, poltroon and Coreene for the articles. So it wasn't a question of the rider not being good enough for the horse but the same old, same old. Horse purchased as sound, transported to America and once here, found to be lame with an injury disclosed by MRI. The whole fight is basically over when the horse was injured. Before sale/shipment, during transport or after arrival.

Why all the original postings about Kate Capshaw not being a good enough rider for a GP horse if this has all been written about in the Dutch press?

[Coreene]

Thank you, poltroon and Coreene for the articles. So it wasn't a question of the rider not being good enough for the horse but the same old, same old. Horse purchased as sound, transported to America and once here, found to be lame with an injury disclosed by MRI. The whole fight is basically over when the horse was injured. Before sale/shipment, during transport or after arrival.

Why all the original postings about Kate Capshaw not being a good enough rider for a GP horse if this has all been written about in the Dutch press?The horse was sound when it went. Had been vetted several times and was absolutely sound.

If I buy a horse in Holland, then when it leaves the seller's place, it is my horse. No longer the seller's horse or the seller's problem. If it gets to the States and I have some shit shoe job and the horse winds up lame, it's my horse and it's my problem. That horse was vet checked out the wazoo before it left and nothing was wrong with it.

The courts have found time and again that Reesink is not at fault. The horse is 13, sound and in its prime right now. Sad that Old Dogwood will not just drop it and move on.

[Mel0309]

I tried running these through Babelfish, and well, :D
I love this line: "Then the danger of kreupelheid lies in wait."
What the heck is kreupelheid? It sounds far more glamorous than whatever happens to my horses. ;)

I like this one more: "will have split up a crippled horse in flatulence"

Um, did it fart? :)

[fiona]

If I buy a horse in Holland, then when it leaves the seller's place, it is my horse. No longer the seller's horse or the seller's problem. If it gets to the States and I have some shit shoe job and the horse winds up lame, it's my horse and it's my problem. That horse was vet checked out the wazoo before it left and nothing was wrong with it.


You know that's very odd because i bought a horse in Holland got it home and shortly after, say a month - 6 weeks - it went lame. It had bone spavins behind yes, it was vetted, yes it passed.

The odd part is when i called the dealer and told him he came over we had a chat and he took the horse back. No bad feeling, no court case.

Chances are with the Ressink/Dogwood horse is that what cured the lameness was the 9 months enforced rest from training not neglect.

[Ambrey]

But, you know Fiona, there is so much about this story we don't know. Like HOW did Old Dogwood approach the seller about the lameness? If they were accusatory from the start, that would definitely impact how they were received.

The fact that it's gone to court 4 times with nothing for the buyers makes me think the seller crossed his t's and dotted his i's. And sometimes even when both seller and buyer do everything right, a horse ends up lame.

I am not sure what I'd do if a vet I trusted told me that the horse had an old injury but the seller disagreed and pointed to vet exams done earlier. I am pretty sure if I didn't win at court I'd give up, though. Not worth it, and the horse ends up the loser.

[fiona]

I am not sure what I'd do if a vet I trusted told me that the horse had an old injury but the seller disagreed and pointed to vet exams done earlier. I am pretty sure if I didn't win at court I'd give up, though. Not worth it, and the horse ends up the loser.

The horse hasn't lost he's had a nice long rest and by all accounts now he's fine.
I'm sure there's a lot more to this story but it boils down to the same old problem ..2 vets = 3 opinions.

[ToN Farm]

I'm puzzled. Do you guys think that it is a seller's responsibility to tell the prospective buyer everything you know about the horse's past health history? If the horse is somewhere on consignment, the previous owner(s) may not have even told the consigner.

It could well be there were was some mild soft tissue damage in the foot and the shoeing change was enough to cause lameness from it. Since MRI was mentioned, I imagine the problem was in the hoof somewhere.

So then, even if there was a pre-existing problem with the foot that was not found until after the sale via MRI, I still don't think the Reesinks are responsible.

We all know that rest is the remedy for soft tissue injuries. The horse may be sound now, but who knows for how long once he gets back into heavy work.

Frankly, I think one would be hard pressed to find a nice, young GP for sale that doesn't have some little problem somewhere.

[poltroon]

I'm puzzled. Do you guys think that it is a seller's responsibility to tell the prospective buyer everything you know about the horse's past health history? If the horse is somewhere on consignment, the previous owner(s) may not have even told the consigner.

Well, actually, yes. :)

Look, I don't know the facts of this case and I suspect no one else does either. We've all seen or heard of sales where the seller failed to disclose, or notice, potential lameness issues. We've all seen or heard of sales where the horse was injured shortly after a sale and the buyer blamed the seller inappropriately. It could be either, or perhaps, both.

What's really unusual about this case is that Capshaw sent the horse back via airplane. I know about some imported pasture ornaments where it turned out that the horse had significant undisclosed issues, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes fraudulently, and the buyer just had to take the loss. Most people don't have the resources to return a horse with a $10k shipping bill.

It seems a shame for everyone involved, and I hope they can resolve it, and that the horse finds a new place, soon.

[canyonoak]

I think it is reasonable to assume that this horse had digital X-rays and MRI's done before he was bought.

I think it is reasonable to assume that a seller dealing with a buyer like this -- one who might very well be expected to come back and purchase yet another nice horse -- no seller in his right mind tries to screw said buyer.

I also find it quite reasonable to think that the horse was shod soon after arriving in the U.S. and began to have problems perhaps related to this but probably related to the shoeing and the general management.

The Reesinks sell horses for this kind of money all the time. And they usually back the horses they sell with fair dealings.

AS the Reesink lawyer said in one of the articles, " this stopped being about the horse several lawsuits ago."

[egontoast]

When we, the great unwashed, buy a horse and have it vetted once or even multiple times, if the horse later goes lame, we are clearly out of luck UNLESS some specific express soundness warranty was given (no word of that here and that would be rare). Absent any express warranty, the buyer relies on the Pre purchase vetting.

Even with a warranty, the seller can only speak to what he knows unless he is in the business of moneyback guarantees, no questions asked. That would be rare. Horse could be injured in transit.

Any horse can have a brewing issue that is not known to the seller.The buyer generally relies on the pre purchase vetting and if something is missed, maybe they should look to the vet's insurance.

The horse passed more than one vetting pre purchase. Unless there was some 'guarantee ' given , how is it the seller's problem if the horse later goes lame?

What was the issue with the horse that showed up on MRI?

[nhwr]

When we, the great unwashed, buy a horse and have it vetted once or even multiple times, if the horse later goes lame, we are clearly out of luck UNLESS some specific express soundness warranty was given (no word of that here and that would be rare). Absent any express warranty, the buyer relies on the Pre purchase vetting.

Even with a warranty, the seller can only speak to what he knows unless he is in the business of moneyback guarantees, no questions asked. That would be rare. Horse could be injured in transit.

Any horse can have a brewing issue that is not known to the seller.The buyer generally relies on the pre purchase vetting and if something is missed, maybe they should look to the vet's insurance.

The horse passed more than one vetting pre purchase. Unless there was some 'guarantee ' given , how is it the seller's problem if the horse later goes lame?

What was the issue with the horse that showed up on MRI?Actually, this isn't strictly true. A vet check is prudent but can't be expected to uncover every potential issue. When a horse is sold AS IS (most horses in the US are sold this way), it is illegal for a seller to intentionally misrepresent the animal. The term AS IS means as is disclosed. It is the seller's responsibility to disclose everything they know about the horse. If the horse has had a problem and the seller fails to disclose it, in the US the seller is liable. The problem becomes what the seller knew and proving it.

I don't really know anything about this case. It sounds like the buyer is saying the seller failed to disclose something that happened prior to the sale. The seller is saying the horse was injured after it left their custody. The courts say (repeatedly) the seller was not at fault. Even taking the Reesink home field advantage into account, it seems as though they (the sellers) did everything properly. Continuing to sue because you have the $$ and the defendants don't, is called abuse of process in the US. The problem is; I am not sure how that might apply to an international transaction and the Reesink Bros would have to bring that complaint in US courts - even more $$$. But the exchange rate between the euro & the dollar being what it is, that might not be such a bad deal.

Larry H. Parker? :lol:

[slc2]

What completely baffles me is the idea of Capshaw buying a horse based ONLY on the results from a dutch vet. I can't imagine anyone doing that. If she did, it was very imprudent. If she had vets of the quality of Rood and Riddle or some of the current and former teams vets that are doing prepurchases that are just incredibly in depth and careful, and they didn't find something, then no one could find it. I had Dr Trachtenberg do a horse once and the report was HUGE and very detailed and we spent a long time going over it. Frankly an american style vet rpt can be bewildering and they rarely tell you not to buy a horse - the person has to decide that themselves.

The decision is never simple. If the horse has so much as a pimple on its nose insurance probably won't cover the front half of the horse, LOL, so alot goes into the decision.

European vets very often have a completely different way of looking at xrays and interpreting them. The vet exam is often along the lines of, grade 2 changes in ankle, hock and knees. Duly noted, horse passed.

American vets, on the other hand, often move into a very different realm of what's this likely to do in the future, and are extremely conservative about that.

IF someone honestly looks at a 13 year old GP horse, they ARE going to find things. Very few horses get that far without having SOMETHING you can see on the results and SOMETHING you have to ask yourself 'well, do i give this a try or not'. And if yiou DO decide you know better how to shoe something that is 13, sound and doing gp, you can wind up in a very bad situation. If it ain't broke (yet) don't try to fix it. On the other hand the horse could very well just be worn out by that age and just be 'a matter of time', but you would think an American vet exam would raise at least a question about that and that it would be visible given xrays, ultrasounds, mri's, trial rides, flexions, etc.

It is unfortunate. The european dealers don't always take a horse back and let you pick another one. But often, they will because they know people will talk and damage their business otherwise, but how effective that is might depend on who the american agent was - there might not have been one in this case, capshaw may have felt confident to do that herself. Getting stubborn with an extremely wealthy client is not usually something savvy horse dealers do. They usually bend over backwards because to do otherwise is imprudent.

If Reesink won't, there is more to the story, and most likely, no one involved is going to tell any of us what that is :)

[Coreene]

The horse was vetted several times. They do have vets there that vet to American standards. It might be a small country, but it's not exactly the third world.

[slc2]

absolutely, coreene, but i never said holland was a third world country and that was the farthest thing from my mind. actually i'm wild about the place. but the fact remains that only vetting a horse with the seller's vet is imprudent. i still will maintain there are dutch vets that dealers use that note findings without discussing with the potential buyer what the significance or impact of those findings might be. what i SAID was that if capshaw used a good american vet she would be aware of what the significance of the findings...not that dutch vets are using leeches and lard.

[Marieke]

The horse was vetted 3x, I'm sure that one of those vettings was seen by an american vet. I'm also pretty sure that at least the last vetting, on day of departure, was video taped. The Reesink brothers sell high quality, super expensive horses, and I'm sure that they will cover their behinds as well as they possibly can. They will avoid going to court and keep their business.

About 7 or so years ago, a friend of mine sold a perfectly sound and good horse to an American rider through the Reesinks. The horse got to the US, after maybe 2 months or so, it became apparent that the rider was way over-horsed and that it was a downward spiral. The Reesinks flew the horse back to the Netherlands, had the rider pick another horse, and later sold the 1st horse to another better matched rider. It was all a non-issue.

My friend flew with the horses in December and visited me. When she was talking with the other crew members they told her how many times horses actually fly back. I think they told her there was at least 1 horse that had made the trip back and forth (to different buyers) at least 5 times. And they told her which ones they thought would be the ones they would ship back in a couple a weeks, just based upon their behavior during the flight.

[canyonoak]

Hello?

The horse was vetted bya a US vet. In fact the horse was vetted by the Spielberg/Capshaw vet.

I said this pages ago quite clearly.

That is why I have been saying this is not about the vetting.

I shall now repeat: the horse had MRI's and digital X-rays during the PPEs.

Further, the MRIs done after the shoeing was fixed by the reesinks reveal the horse t5o be fine-a la the reports from the articles covering the lawsuits.

This is not about a dealer taking advantage of an ignorant buyer.

[slc2]

thanks, i didn't see that in your earlier post. most of the time i'd assume a buyer of that type of horse has their own vet go over the horse very carefully. it's very unusual to hear of a person buying a horse in that category 'just from a video', lol. but i suppose for some that rich there are 300,000 euro 'impulse purchases', LOL...just not this time.

reesink was way, way out of our price category. fabulous horses, for sure.

[fiona]

This is not about a dealer taking advantage of an ignorant buyer.

So what is it about then?

If the horse just needed a change of shoes why on earth didn't the Reesinks take him back make a commission on a replacement horse for Mme Capshaw and re sell the original horse thus making a decent profit all round?

[Thomas_1]

Sounds like the Spielbergs are a pain in the ass.

How many court cases do you have to lose to know you've got it wrong.

They possibly need to ask Mohamed AlFayed

[egontoast]

When a horse is sold AS IS (most horses in the US are sold this way), it is illegal for a seller to intentionally misrepresent the animal. The term AS IS means as is disclosed. It is the seller's responsibility to disclose everything they know about the horse. If the horse has had a problem and the seller fails to disclose it, in the US the seller is liable. The problem becomes what the seller knew and proving it.


Really? The term "as is" normally means without any representations , warranties or guarantees (buyer beware). So a car which is sold "as is" means no representations made about its condition. Does it mean something different in the US?

I don't know what the terms of this sale were, however, I doubt the term "as is" would be used in the purchase of such an expensive horse.

Also in order to establish either that the seller "intentionally misrepresented" or "did not disclose", the buyer would have to show that the seller KNEW about it or must reasonably have known about it, for starters.

[Ambrey]

Really? The term "as is" normally means without any representations , warranties or guarantees (buyer beware). So a car which is sold "as is" means no representations made about its condition. Does it mean something different in the US?

Also in order to establish either that the seller "intentionally misrepresented" or "did not disclose", the buyer would have to show that the seller KNEW about it or must reasonably have known about it, for starters.

It means "as is represented," meaning that if the seller knows of a defect he's disclosed it, but unknown defects don't count.

So it seems like it means the same thing. If the seller knew the horse was lame and didn't disclose it, that might be misrepresentation- but if the seller didn't know, and it was an "as is" sale, then it's buyer beware.

There was a huge discussion in off-course about a buyer who bought a horse that was supposedly represented as a registered morgan, and turned out to be a BLM mustang. So if the horse had been represented as a registered Hanoverian, and turned out to be a shetland pony, that would probably be something to sue about.

From the fact that they've lost so many lawsuits, I'm guessing whatever misrepresentation they think happened was much less obvious ;) My guess is that some vet told them the horse had an old injury, and the buyers decided that the seller knew but didn't disclose said injury and they were gonna get the bastard. Since it happens all the time in horse trading, they probably thought it was a slam dunk- and when it turned out that the seller had all of his ducks in a row it became more about being right than whatever the original issue was.

I don't blame the seller for not wanting to take back a horse that he thinks was made lame by the buyer's care, but I'm betting he wishes he had, it would have been cheaper :(

[ToN Farm]

If the horse has had a problem and the seller fails to disclose it, in the US the seller is liabl.
This may be a law somewhere, but even if it is, what can the buyer really do about it? They can go to court and spend more money than the cost of the horse and still lose, plus go through a infinite amount of aggravation.

Maybe I'm just a skeptic or maybe I know a little too much about what really goes on in the horse world. If you all think that sellers are telling you 'everything' they know about a horse they are selling, then you are very naiive.

I know for a fact one very expensive horse that was lame with a check ligament injury, rested and recovered, and was sent back to Germany to get resold. Do you think the next buyer would be told of the previous injury? This business of sending horses back to Germany to get re-sold is becoming common for the more expensive horses.

Another thing I keep seeing is imported horses getting soft tissue injuries shortly after they start work in usa. I believe these horses had previous injuries and were thus were just accidents waiting to happen. Or....it could just be because our farriers shoe so crappy - LOL.

[Ambrey]

This may be a law somewhere, but even if it is, what can the buyer really do about it? They can go to court and spend more money than the cost of the horse and still lose, plus go through a infinite amount of aggravation.

You know that saying, if you hear stampeding hooves think horses, not zebras?

I've heard from reliable sources that this seller has a great reputation for being clean and above board. However, there are so few sellers like that, it's probably really easy to jump to the conclusion, as a buyer, that the seller was trying to cheat you.

So maybe they added up the variables- a horse bought from europe (strike 1), arrives in the US after being bought sight unseen (strike2), and is lame (strike 3). Yet, in this case, maybe it really was exactly what the seller says it was- a horse that left Europe sound and became lame somewhere in transit, or a horse with an unknown injury/weakness that was aggravated by the change in shoeing, or whatever- and not a horse with an old injury that was covered up to bilk the buyers.

The courts are siding for the seller, so it seems to me that the evidence is in his favor. I think if he had something to hide he would have settled.

[Marieke]

I only said that I thought the vetting must have been video taped.

I'm not sure where the sight unseen comes from? Or buying from a video? Please clarify.

[Santpoort]

what i SAID was that if capshaw used a good american vet she would be aware of what the significance of the findings...not that dutch vets are using leeches and lard.

Totally see the point, but would she even have been 'interested' to sit down and go through a thorough vet exam? I wonder...(OK, speculate) here...

[Santpoort]

I only said that I thought the vetting must have been video taped.

I'm not sure where the sight unseen comes from? Or buying from a video? Please clarify.


I think a lot gets lost over 7 pages of thread- nothing you said or did not say...Most of us are probably reading/posting while working...

[canyonoak]

<< if the horse just needed a change of shoes why on earth didn't the Reesinks take him back make a commission on a replacement horse for Mme Capshaw and re sell the original horse thus making a decent profit all round?>>



According to the reports, the Reesinks did not know the horse had been shipped back to Holland until they received the first legal papers demanding all costs plus 'mental stress' payment.

At that point, the horse had been in Holland at ANOTHER barn. I think for a month, maybe two.
The Reesinks sued for the right to see the horse and then asked for legal guardianship, stating--to a judge's satisfaction--that the horse was not being treated properly. Which included the statement that he was shod in shoes TWO sizes too small.

The Reesinks then gained physical control of the horse, and tried to find a reputable vet clinic to keep him in. The list of vet clinics acceptable to both parties was small--and in the end, the ONLY vet who would agree to keep the horse under the circumstances was the Reesink's own vet.

At this clinic, the horse was seen to, re-shod plus whatever else, and another MRI was made and sent to vets in Austria and I think Switzerland. All vet reports came back that the horse was OK, could do full work.

There was a small lawsuit arguing about the legal guardianship, but in the end , the Spielbergs agreed the horse was best maintained at the Reesink vet clinic.

My Dutch is certainly VERY limited, but it seems to me that what happened next was the Spielbergs started another lawsuit, thus negating any chance of selling said horse

[mairzeadoats]

So what is it about then?

If the horse just needed a change of shoes why on earth didn't the Reesinks take him back make a commission on a replacement horse for Mme Capshaw and re sell the original horse thus making a decent profit all round?

Because apparently the Spielbergs never gave them that opportunity. If Reesinks took him back without an agreed to and signed contract, they'd probably be up crap's creek.

Reesinks *probably* wanted some independent confirmation of the issues, to see first if the problem could be rectified in country. Don't forget, it wasn't until much later that they even knew what was wrong, beyond "he's lame and it's your fault." But the Spielberg's shipped the horse back to another stable behind their backs, and then sued for double what they paid for the horse to begin with. Once they sued, the horse couldn't be taken back.

Furthermore, they tried to legally deny the Reesinks all access to the horse, to prevent them from even assessing his condition, never mind take him back.

Strip out all the hype and melodrama, and the facts don't speak well for Capshaw/Spielberg. You can have all the money in the world -- it doesn't buy you common decency, intelligence or compassion for a dependent. The fools probably thought once the horse was in Holland, they'd force him back on the Reesinks on their terms, instead of having to agree to terms.

Instead, the horse is stuck in "no man's land" while the Spielbergs try to come to grips with the fact that you can't win them all and maybe the horse was fine to begin with and just needed correct shoeing.

[Pommederue]

Another thing I keep seeing is imported horses getting soft tissue injuries shortly after they start work in usa. I believe these horses had previous injuries and were thus were just accidents waiting to happen. Or....it could just be because our farriers shoe so crappy - LOL.

I see this all the time as well. Sometimes a horse is way overworked in preparation for a sale. A major suspensory injury (or reinjury which is usually the case) can start of with perhaps a faint gimp around a corner or a little resistance in the piaffe and then wham the next day you have a year long lay-up with very little swelling in the leg at all. I understand suspensory injuries to be 'cumulative' ie, every day it gets a little weaker and weaker and then one day it tears. Same goes for old tendon or ligament injuries; as long as you know it's there, you can keep an eye on it -- ultrasound to make sure it's not swollen, etc. But if you don't know there was an old injury, your vet may not be able to detect it. MRI's are not used in a standard pre-purchase exam either.

[poltroon]

Point of view on everything I've seen is from Reesinks and the Dutch press. None of them have interviewed Capshaw or anyone else representing Old Dogwood. I just don't think you can come to an appropriate conclusion without even seeing Old Dogwood's argument.

[egontoast]

The courts heard their arguments in full and decided against them four times. I'm guessing the court would be in a better position to pass judgment on the matter than would a bunch of people on a discussion board who don't know the facts. Maybe.:cool:

[ToN Farm]

I'm curious where the horse was stabled when it arrived in the USA (New Jersey). I'm curious who was riding it and who was the first person to notice the lameness. I'm curious as to who the farrier was. I'm just curious.....period. Gee, you'd think news like this would be all over the place since the horse world is so small.

p.s. I've never heard of anyone doing an mri for a prepurchase. If they got an mri done in NJ, it was likely done a Furlong's facility.

[Thomas_1]

Like I said the Spielbergs sound like a pain in the ass.

There's been 4 court cases that they've lost. How many does it take for it to sink through their thick heads. Sounds to me like they're merely being spurious and vexatious and have more money than sense!

[Marieke]

I don't care if Capshaw wants to ride her GP horse in Intro A, that is completely her prerogative. There are so few GP horses for sale especially at that age. Sad part now is that the horse is in legal costudy till this is resolved, which may be 10 years (I think on average it takes 6 years to be heard in a 'bodem procedure'). The horse will then be 19.

The only MRI locations I know are in Kentucky and in Washington.

[YankeeLawyer]

I think it is completely pointless to speculate as to what occurred, and really unfortunate to see vitriolic remarks about either side.

[Thomas_1]

I think it is completely pointless to speculate as to what occurred, and really unfortunate to see vitriolic remarks about either side. Whenever a case is brought to court ...... and remember this has been voluntarily brought four times by Spielberg.... then its a matter of public knowledge and as such entirely open to speculation, remark, comment and criticism.

[honeylips]

"The only MRI locations I know are in Kentucky and in Washington"

There are several equine MRI facilities in California.

[sm]

MRI locations: there is one at Colorado State University. I think all teaching hospitals (large animal vet) would need to have one.

I always thought New Bolton Center (PA) and Cornell (NY) would need to each have one -- how else would teaching hospitals train equine vets, both these are state-of-the-art equine facilities....

[rcloisonne]

Even Tufts has one:

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/radiology/

[YankeeLawyer]

Whenever a case is brought to court ...... and remember this has been voluntarily brought four times by Spielberg.... then its a matter of public knowledge and as such entirely open to speculation, remark, comment and criticism.

Actually, I have been wondering whether in fact the case has been brought FOUR times, as that article suggests, or whether if in fact it was bought ONE time but as part of that same action, for example, various motions were ruled upon and/or an appeal taken (and perhaps that article was poorly translated or written by someone not well versed in the law). I would be quite surprised if courts in Europe permitted the same action to be brought multiple times by the same parties; here that alone would be grounds for early dismissal of the action.

I also respectfully disagree that by filing suit you somehow should be subjected to unfounded speculation and vitriol. Seriously, no one here has the facts. Negative comments just sound mean and petty, in my view. I obviously have no idea what occurred between these people either, and frankly the fact that they lost in court doesn't give me all that much more insight into the merits of the case without having all the details myself. Occasionally the one who prevails is not the one that had the better case ; ).

[sm]

seems like both (1) various motions were ruled upon and (2) an appeal taken:

http://www.eurodressage.com/news/focus/foc_spielberg.html

[Marieke]

It was heard in 3 different courts (Zaandam, Haarlem (2x), Amsterdam), and there were 4 different law suits, totalling 7 sub-suits.

If I understand correctly
1. olddog sues reesink for lamehorse in June 2007. Judges say horse left seller fine.
2. olddog sues reesink for emotional damage. Judges dismiss (you can't in the Netherlands).
3. reesink confiscates the horse. Judges agree
4. olddog sues to undo confiscation. Judges disagree, say olddog purposfully damages horse.

Clear as mud right? :D

[Discobold]

I also respectfully disagree that by filing suit you somehow should be subjected to unfounded speculation and vitriol. Seriously, no one here has the facts.

And, as an atttorney (as I know you are), I respectfully disagree and find it curious how you phrase this. Speculation and vitriol :rolleyes: ? I don't care if you are famous or not. And I don't care if it's multiple lawsuits, or one lawsuit with multiple appeals. You sue. . .and you sue again. . . and you appeal. . . and you appeal again. It's public record, and of course people are going to speculate. Because deep down inside most of us don't like litigious people and sore losers :winkgrin:

New Bolton does have an MRI.

[YankeeLawyer]

And, as an atttorney (as I know you are), I respectfully disagree and find it curious how you phrase this. Speculation and vitriol :rolleyes: ? I don't care if you are famous or not. And I don't care if it's multiple lawsuits, or one lawsuit with multiple appeals. You sue. . .and you sue again. . . and you appeal. . . and you appeal again. It's public record, and of course people are going to speculate. Because deep down inside most of us don't like litigious people and sore losers :winkgrin:

New Bolton does have an MRI.

So I take it that you characterize the nasty comments about the Spielbergs, offered by people who do not know them and know nothing about the case other than what was reported by the European correspondent for a dressage online-zine as something less than vitriol and speculation? Okay.

If you in fact are an attorney then I am sure you are aware that most people's professed distaste for litigation changes dramatically when they are the ones who sustain a loss. So I wouldn't be so quick to condemn someone who feels that they were entitled to some relief in a deal that indisputably went wrong.

[Thomas_1]

So I take it that you characterize the nasty comments about the Spielbergs, offered by people who do not know them and know nothing about the case other than what was reported by the European correspondent for a dressage online-zine as something less than vitriol and speculation? Okay. Now I think that vitriol is overly abusive feeling or expression and compared to a lot of postings on this BB, the Spielbergs got off lightly. The Spielbergs are celebrities. They revel in their celebrity and benefit from it. Its naive in the extreme to think that folks aren't going to characterize and comment and yes.... even speculate.... about someone who's a celebrity.

Fact is though that according to the reports (several of them) they've been to court and been again and again and again and are losing every time they go. This to me sounds like they're being a pain in the ass. If they were winning it would sound to me like they've a fair point and have achieved justice. As it is, it sounds like they're just abusing their wealth and using it to be a pain in the ass to someone who most likely regrets the day they ever happened along in their land of reality.

If you in fact are an attorney then I am sure you are aware that most people's professed distaste for litigation changes dramatically when they are the ones who sustain a loss. I've no problem at all with litigation when a dispute can't be settled either by the individuals or by mediation. However there comes a point where you've just got to accept you've got to get over it and move along. Good lawyers ordinarily tell their clients when prospects of success or low or negligible and they even advise them that its best to "get over it" and stop wasting time and money. Its why the words frivolous and vexatious are used at law.
So I wouldn't be so quick to condemn someone who feels that they were entitled to some relief in a deal that indisputably went wrong. The courts ruled on that matter again and again and again and that's what makes them a pain in the ass. Pain in the ass meaning an irritating annoyance that just won't go away.

[Discobold]

I am in fact an attorney and have been for 20 years :lol: :lol:, and I didn't say all litigation was bad, but used the word litigious, commonly defined as follows:

"prone to engage in lawsuits or legal maneuvers esp. to an excessive degree" (Merriam-Webster) (emphasis added)

"unreasonably prone to go to law to settle disputes" (Oxford) (emphasis added)

Thomas explained it well ;)

[nhwr]

Having been involved in a couple of lawsuits (non horse related), odd things happen that foster a sense of outrage on both sides. My lawyer has reminded me on occasion that it the first responsibility of any good attorney to inform their client when they are being a damn fool.

The problem is if you are an extremely wealthy client and you don't have a good (meaning scrupulous) lawyer. The money the Spielburgs are spending on attorneys fee is nothing to them. Essentially having a job for life with clients who have endless resources, why would their attorney tell them it is time to walk away? The attorney gets to split his time between Marin County and the Netherlands, billable hours all the way.

That's not a bad life :D

[egontoast]

The problem is if you are an extremely wealthy client and you don't have a good (meaning scrupulous) lawyer. The money the Spielburgs are spending on attorneys fee is nothing to them. Essentially having a job for life with clients who have endless resources, why would their attorney tell them it is time to walk away? The attorney gets to split his time between Marin County and the Netherlands, billable hours all the way.




Clients don't always take their lawyers' advice regarding the chance of success in a lawsuit.

You advise the client of the weaknesses or strengths of the case but ultimately it's the client who decides whether or not to proceed. Sure the lawyer can refuse to take the case, but the lawyer is not the judge so cannot say for sure how the case will go.

Yes, another lawyer here.:cool:

[freestyle2music]

More courtcases are on their way.

The biggest Dutch newspapper published in a recent article that Capshaw has started more courtcases :

"attachment of property courtcase" on all horses of Reesink
"attachment of property courtcase" on private properties of Reesink

[YankeeLawyer]

Clients don't always take their lawyers' advice regarding the chance of success in a lawsuit.

You advise the client of the weaknesses or strengths of the case but ultimately it's the client who decides whether or not to proceed. Sure the lawyer can refuse to take the case, but the lawyer is not the judge so cannot say for sure how the case will go.

Yes, another lawyer here.:cool:

Yes, the lawyer can refuse to take the case or withdraw from the representation depending on the circumstances.

Look, for all I know, this is the most frivolous action ever pursued. My point was that no one here knows squat about the case, and it is really mean-spirited and petty to disparage either side. I would think the Spielbergs have excellent counsel, which would make me tend to think it is not a completely baseless suit, but again, I have no idea who is representing them so I can't say.

In addition, I believe some people are looking at this from the viewpoint of how litigation works in this country. I believe that they have fee-shifting in the Netherlands, which tends to severely curtail "vexatious" litigation because the loser pays the winner's fees and costs.

[YankeeLawyer]

More courtcases are on their way.

The biggest Dutch newspapper published in a recent article that Capshaw has started more courtcases :

"attachment of property courtcase" on all horses of Reesink
"attachment of property courtcase" on private properties of Reesink

In this country, those could be brought as motions as part of the same action. I am pretty sure it is the same there, but somehow the meaning is getting lost in translation.

[Ambrey]

More courtcases are on their way.

The biggest Dutch newspapper published in a recent article that Capshaw has started more courtcases :

"attachment of property courtcase" on all horses of Reesink
"attachment of property courtcase" on private properties of Reesink

Yep, I can totally see why they think they should be able to attach the property of Reesink when the courts have found against them over and over.

Is there a Dutch equivalent to the US laws that allow a judge to sanction a plaintiff for frivolous lawsuits?

[freestyle2music]

Yes, the lawyer can refuse to take the case or withdraw from the representation depending on the circumstances.

Look, for all I know, this is the most frivolous action ever pursued. My point was that no one here knows squat about the case, and it is really mean-spirited and petty to disparage either side. I would think the Spielbergs have excellent counsel, which would make me tend to think it is not a completely baseless suit, but again, I have no idea who is representing them so I can't say.

In addition, I believe some people are looking at this from the viewpoint of how litigation works in this country. I believe that they have fee-shifting in the Netherlands, which tends to severely curtail "vexatious" litigation because the loser pays the winner's fees and costs.

Yes we have , but this is (mostly) another courtcase, because Reesink lawyers have to explain why they went to Switserland and Germany with the MRI-scans, and have to deliver proof to the court that this was a necessity blablabla... I think that Nastos (13 years now) will be already dead and burried before this ridiculous saga ends.

[canyonoak]

Poor Nastros.

[ESG]

Pissing contest of epic proportions. The Spielbergs are sore losers and don't know when to quit. It appears that their attorney(s) are the only ones profiting from this garbage. Yet another example that money can't buy class. :no:

[dsgshowmom]

Pissing contest of epic proportions. The Spielbergs are sore losers and don't know when to quit. It appears that their attorney(s) are the only ones profiting from this garbage. Yet another example that money can't buy class. :no:


ESG, you really are bitter, aren't you? :lol:

[poltroon]

Having been involved in a couple of lawsuits (non horse related), odd things happen that foster a sense of outrage on both sides. My lawyer has reminded me on occasion that it the first responsibility of any good attorney to inform their client when they are being a damn fool.

The problem is if you are an extremely wealthy client and you don't have a good (meaning scrupulous) lawyer. The money the Spielburgs are spending on attorneys fee is nothing to them. Essentially having a job for life with clients who have endless resources, why would their attorney tell them it is time to walk away? The attorney gets to split his time between Marin County and the Netherlands, billable hours all the way.

That's not a bad life :D

Well said (about the damn fool part!) .. but Capshaw does not live in Marin County, as far as I know. ;)

[ESG]

ESG, you really are bitter, aren't you? :lol:

No, I just don't like it when someone sues and abuses the process, just because they can.

[nhwr]

but Capshaw does not live in Marin County, as far as I know. ;) You are right. I often confused Spielberg with George Lucas.
Sorry :uhoh:

To respond to the eggmeister.
I don't disagree that it is the client to decides to go forward or not. But when you are pursuing this course, you usually have a lot of faith in the opinion of your attorney. That puts the client in a vulnerable position, from a decision making perspective. If he/she cheerleads the merits of your case, you are outraged and encouraged to continue and there is no real financial burden is doing so...

I know nothing about the details of this case. But I can imagine how this scenario might have unfolded.

[Hocus Focus]

This is a most unfortunate event for all involved.... horse...buyer...seller.

I also think it is unfortunate the media frenzy that has erupts around it, but I too have taken the time to read about it, so that makes me no better.

[SGray]

Poor Nastros.


the accounts have stated that shoeing problem has been fixed and horse is no longer lame so I doubt Nastros is too stressed over whether or not he will continue with a competitive career at Grand Prix

or perhaps he yearned to move to California?

[Mozart]

My, this board is lousy with them isn't it? :D

My experience as an attorney has taught me not to believe any news reports regarding court cases unless I saw the testimony myself or I got reports from other lawyers that I trusted.

I have personally seen reports of my cases in newspapers or on TV and the reporter had so clearly missed the point or had so incorrectly relayed the evidence I wondered if s/he was even sitting in the right court room.

My basic rule of thumb is to not give any weight to legal reporting in the mass media.

[Horsepower]

As yet another attorney, LOL, I agree with Mozart. Although well-meaning, many reporters with nonlegal backgrounds misreport the facts (both substantive and procedural) of court cases.

[Ambrey]

Lawyers are the only ones who can afford to keep horses in this litigous society!

(kidding!)