Calling All Equine Lawyers!

[anthem35]

Situation-

Horse is leased for one year, for agreed upon amount. Contract is signed by both parties. Insurance is taken out and paid for be person leasing. Payment is made Quarterly.

2 months into lease, horse sustains injury. Doesn't appear too serious, vet recommends 3 weeks off from riding, 3 months off from jumping.

Leasing person decides because of this, they want to walk away all together.

Are they responsible for balance of lease? Are they responsible to care for horse during this time, as in board and care for the remainder of the lease?

THANKS!

[vxf111]

Without knowing what the terms of the lease say, I don't see how anyone can give you a thoughtful answer.

[Ophelia123]

well, if it were me, I'd rather the horse come home and rehab with me...
but if the contract said they are responsible until the END of the lease term (undercontract) i'd say they are responsible.....but even at that point, I would want to take it back, forget about the money and make sure everything goes smoothly with the rehab/time off and not worry about what they are or aren't doing.

[skiddiepony]

vxf111 is absolutely right. you need actual legal advice from someone who can read the terms of the contract. the leasee may not be responsible for the remainder of the lease, the person leasing the horse may not be legally able to terminate the lease, or none of that may be true. yikes contracts! but this is why we sign them :eek:

[Woodsperson]

What does the contract say. The obligations are strictly contractual and will depend on what the parties put in writing.

[MLP]

In any lease I have been involved in you as the lessee (person leasing the horse) are responsible to return the horse in the condition you got it or pay the full amount of the lease if the horse isn't going to be back in original condition before the end of the lease. That said, since it happened in the beginning of a year lease and the injury is only 3 months, you would be responsible for the board and care and rehab until the horse is back, if you give him back you forfeit any lease fee you paid and owe the board. I guess it really depends on how it is spelled out in your agreement but all the agreements I have entered in are stated that way. Sorry to hear about the horse. :( Total bummer.

[anthem35]

I need to look at the contract, I dont have it with me at this moment...

But the fee was payable in quarterly payments.... And the lease does mention that the person leasing is resonsible for all vet bills, insurance, etc...just cant recall the exact words...

The situation is that the person who LEASED thsi horse, is looking to completely drop their obligation, and walk away form the horse...as in, not evey paying board, bills, going forward.

Pls keep in mind, the vet has recomended 3 weeks off from riding, and 3 months off from jumping.

I know of many people who give their horse the entire winter off, just to get them fresh for the upcoming season....

[Kementari]

The lease should have language indicating when it is/may be terminated. I've done it both as a date - "This lease is effective until October 31, 2008" and as a notice given - "This lease is effective until terminated by either party with 30 days written notice." I've also seen it done with both - in other words, it has an end date, but it also has a 30-day "out" clause. (And of course, it should have provision for immediate termination by the owner if the horse is being abused/neglected, but that doesn't come into play here!)

So it just depends. If the lease says it's for a year, and there's no clause giving the lessee the option of an out, then they are still on the hook. Unless, of course, the owner misrepresented the horse in some way or broke the terms of the lease themselves, in which case all bets are off.

[anthem35]

I can tell you this, there is no 'opt out' clause in the contract....

I'm fairly certain they are responsible for the lease fee part, but what about care? ( board, shoes, etc...)

[Just Wondering]

I can tell you this, there is no 'opt out' clause in the contract....

I'm fairly certain they are responsible for the lease fee part, but what about care? ( board, shoes, etc...)

If they are willing to walk away this easily, this soon - I say BUH BYE. They sound like a fair weather rider. A real horse person knows you have to have a little bit of salt to go along with the sugar.

[joiedevie99]

There is no standard answer that anyone here can give you. Both cases are equally plausible, and both happen all the time. I've seen leases where she could return the horse and not pay another dime, and be owed a refund on any portion of the first 3 months that she didn't use. I've also seen leases where the horse had to stay 12 months to the day no matter what. There is no default term here.

[anthem35]

Just wondering-

I agree with you 100%...However, the owner will now be stuck with a lame horse, that was caused so under someone else care, and all the bills, etc. for board, vet, rehab. hardly seems right.

In a lease, you get to walk away after your obligation is fulfilled. As an owner, you are now stuck with a horse that for all we know may now have permanent injury, and be forever rendered useless.

I honestly cannot see how someone would treat a lease of someone's horse like a rental car. "Oh, I broke this one, I'll drop it off in the parking lot and rent another..."

For god's sake, its 3 WEEKS off from riding, and 3 months from jumping...in the middle of winter IN NEW ENGLAND.

If they had mentioned in the beginning, "I'm going to ride and show your horse, and if he gets hurt, walk away altogether immediately..." Leasing would NOT HAVE BEEN AN OPTION for these people.

Clearly not horse people,....

[Kementari]

I can tell you this, there is no 'opt out' clause in the contract....

I'm fairly certain they are responsible for the lease fee part, but what about care? ( board, shoes, etc...)

Depends on what the lease says - if it says they are responsible for feed and shoes and all until X date, then they are responsible. If not, then, well, not...

[rileyt]

This is NOT legal advice. My gut feeling is:

1) The lease probably doesn't say anything about what happens in the event of an injury (and it SHOULD HAVE).

2) If the lease doesn't say anything, the owner is stuck, or at least swaying in the wind.

3) Regardless of the legalities, if the owner gives a darn about the horse, he/she will not leave it in the care of someone who wants to dump it.

[anthem35]

The lease does say the lessee is resonsible for all veterinary care of the horse, and will notify owner in such case.

And the horse is in good hands at the barn where he is currently living, he is not 'off grounds.

[blton9th]

post # 12 confused me. Does the horse have a permanant injury? Or does it need 3 wks R&R with no jumping for 3mos. If the people leasing said horse have use of indoor, I would say no jumping for 3 mos is a big deal.

Did the owners insure the horse? Just asking in case horse is rendered "useless."

Just curious.
Poor horse, I hope it does not end up paying the price.

[Madison]

You still haven't given enough information for someone to give you an informed opinion. It totally depends on what all of the provisions in the lease say and whether contingencies such as an injury are addressed. And, of course, factor in whether with their approach to this you trust them to continue to provide proper care for your horse. And, if they are declining to pay, how much time and trouble are you willing to put in to pursue it?

[Anselcat]

However, the owner will now be stuck with a lame horse, that was caused so under someone else care, and all the bills, etc. for board, vet, rehab. hardly seems right.

In a lease, you get to walk away after your obligation is fulfilled. As an owner, you are now stuck with a horse that for all we know may now have permanent injury, and be forever rendered useless.

When you lease out a horse you take a risk that something may happen. Horses get hurt. But you also receive leasing fees or, if a free lease, don't have to pay board during the lease. That is the bargain -- you take a certain amount of risk in exchange for financial gain.

Being able to walk away is one big reason WHY people lease, so that they don't make a lifetime commitment when they are not ready for it. Was the horse leased specifically as a hunter/jumper? You say the person 'caused' the lameness, but someone else may argue that the horse 'broke down' under normal use.

I really have no opinion about the present situation, since there's not enough facts given.

[findeight]

Fact the horse is not usable for the purpose it was leased for (at least) 25% of the period specified, it will depend on the contract language.

This is not vet bills, this is an unusable horse and it's probably nobody's fault. Three weeks no ride and 3 months no jump (at least) is a long time on a 1 year lease. Especially if they leased for the winter shows.

Since it was a quarterly payment, I'd take it back and let them out. No refund on the payment already made for the unuseable days, just let them default when the next payment is due.

I have had a medical "escape clause" written into my lease contracts on both sides. If it becomes unusable for 90 days or more during a 12 month lease, leasee may return the horse.

You can haggle over this but, if your leasee wants to dump the horse and the lease, I'd let it go since the horse is unusable and you don't need to refund anything. If they walk off on the board, you will have to pay anyway, contract or not, as it is your horse. least if you want toi keep it.

BTDT have the tee shirt and a summons to contest the horse being siezed for non payment when my leasee walked and did not bother to share. That one wasn't even lame either.

[anthem35]

post # 12 confused me. Does the horse have a permanant injury? Or does it need 3 wks R&R with no jumping for 3mos. If the people leasing said horse have use of indoor, I would say no jumping for 3 mos is a big deal.

Did the owners insure the horse? Just asking in case horse is rendered "useless."

Just curious.
Poor horse, I hope it does not end up paying the price.

NO, it doesn appear permanent! he just seemed 'off', and vet said he has 'strained' a suspensory, and would need 3 weeks off from riding, 3 months off from jumping. BO graciously offered use of a schoolie for lesse to jump during recovery. I to, think this is no biggie. Certainly not worth getting rid of a horse that is worth his weigh in gold

Horse is insured with owner as beneficiary, but in lessees name.

[meupatdoes]

NOT legal advice

but my general experience with this is that the person leasing the horse has contracted to buy one year in the life of the horse. Period. Unless the lease guarantees the horse will be sound for the year, they are leasing the HORSE, not the soundness of the horse.
Person leasing pays for that year, regardless of whether they keep the horse sound or not.
Similarly when you buy a 6yo horse, you don't get to give it back when it goes lame at age 11 saying, "Well, I expected it to be sound until it was 19 so here it is back."

Otherwise I could lease Authentic for $365,000 a year, and on the first day yeehaw over some huge jumps (Higher! Wider! Whee!), practice some vaquero tricks while I am at it, and then when he breaks on Day One I can look at Beezie and say "SOOOOORRY. I'll pay my $1,000 but I want the rest back, and here you pay all the rest from now on."

[anthem35]

When you lease out a horse you take a risk that something may happen. Horses get hurt. But you also receive leasing fees or, if a free lease, don't have to pay board during the lease. That is the bargain -- you take a certain amount of risk in exchange for financial gain.

Being able to walk away is one big reason WHY people lease, so that they don't make a lifetime commitment when they are not ready for it. Was the horse leased specifically as a hunter/jumper? You say the person 'caused' the lameness, but someone else may argue that the horse 'broke down' under normal use.

I really have no opinion about the present situation, since there's not enough facts given.


Vet confirms this is a new injury.

Yes, you can walk away, however, as a lessee you also assume that the horse may be injured, but that is a chance YOU take. Do Due diligence, don't lease a horse that has had chronic lameness. In this case, they did not.

[anthem35]

NOT legal advice

but my general experience with this is that the person leasing the horse has contracted to buy one year in the life of the horse. Period. Unless the lease guarantees the horse will be sound for the year, they are leasing the HORSE, not the soundness of the horse.
Person leasing pays for that year, regardless of whether they keep the horse sound or not.
Similarly when you buy a 6yo horse, you don't get to give it back when it goes lame at age 11 saying, "Well, I expected it to be sound until it was 19 so here it is back."

Otherwise I could lease Authentic for $365,000 a year, and on the first day yeehaw over some huge jumps (Higher! Wider! Whee!), practice some vaquero tricks while I am at it, and then when he breaks on Day One I can look at Beezie and say "SOOOOORRY. I'll pay my $1,000 but I want the rest back, and here you pay all the rest from now on."

Thanks, well said....presenst a whole 'nother way of looking at it.

[findeight]

Your leasee may be having other financial problems and, with a lease, not so sure it is worth it's weight in gold to them when it is going back in a year anyway and unuseable for what they leased it for for months.

Look, it stinks they are going to default. I would not leave that horse with them if they are not going to care for it, or pay board on it, anyway.

You could persue action for violating the contract but it is probably pointless.

You also are a little different because this was a quarterly payment as opposed to up front for the whole year.

[hype]

Depends on the contract but my trainer's lease (which I believe is fairly standard) REQUIRES you to finish up your contract for the duration of the lease unless the horse dies!

This means it is your horse with the lease fees, board, vet bills (which shouldn't be too much if the horse is insured), etc paid regardless if you are riding it or not. Now, when a horse has become unusuable for the duration of the lease they have taken back the horse and have resumed board bills etc for the rest of the time. That was them being good owners and willing to eat board and vet bills to make sure the horse was properly taken care of. At no point did they ever refund the part of the lease payment not used. That was a non-negotiable piece.

Had a horse come in for a lease to purchase. Potential owners paid a lot of money for a three month lease which was to go toward the purchase price. Not sure if 100% or what but most of that money. Horse colics a week into the deal, needs surgery and they pass on the horse. Horse returns to previous owner after he's well enough to haul but potenital owner got zero back for the lease and they rode him maybe three times.

Bad deal all the way around for everyone on this but it was written out in the contract if the horse returns no lease money is paid back.

[meupatdoes]

.

You could persue action for violating the contract but it is probably pointless.

You also are a little different because this was a quarterly payment as opposed to up front for the whole year.

You can haul their sorry asses in to collections, and let them get their own lawyer to prove they don't have to pay.

I've done it.

ansel:
NO.
The LESSEE takes the risk that it won't work out the whole year. The owner gets back what she leased out.
The lessor gets the benefit of "owning" the horse for the year, AND ALSO the risks of "owning" the horse for the year, unless specifically contracted otherwise.
By the time someone wanted to lease my horse and ride it for a year but leave all the risks with me, my lease fee would equal the purchase price.

hype:
Right on.

[anthem35]

You can haul their sorry asses in to collections, and let them get their own lawyer to prove they don't have to pay.

I've done it.

anthem:
NO.
The LESSEE takes the risk that it won't work out the whole year. The owner gets back what she leased out.

hype:
Right on.

Thanks, I really needed to hear something hopeful.

:)

[WW_Queen]

This is not vet bills, this is an unusable horse and it's probably nobody's fault. Three weeks no ride and 3 months no jump (at least) is a long time on a 1 year lease. Especially if they leased for the winter shows.

Since it was a quarterly payment, I'd take it back and let them out. No refund on the payment already made for the unuseable days, just let them default when the next payment is due.

I have had a medical "escape clause" written into my lease contracts on both sides. If it becomes unusable for 90 days or more during a 12 month lease, leasee may return the horse.

I am going to copy findeight's post and save it for next year, as I am hoping to lease a horse if my guy isn't doing well.

In order for the lease to be valid, don't both sides of the contract need to be fulfilled? They pay the money/bills, you provide a product or service, in this case a "working" horse. Due to an Act of God (sort to speak) the horse may or may not (a vet's prognosis can never be 100%, it depends on many factors while the horse is healing) be ready to jump (I assume this means compete as it is not a dressage horse) next year.

What exactly do you want? You want her to assume all costs so the horse is off your hands until he is better? I do think she should be obligated to pay for X amount (aka, 60-90 days of care/vet/etc) and not be allowed to walk away. But if that horse get's reinjured due to poor care in the first place, a wrong diagnosis, etc.....then you'll have a legal battle on your hands and your poor horse feeling like crap.

I would hold her to the lease for a certain amount of time then let her go. Better you take care of/supervise your horse while injured than have someone with a "Can't I just return him?" attitude be in charge, you know? :)

Good luck.

[Madison]

Thanks, I really needed to hear something hopeful.

:)


Anthem, I think the general consensus on this thread is that it is the lessee not you who is likely SOL. However, no one can give you a really informed opinion without seeing all of the terms, whether there were any out-clauses due to injury, whether it made any representations/warranties about horse staying usable, etc . . . thus the reason some people hedge their bets on reaching a conclusion. So, they may very well owe you for everything, but on the information presented no one can give you an informed opinion (and certainly no one is going to give legal advice on a bb thread on a contract they've never seen). Even assuming you are 100% right, unfortunately you still face some tough questions as to whether to leave the horse in their care, whether it is worth litigation to recover what you are owed if they won't pay (having a valid claim is one thing, but as you are probably aware whether it is worth the time, trouble and expense is another - litigation can unfortuantely get expensive fast, in addition to being frustrating). Sometimes just a lawyer letter can help people "adjust" their point of view, so there are other steps you can take before you would actually have to file suit to get paid. Overall, this is a really crappy situation to find yourself in through no fault of your own, and I recall that your horse is a very nice one from your prior posts, so I hope it works out - good luck!

[anthem35]

Anthem, I think the general consensus on this thread is that it is the lessee not you who is likely SOL. However, no one can give you a really informed opinion without seeing all of the terms, whether there were any out-clauses due to injury, whether it made any representations/warranties about horse staying usable, etc . . . thus the reason some people hedge their bets on reaching a conclusion. So, they may very well owe you for everything, but on the information presented no one can give you an informed opinion (and certainly no one is going to give legal advice on a bb thread on a contract they've never seen). Even assuming you are 100% right, unfortunately you still face some tough questions as to whether to leave the horse in their care, whether it is worth litigation to recover what you are owed if they won't pay (having a valid claim is one thing, but as you are probably aware whether it is worth the time, trouble and expense is another - litigation can unfortuantely get expensive fast, in addition to being frustrating). Sometimes just a lawyer letter can help people "adjust" their point of view, so there are other steps you can take before you would actually have to file suit to get paid. Overall, this is a really crappy situation to find yourself in through no fault of your own, and I recall that your horse is a very nice one from your prior posts, so I hope it works out - good luck!

Thank YOu.

I just looked over the contract, there is no 'Opt out' clause.

It says the lessee agrees to lease from ____ to _____ 2009. It details the amt to be paid, in quarterly installments, and lists the people that are able to ride. (Including the Lessor)

The only reference it has to injury is this "The Lessee agrees to contact the Lessor in the event that emergency veterinary treatment is needed for said horse, but the Lessee is still authorized to secure veterinary care required for the health and well being of the horse at Lessees Cost. However, in the event that surgical care is recommended or required by a vterinarian, the Lessess must contact the Lessor to decide whic party will be responsible for incured costs, if any, not covered by the insurance."

My deduction is this: You agreed to lease the from from xxx-xxx. You are responsible for it until that date. During this time, you are responsible for the horses veterinary care, in addtion to the lease you agreed to.

There is no opt out clause.

[equinelaw]

You will have to weigh the costs of "winning" your case against the costs of just taking the horse back. It most likely will cost MORE to win a judgment in court then to just let them walk and write better contracts in the future based on this experience.

See what the $$$ limits in small claims court are in your jurisdiction. From what you have posted a judge may rule either way. If Lessee doesn't show up you win. If the judge rules for you then you win, if the judge rules for lessee them you lose. 2 out of 3 shot of winning and a low cost way to go to court. No lawyers.

However, as most have pointed out you do not want to leave the horse in the care of a person who thinks 3 weeks or 3 months is a reason to throw away a horse. Even if you win and they keep the horse they still might not have the sense or decency to not do something stupid in 4 months and ruin the horse forever.

What they did was wrong and it sucks. But what they showed you about who they are is a strong warning. They should pay, but they could just ruin the horse forever and that costs a lot more then half a years board.

[Kementari]

I am going to copy findeight's post and save it for next year, as I am hoping to lease a horse if my guy isn't doing well.

In order for the lease to be valid, don't both sides of the contract need to be fulfilled? They pay the money/bills, you provide a product or service, in this case a "working" horse. Due to an Act of God (sort to speak) the horse may or may not (a vet's prognosis can never be 100%, it depends on many factors while the horse is healing) be ready to jump (I assume this means compete as it is not a dressage horse) next year.

What exactly do you want? You want her to assume all costs so the horse is off your hands until he is better? I do think she should be obligated to pay for X amount (aka, 60-90 days of care/vet/etc) and not be allowed to walk away. But if that horse get's reinjured due to poor care in the first place, a wrong diagnosis, etc.....then you'll have a legal battle on your hands and your poor horse feeling like crap.

I would hold her to the lease for a certain amount of time then let her go. Better you take care of/supervise your horse while injured than have someone with a "Can't I just return him?" attitude be in charge, you know? :)

Good luck.

If the contract is well-written, then the lessor fulfilled her end of the contract by providing a horse that was sound. You don't get to crash your rental car and then return it and not pay just because it no longer runs...

And you bet I expect my lessee to assume the costs associated with an injury or illness while my horse is in her care - even if she can't ride! (In my case, there is a 30-day clause, so she could just pay the first 30 days worth if she gave me notice as soon as it happened...) The point of a lease is not for the lessee to get all the benefits of a horse with none of the drawbacks. If the lessee signed a year's contract, and there's no clause allowing him/her out early, then they are responsible for a year. And if they didn't know that horses can go lame unexpectedly, then they can consider this a far cheaper lesson than if they had BOUGHT a horse...

(And, as a side note: Only 3 weeks off for a suspensory?? Have they done an ultrasound? Suspensories aren't something to be messed around with - make sure you get imaging done so there's a plan to make sure it heals right the first time!)

[Anselcat]

Was this a "free" lease (lessee pays for board and costs) or was there also a lease fee involved?

[anthem35]

NO, it as not a free-lease...

They were allowed to make quarterly payments, because it was understood that its a lot of money, it was done out of fairness to the lessee.

A vet has looked at him a few times..its not serious, no one suspcted anything was wrong at all, he just looked 'slightly off'...An Ultrasound was done, and it is being called a 'strain'...

The horse is going to stay where he is, as he is in the best hands possible. The lessee leased the horse, and kept the barn that he came from. So he is under the care of the BARN, which is exceptional.

[Lucassb]

NO, it doesn appear permanent! he just seemed 'off', and vet said he has 'strained' a suspensory, and would need 3 weeks off from riding, 3 months off from jumping. BO graciously offered use of a schoolie for lesse to jump during recovery. I to, think this is no biggie. Certainly not worth getting rid of a horse that is worth his weigh in gold

Horse is insured with owner as beneficiary, but in lessees name.

We are missing a lot of details here, but IF the horse was leased to be jumped and shown - then I'd argue that this IS a big deal. The lessee is probably going to lose at least a third of the time they are paying for in terms of the horse not doing what was expected.

The insurance will pay the lion's share of the vet bills after the deductible is met, but it probably won't pay for things like hand walking, wrapping, etc. So the lessee is going to have to either do all that or pay for it to be done out of pocket.

Most horses aren't going to be much fun to ride for a while after 3 weeks off, so it's likely that the lessee will also either have to pay a pro or suck it up for at least a week once the horse is back under tack - and that's for a quiet horse. There will probably be a period where even the regular flatwork will be restricted when the horse is put back into work; especially with a suspensory issue.

Once they are finally cleared for jumping again, frankly the horse probaby isn't going to be able to go right back to the ring at it's former level either.

Most leases have some sort of clause that allows the lease to be terminated with proper notice. If the horse can't be used for the intended purpose, it's a shame but barring negligence on the lessee's part, frankly I can understand wanting to end the arrangment. There is typically a big difference between leasing/jumping a show quality animal and borrowing somebody's schoolie and the prices involved would differ as well. It was very nice of the BO to offer... but that doesn't change much in terms of the value received by the lessee.

Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

[Lucassb]

NO, it as not a free-lease...

They were allowed to make quarterly payments, because it was understood that its a lot of money, it was done out of fairness to the lessee.

(snip).

emphasis added.

Especially as it was "a lot of money"... the fact that the horse is not going to be able to do what was expected for 25-30% of the lease period IS a big deal.

[meupatdoes]

We are missing a lot of details here, but IF the horse was leased to be jumped and shown - then I'd argue that this IS a big deal. The lessee is probably going to lose at least a third of the time they are paying for in terms of the horse not doing what was expected.

The insurance will pay the lion's share of the vet bills after the deductible is met, but it probably won't pay for things like hand walking, wrapping, etc. So the lessee is going to have to either do all that or pay for it to be done out of pocket.

Most horses aren't going to be much fun to ride for a while after 3 weeks off, so it's likely that the lessee will also either have to pay a pro or suck it up for at least a week once the horse is back under tack - and that's for a quiet horse. There will probably be a period where even the regular flatwork will be restricted when the horse is put back into work; especially with a suspensory issue.

Once they are finally cleared for jumping again, frankly the horse probaby isn't going to be able to go right back to the ring at it's former level either.

Most leases have some sort of clause that allows the lease to be terminated with proper notice. If the horse can't be used for the intended purpose, it's a shame but barring negligence on the lessee's part, frankly I can understand wanting to end the arrangment. There is typically a big difference between leasing/jumping a show quality animal and borrowing somebody's schoolie and the prices involved would differ as well. It was very nice of the BO to offer... but that doesn't change much in terms of the value received by the lessee.

Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

I don't understand this attitude.
When I BUY a horse, I am buying the HORSE. I am not buying a guarantee from the seller that the horse is never going to limp, and if it blows a suspensory in the paddock at age 8, one year after I bought it, ending it's working hunter career, I don't get to say, "Well, I bought this horse for a lot of money to do the workings for a normal career timeframe so I want to send it back now." I bought a working hunter, it was a great working hunter when I bought it, now it limps, I'm not going to get all the working hunter mileage I thought out of it, tough titties for me. I should have kept it sound. Even if the horse limps through no fault of MY own, it certainly isn't limping through any fault of the original seller either. Why should the seller have to take the horse back?
Answer? Seller doesn't. It's tough titties for the new owner.

Same deal for a lease.
It is the LESSOR'S responsibility to keep the horse in the same condition it was when the lessor leased it. The LESSOR bears the risk of this not working out for the full lease term, not the owner.
Even if it's not the lessor's fault the horse is limping, it certainly isn't the OWNER'S, either.
The lessor is using a high quality animal after paying 1/3 its value. Lessor gets the BENEFIT of having the horse AS WELL AS the RISKS.

It sounds to me like people want motorcycles to use up.
Well, I'll pay you 1/3rd the value of your horse, and if it breaks while I have it, ALL of the risk's still on you! AND I want my 1/3rd back too! I get my money back to walk away and go lease something else, and you are left with your used up, broken horse and a lease refund to pay.

You have got to be kidding me.

Just like it is the owner's responsibility/risk to keep the horse they have bought sound, it is the lessor's responsibility/risk to keep the horse they have leased sound.

[anthem35]

We are missing a lot of details here, but IF the horse was leased to be jumped and shown - then I'd argue that this IS a big deal. The lessee is probably going to lose at least a third of the time they are paying for in terms of the horse not doing what was expected.

The insurance will pay the lion's share of the vet bills after the deductible is met, but it probably won't pay for things like hand walking, wrapping, etc. So the lessee is going to have to either do all that or pay for it to be done out of pocket.

Most horses aren't going to be much fun to ride for a while after 3 weeks off, so it's likely that the lessee will also either have to pay a pro or suck it up for at least a week once the horse is back under tack - and that's for a quiet horse. There will probably be a period where even the regular flatwork will be restricted when the horse is put back into work; especially with a suspensory issue.

Once they are finally cleared for jumping again, frankly the horse probaby isn't going to be able to go right back to the ring at it's former level either.

Most leases have some sort of clause that allows the lease to be terminated with proper notice. If the horse can't be used for the intended purpose, it's a shame but barring negligence on the lessee's part, frankly I can understand wanting to end the arrangment. There is typically a big difference between leasing/jumping a show quality animal and borrowing somebody's schoolie and the prices involved would differ as well. It was very nice of the BO to offer... but that doesn't change much in terms of the value received by the lessee.

Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

As far as missing a lot of showing, Nope. New England in the winter. The horse is a childrens hunter for a kid who is JUST learning, currently doing 2"-2'6". She will miss MAYBE one local show...The goal was to start up in the Childrens, local shows in the Spring. For her to flat for a few months on this horse, and jump one of the VERY nice horses the barn has, is more of an inconvience.

As far as comeback goes, the same horse was stall bound for 9 months, for a TOTALLY unrelated injury, and required no longing, or tranq, and was ridden by the owner first time out. Anyone that know the horse in question will attest to that.

The vet's prognosis is that its a minor injury, and just needs to rest. There is NO talk of possible inability to go back to being a compettive 3' horse..AT ALL. Which is why this is more crazy...he basically strained his suspensory, and needs 3 weeks of no jumping for recovery. he has been in regualr work, and probably woudl have continued, had the trainer not had such a keen eye, to pick out such a minor injury.

As far as Lion's share of bills-there are not a lot. He just needs rest.

[meupatdoes]

emphasis added.

Especially as it was "a lot of money"... the fact that the horse is not going to be able to do what was expected for 25-30% of the lease period IS a big deal.

Sometimes people buy a horse for $250,000 expecting it to be an FEI dressage horse and then it up and blows two suspensories in the paddock three months later and will never be able to perform 'as expected' again.

Oh well.

[Alterageous]

emphasis added.

Especially as it was "a lot of money"... the fact that the horse is not going to be able to do what was expected for 25-30% of the lease period IS a big deal.

Then they should have signed a contract that allowed them to opt out. It's not like she leased this horse for $50,000 with the expectation that he be able to perform in the medal finals. This is the horse game.

There are many, many horses who lease for big $$$ who require wrapping, massage, magnetic blankets, adequan, expensive shoes, just to stay sound. You sign on for the whole deal when you lease. All leasing does is allow you to take home more horse than you can afford for a lower up front cost. My bank doesn't pay for the repairs on the leased car I crashed, and in fact I owe them more money because the value went down.

If the horse being injured would be that big a deal to them, I suggest they invest in gymnastics lessons.

[blton9th]

The vet's prognosis is that its a minor injury, and just needs to rest. There is NO talk of possible inability to go back to being a compettive 3' horse..AT ALL. Which is why this is more crazy...he basically strained his suspensory, and needs 3 weeks of no jumping for recovery. he has been in regualr work, and probably woudl have continued, had the trainer not had such a keen eye, to pick out such a minor injury.

As far as Lion's share of bills-there are not a lot. He just needs rest.[/quote]


There is a big difference in 3 weeks no jumping as opposed to 3 mos of no jumping.
I would contact an attorney to review your contract, and decide how to best pursue.

[Kementari]

I don't understand this attitude.
When I BUY a horse, I am buying the HORSE. I am not buying a guarantee from the seller that the horse is never going to limp, and if it blows a suspensory in the paddock at age 8, one year after I bought it, ending it's working hunter career, I don't get to say, "Well, I bought this horse for a lot of money to do the workings for a normal career timeframe so I want to send it back now." I bought a working hunter, it was a great working hunter when I bought it, now it limps, I'm not going to get all the working hunter mileage I thought out of it, tough titties for me. I should have kept it sound. Even if the horse limps through no fault of MY own, it certainly isn't limping through any fault of the original seller either. Why should the seller have to take the horse back?
Answer? Seller doesn't. It's tough titties for the new owner.

Same deal for a lease.
It is the LESSOR'S responsibility to keep the horse in the same condition it was when the lessor leased it. The LESSOR bears the risk of this not working out for the full lease term, not the owner.
Even if it's not the lessor's fault the horse is limping, it certainly isn't the OWNER'S, either.
The lessor is using a high quality animal after paying 1/3 its value. Lessor gets the BENEFIT of having the horse AS WELL AS the RISKS.

It sounds to me like people want motorcycles to use up.
Well, I'll pay you 1/3rd the value of your horse, and if it breaks while I have it, ALL of the risk's still on you! AND I want my 1/3rd back too! I get my money back to walk away and go lease something else, and you are left with your used up, broken horse and a lease refund to pay.

You have got to be kidding me.

Just like it is the owner's responsibility/risk to keep the horse they have bought sound, it is the lessor's responsibility/risk to keep the horse they have leased sound.

Exactly. :yes:

(Though I believe you mean "lessee" not "lessor"... ;))

The lessee signed a contract. If they wanted a "get out of jail free" card, then they should have asked for such to be written into the contract - at which point the owner could decide if they found such a provision fair and acceptable. (Personally, as a lessor, I'd be willing to have an out clause like that if the lessee requested it - but I think it's completely valid not to allow it.) But the time to decide you want such a provision is not AFTER the contract is signed and the horse injured. The lessee needs to suck it up, and learn from their experience.

[Keeper]

Meupatdoes is correct. Of course you have to have it in the contract, but the theory for a lease on a very expensive, very valuable horse should be all money upfront for the lease period (if you want to be nice, go ahead and let them pay quarterly), and lessee assumes all costs, as if it were their own horse.

If the horse gets hurt, if the horse is laid up, lessee is totally responsible.

Of course, if the lessor thinks lessee can't be trusted, lessor can take an injured horse back and assume vet and board and rehab, but the lease fee does not get refunded. In return, lessor may then say that when the horse gets better, if lessor paid all the interim costs, then lessee doesn't get the horse back even if there is time left on the lease.

Critical to all this, as many have pointed out, you MUST have it in writing. Everything in writing, including details like the supplements you want the horse to have (if that's important to you or the horse's health).

I have been the lessor of a very valuable horse through my very experienced trainers and the contract they provided was extremely explicit spelling out everyone's responsibilities. No surprises and no easy outs, for either party. As a lessee, you assume the same risks as an owner (i.e., you don't get your money back or your bad luck alleviated), albeit only for the life of the lease.

Nothing precludes you from being a nice guy or agreeing to take the horse back or assuming its costs, etc., if that's what you want or need to do. But my advice as one who has been there, and as many others here have noted, is to get it in writing. And trust your gut. If you don't want surprises, don't lease to someone you don't know well.

On a side note, in my contract, I increased the mortality insurance to the horse's full value and agreed to split the horse's insurance payments, so in the event he died during the lease, we would both be sharing the risk by getting half of any payout. That's not common. Usually, the lessee pays all the premiums and the lessor gets all the payout. I knew the people and didn't want them hurt if the worst happened.

And as a last note, a friend of mine leased a horse to a kid, and the horse got sick and had to be retired. They were only about half way through a one year lease, and no one on either side thought the lease fee should be refunded nor the horse's costs resumed by the lessor. It was a sad situation, but these were all horse people and they all knew what they were getting into. Once again, all hail the well-written contract!

[Lucassb]

As has been pointed out quite a few times already, everything depends on what is in the contract. Without knowing the terms - which frankly aren't anyone else's business - there is no way to know who is entitled to what in this situation.

The OP most recently said the horse is only out for 3 weeks. If that is the case, then I agree, no big deal. However, the first posts said no riding at all for three weeks followed by 3 MONTHS of no jumping. If you lease a horse for a year specifically to jump, well, then 3 months of no jumping is +25% of your money flushed down the you know what. Presumably they didn't lease the horse just to flat it, and wouldn't have done the deal if that had been a limitation up front.

I don't really see what the difference it makes that the horse is in New England. I am in New England myself, and while I hate the cold, it's not exactly the arctic. It was 60 degrees here today and is supposed to be around 55 tomorrow, back up to 60 on Sunday. Three months from now it will be colder, but we show here all winter long.

The prospect of this sort of injury is exactly the reason why most properly drawn up contracts include an out clause with a specified notice period. If this lease doesn't have such a clause, then the lessee is indeed up a creek, and just learned a potentially rather expensive lesson.

If this were my horse, though, I would look at it differently, particularly if this lease was done through a professional I wanted to work with again. I would not refund the lease fee paid to date, but I probably would take the horse back, at least while it was recovering. I might also seek some penalty - say, half the remaining lease pmt - but I wouldn't want my horse under the care/ custody/ control of people who were unhappy with it.

[anthem35]

As has been pointed out quite a few times already, everything depends on what is in the contract. Without knowing the terms - which frankly aren't anyone else's business - there is no way to know who is entitled to what in this situation.

The OP most recently said the horse is only out for 3 weeks. If that is the case, then I agree, no big deal. However, the first posts said no riding at all for three weeks followed by 3 MONTHS of no jumping. If you lease a horse for a year specifically to jump, well, then 3 months of no jumping is +25% of your money flushed down the you know what. Presumably they didn't lease the horse just to flat it, and wouldn't have done the deal if that had been a limitation up front.

I don't really see what the difference it makes that the horse is in New England. I am in New England myself, and while I hate the cold, it's not exactly the arctic. It was 60 degrees here today and is supposed to be around 55 tomorrow, back up to 60 on Sunday. Three months from now it will be colder, but we show here all winter long.

The prospect of this sort of injury is exactly the reason why most properly drawn up contracts include an out clause with a specified notice period. If this lease doesn't have such a clause, then the lessee is indeed up a creek, and just learned a potentially rather expensive lesson.

If this were my horse, though, I would look at it differently, particularly if this lease was done through a professional I wanted to work with again. I would not refund the lease fee paid to date, but I probably would take the horse back, at least while it was recovering. I might also seek some penalty - say, half the remaining lease pmt - but I wouldn't want my horse under the care/ custody/ control of people who were unhappy with it.


You dont seem to understand..."take it BACK"? Where? to the same barn he is at now??? He is under the SAME care as if he were not leased....Its the SAME barn. And yes, I absolutely intend to continue to work withe these professionals again.

And as far as showing in the winter, As I mentioned, she was not planning on showing all winter....

[vxf111]

You dont seem to understand..."take it BACK"? Where? to the same barn he is at now??? He is under the SAME care as if he were not leased....Its the SAME barn. And yes, I absolutely intend to continue to work withe these professionals again.

And as far as showing in the winter, As I mentioned, she was not planning on showing all winter....


The same care... unless the lessor feels spiteful and thinks "I paid to ride, I am not waiting 3 weeks" and rides during the hore's layoff period. Or unless she jumps the snot out of him once he gets back in work, to make up for lost time. Or something like that. You can't control the lessor and people start acting really FUNNY when they don't value your horse, or think they're no longer getting their money's worth.

When I write leases, I generally write them with a clause stating that if the horse is lame/off work for a period of time lasting longer than a month, and it is not the lessor's fault, the lessor can option to end the lease or continue it. I'd rather just have the horse back under my total control if someone doesn't want to rehab it and be patient. And frankly, I'd rather do the rehab myself. The horse is my "long term" investment. It's the lessor's short term joyride. I have every reason not to cut corners and be concerned about allowing extra time off and getting the injury healed correctly. They have the financial incentive to rush/mask/shortcut the recovery and get back in the saddle-- because if the horse is crippeled 3 months after the lease ends-- oh well, not their problem.

In your case, assuming the lease is entirely SILENT on the issue, I would think the remaining language of the lease states that the lessor bought the use of the horse for a set period of time, and therefore they're not entitled to end the lease. I can't say more without seeing the entirety of the contract.

That doesn't mean, even if you have a better "legal" position, that you have a better moral/practical reason. If it was my horse, and it was as nice as yours sounds, I'd take the horse back (terminate the lease going forward, no refund for time already paid) and rehab it myself and do it PROPERLY with as much time off as it needs. A suspensory is NO JOKE. Even if the vet just says "rest it" right now, who knows how it will look in three weeks? The horse could get antsy in the stall and worsen the injury. Soft tissue injuries are a PITA and easy to re-ignite if not healed 110%. I wouldn't want to chance it, but that's my practical side speaking. My horse also "strained" a suspensory. He was out of work and stuck in a stall for over 6 months and then went back into work slowly. He wasn't in full work again for close to 8 months. That was also "just a strain" that started off as mild, mild lameness. You never know with soft tissue injuries. They stink. :(

Best of luck with your horse, whatever you decide to do. You can always offer to "split the baby" if that would make both parties happier. No one says you can't compromise somewhere between "I win" and "you win."

[Lucassb]

The same care... unless the lessor feels spiteful and thinks "I paid to ride, I am not waiting 3 weeks" and rides during the hore's layoff period. Or unless she jumps the snot out of him once he gets back in work, to make up for lost time. Or something like that. You can't control the lessor and people start acting really FUNNY when they don't value your horse, or think they're no longer getting their money's worth.

When I write leases, I generally write them with a clause stating that if the horse is lame for a period of time lasting longer than a month, and it is not the lessor's fault, the lessor can option to end the lease or continue it. I'd rather just have the horse back if someone doesn't want to rehab it and be patient. And frankly, I'd rather do the rehab myself. The horse is my "long term" investment. It's the lessor's short term joyride. I have every reason not to cut corner and be concerned about allowing extra time off and getting the injuyr healed correctly. They have the financial incentive to rush/mask/shortcut the recovery and get back in the saddle-- because if the horse is crippeled 3 months after the lease ends-- oh well, not their problem.

In your case, assuming the lease is entirely SILENT on the issue, I would think the remaining language of the lease states that the lessor bought the use of the horse for a set period of time, and therefore they're not entitled to end the lease.

That doesn't mean, even if you have a better "legal" position, that you have a better moral/practical reason. If it was my horse, and it was as nice as yours sounds, I'd take the horse back (terminate the lease going forward, no refund for time already paid) and rehab it myself and do it PROPERLY with as much time off as it needs. A suspensory is NO JOKE. Even if the vet just says "rest it" right now, who knows how it will look in three weeks? The horse could get antsy in the stall and worsen the injury. Soft tissue injuries are a PITA and easy to re-ignite if not healed 110%. I wouldn't want to chance it, but that's my practical side speaking.

Thanks - this is what I meant, but you said it much better than I did!!!

[vxf111]

Thanks - this is what I meant, but you said it much better than I did!!!


Except I meant "lessee" everywhere I wrote "lessor." Blame my addled "got up to do chores at 6am" brain!

[anthem35]

The same care... unless the lessor feels spiteful and thinks "I paid to ride, I am not waiting 3 weeks" and rides during the hore's layoff period. Or unless she jumps the snot out of him once he gets back in work, to make up for lost time. Or something like that. You can't control the lessor and people start acting really FUNNY when they don't value your horse, or think they're no longer getting their money's worth.

When I write leases, I generally write them with a clause stating that if the horse is lame/off work for a period of time lasting longer than a month, and it is not the lessor's fault, the lessor can option to end the lease or continue it. I'd rather just have the horse back under my total control if someone doesn't want to rehab it and be patient. And frankly, I'd rather do the rehab myself. The horse is my "long term" investment. It's the lessor's short term joyride. I have every reason not to cut corners and be concerned about allowing extra time off and getting the injury healed correctly. They have the financial incentive to rush/mask/shortcut the recovery and get back in the saddle-- because if the horse is crippeled 3 months after the lease ends-- oh well, not their problem.

In your case, assuming the lease is entirely SILENT on the issue, I would think the remaining language of the lease states that the lessor bought the use of the horse for a set period of time, and therefore they're not entitled to end the lease. I can't say more without seeing the entirety of the contract.

That doesn't mean, even if you have a better "legal" position, that you have a better moral/practical reason. If it was my horse, and it was as nice as yours sounds, I'd take the horse back (terminate the lease going forward, no refund for time already paid) and rehab it myself and do it PROPERLY with as much time off as it needs. A suspensory is NO JOKE. Even if the vet just says "rest it" right now, who knows how it will look in three weeks? The horse could get antsy in the stall and worsen the injury. Soft tissue injuries are a PITA and easy to re-ignite if not healed 110%. I wouldn't want to chance it, but that's my practical side speaking. My horse also "strained" a suspensory. He was out of work and stuck in a stall for over 6 months and then went back into work slowly. He wasn't in full work again for close to 8 months. That was also "just a strain" that started off as mild, mild lameness. You never know with soft tissue injuries. They stink. :(

Best of luck with your horse, whatever you decide to do. You can always offer to "split the baby" if that would make both parties happier. No one says you can't compromise somewhere between "I win" and "you win."


"jump the snot out of the horse'??? In what kind of barn could this be possible? the kid in question is maybe 13? no one jumps without a trainer. There is no chance possible that any jumping, or even riding, would go unnoticed....No activity is unsupervised. Ever. And the care , btw, is exceptional.

[Kementari]

The OP has said that the horse is at the same barn, with the same caregivers, where the owner kept it previously. So are you lot saying that the owner should MOVE the horse to a new barn - one without the trusted caregivers - just to get it out of the Evil Lessee's clutches? :confused:

[vxf111]

"jump the snot out of the horse'??? In what kind of barn could this be possible? the kid in question is maybe 13? no one jumps without a trainer. There is no chance possible that any jumping, or even riding, would go unnoticed....No activity is unsupervised. Ever. And the care , btw, is exceptional.

Maybe I am reading the tone in, but you seem weirdly defensive for someone soliciting free legal advice online.

I didn't see previously in any of your posts that no one could ride/jump without supervision (if that was implied/stated and I missed it, I am sorry-- I think there's a lot of relevant facts that aren't stated that would be helpful to really understand the situation. This was one of them). I've never boarded anywhere like that.-- where the trainer supervised each and every ride. If that's the situation, that would make me as owner feel more comfortable-- but still not entirely comfortable.

A lot of times, it's a bit of a judgment call with soft tissue injuries-- is this footing too soft? Should we do another warm-up course? Do we put up the heights? Do we take it slow today? Do we give him the day off today, just to be ultra conservative. We had a horse at the barn that strained a suspensory and was never even lame. Just slight thickening. If it hadn't been ultrasounded, no one would have ever guessed. It was really subtle. What do you know, a few weeks later on small paddock rest he came in three legged-- that small strain got ever so much worse-- and became a 4-5 month layup. Soft tissue injuries are a PITA. If it were me, and my horse had an injury that could become more serious, I would want to be making all the calls. Myself. Not the trainer. Me, in consultation with my vet. You feel differently. That's okay, different strokes for different folks.

I was giving you my view of how I would handle things. If I owned a substantial investment (nice horse) and it had a minor injury that needed rest and careful handing (3 weeks rest, followed by 3 months of no jumping), and it was with a lessee who was making noise and potentially threatening to be a pain in the rear, I would be willing to give up a lease fee for the peace of mind of knowing that I could make all the judgment calls to protect my investment. You feel differently. That's fine, it's ultimately your call how you handle the situation. You asked for advice, you are getting it. You don't have to follow it.

[vxf111]

The OP has said that the horse is at the same barn, with the same caregivers, where the owner kept it previously. So are you lot saying that the owner should MOVE the horse to a new barn - one without the trusted caregivers - just to get it out of the Evil Lessee's clutches? :confused:

I think we're talking past each other. By "in the care of" I'm not referring to moving the horse out of the barn, but rather out of the responsibility of the lessee. I am not suggesting moving the horse, it sounds like anthem is happy with the care. I don't see any reason to that. I am saying, if anthem terminates the lease, she can have 100% full decision making power and control of the horse's care. That's all.

[Kementari]

I think we're talking past each other. By "in the care of" I'm not referring to moving the horse out of the barn, but rather out of the responsibility of the lessee. I am not suggesting moving the horse, it sounds like anthem is happy with the care. I don't see any reason to that. I am saying, if anthem terminates the lease, she can have 100% full decision making power and control of the horse's care. That's all.

Ah. I was being too literal. ;)

I do agree on being careful with soft tissue injuries. I've rehabbed what I now suspect (strongly!) was a suspensory (I was young, it was a very backyard situation, and it wouldn't have crossed any of our minds to get big diagnostics done on a minor lameness) and my own horse when he strained four tendons - two in each front leg (don't ask... :dead:) - with great success in both cases. And I truly believe that the reason that both turned out long-term sound in the end was because I took it VERY slowly, and returned to work VERY carefully. Honestly, if it were me, I'd either take the horse back (figuratively ;)) right away (no refunds, but not require the balance of the lease, either) or, if logistics were an issue, say, "OK, I accept your 30 day notice" - and then do the same, but after 30 days.

But the legal options may be quite different then what my own personal preferences with my horses would be. :yes:

[Plumcreek]

[QUOTE=anthem35;3617581]Situation-
Horse is leased for one year, for agreed upon amount. .... Payment is made Quarterly.
2 months into lease, horse sustains injury. QUOTE]

Ummm.. Isn't the issue that the leasee will soon have to write a check? For a horse that is just coming off rest and cannot be jumped until still yet another check is about due? The quarterly payments are the problem. Anthem, you can't MAKE them write checks, without you paying Larry the Lawyer. If the issue was them wanting a refund of a 1 year lease fee they had already paid, that would be covered by many preceeding responses here.

[anthem35]

I'm not sure why anyone would feel I've responded in a defensive matter....I was really more suprised that any barn would even allow that of a healthy horse. This is a very active showbarn, with a staff of many trainers...I'm completely confident knowing that any activity on horseback is supervised. There is no option for the horse to be ridden, as its well known the horse is taking time off. And you can be damned sure I will have every say in his rehab. From what I understand, the lessee has been taking good care of the horse in the meantime, icing 3 x per day, and wrapping.

And Yes, I do expect the lessee's to take responsibilty for this. You cannot just 'rent a horse', and when you break it, just 'walk away'. Completely irresponsible, and fortunately in this case, protected by the contract. As someone else started, you 'buy' a year of the horse's life...A lease fee was agreed upon for a period of a year. A contract was signed. There is no opt-out clause. The quarterly payments were permitted as a 'favor' to the lessee.

I was not seeking free legal advice, was really to see if anyone else shared my opinion on the total irresposibilty of the lessee.

[Seven]

I was not seeking free legal advice, was really to see if anyone else shared my opinion on the total irresposibilty of the lessee.

Then why did you title the thread "Calling all Equine Lawyers"? :confused:

Presumably if you just wanted those who agree with your interpretation of everything to respond, you could have come up with something clearer then that.

[Trixie]

I'm with meupatdoes here.

If you lease a horse for a year specifically to jump, well, then 3 months of no jumping is +25% of your money flushed down the you know what. Presumably they didn't lease the horse just to flat it, and wouldn't have done the deal if that had been a limitation up front.

Yup - but therein lies the trouble with the horse world.

There's NEVER a guarantee with horses. The owner provided a horse who was sound for the purposes it was leased for. It broke under the responsibility of the lessor.

From what I can tell (of course, there are always two sides) the lessor provided a sound-for-jumping horse at the beginning of the lease and left the care in the hands of the lessor. There's just no such thing as a guarantee in this business - didn't even Grappa have a stop at the finals one year?

If the lessor didn't want to take responsibility if the horse was injured, that should have been written into the contract as well. I can understand if the OP wants to be kind and take the horse back (and vxf had a valid point about people not being careful when they don't feel they're getting their money's worth), but if she's not contractually obligated to, then the lessor is SOL.

It's not that hard to READ A CONTRACT before you sign it. If you're incapable, hire a someone to look out for your interests. There's no such thing as a guarantee with these animals, just better lawyers and contracts.

[sfstable]

I think given the specifics provided, that the lessee would be responsible for the horse and the lease payments until the end of the lease. A specific time frame appeared to be indicated in this situation.

Using a different example (stretching on a few things to make a point :D):

If I lease a car and I get into a car accident (say the accident is not my fault but the car will take a long time to repair because the mechanics are on strike:D) I cannot return the car back to the dealer because I cannot use the car for the period of time it is at the mechanics. I am responsible to continue to pay the lease payments on the car until the end of the lease.

[RockinHorse]

And you can be damned sure I will have every say in his rehab.

And Yes, I do expect the lessee's to take responsibilty for this


The only problem I see is that it sounds like you want to call the shots but you want the leasee to pay the tab.

[anthem35]

The only problem I see is that it sounds like you want to call the shots but you want the leasee to pay the tab.


I'm not sure what shots there are to be called? He has to have stall rest. 3 weeks. flatting-3 months. The lessee is icing, wrapping, hand-walking.

The barn manager will oversee the care of this horse, regardless of whether the lesseee, or lessor pays the board.

I just do believe that you dont get to 'rent' someone's horse that was 100% sound when placed in your care, break it, and 'walk away'. If that were the case, why would anyone ever lease a horse out? I feel as though they need to return the horse in the matter in which they received it. If in 3 months the horse is sound, and they'd like to return it, fine. But I see no reason why I should now be on the hook financially to rehab a busted horse that I had nothing to do with. It just Doesn't work like that.

[findeight]

Wading back in to this.

I read that the leasee has informed leasor they simply are not going to pay the next quarterly installment. Period.

I assume that means they are also not going to pay the board or anything else. Maybe wrong on that but makes no sense any other way.

Yes, leasee is in violation of the contract as I understand it.

Soooo...who will pay the same barn to keep the horse when leasee stops paying? When we said take the horse back we did not necessarily mean MOVE IT, we meant assume financial responsibilty while you work the rest of this out.

First thing is care of the horse and keeping the board paid so care can continue. Then you can duke it out over the lease fees.

It is not unusual for an opt out to be put in a lease on the top end horses (like lease for 30k+ a year). My leases are not on that level but I put it in there when I lease and ask for it as a leasor.

Get a lawyer and haul them to court but don't let the board go into default while you wait the 3 to 6 months.

Barn may give exceptional care but they will want somebody to pay for it-as owner of the horse, leased or not, that is probably OP. As owner/leasor of the horse I had a leasee default on, I was the one sued for back board despite the written contract between that BO and the leasee-if I wanted possesion of that horse, I had to pay. THEN I could go get it from the leasee in a seperate action.

Not meaning to be harsh but am going to be here...don't feel sorry for people or try to do them any favors. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it and will be more likely to default on split payment deals.

[Bogie]

Critical to all this, as many have pointed out, you MUST have it in writing. Everything in writing, including details like the supplements you want the horse to have (if that's important to you or the horse's health).

Once again, all hail the well-written contract!

Of course hind sight is 20/20 . . . but I agree. Every possible contingency should be written into the contract. I might looking daunting going in, but if there is a problem, the guidelines are there. I've written my own contracts for part lease situations on horses that weren't worth a ton, but I'd use an attorney if I was sending a horse off site or if there were significant $$ involved.

What is "not a big deal" to one person may well be to another.

The hardest part about this type of situation is that it's not just about the $$, it's about the horse.

[Plumcreek]

Wading back in to this.

I read that the leasee has informed leasor they simply are not going to pay the next quarterly installment. Period........

Get a lawyer and haul them to court but don't let the board go into default while you wait the 3 to 6 months.......

Barn may give exceptional care but they will want somebody to pay for it-as owner of the horse, leased or not, that is probably OP.
Not meaning to be harsh but am going to be here...don't feel sorry for people or try to do them any favors. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it and will be more likely to default on split payment deals.


Findeight gives good advice. Basically what you did by accepting quarterly payments was like renting out a house without a damage deposit. Now that the house needs repairs to be livable, renters want out and you have to pay to repair it. We horsepeople tend to be too nice and trusting. If this were now me, I would do one of two things: (A) compare the cost of Larry the Lawyer to get the whole contract lease payment from the leasees vs what you have to pay to board and rehab this horse yourself, or (B) offer the leasees one free quarterly payment if they continue to pay all the board and rehab costs until (presumably) the horse is able to resume jumping. Sadly, I think the leasees are the ones in control here.

In everyone's rent car analogies, the unsaid point is that people would continue to pay the lease fees for a damaged car because the car company has lawers and collection agencies that will make their life miserable if they do not.

[Trixie]

In everyone's rent car analogies, the unsaid point is that people would continue to pay the lease fees for a damaged car because the car company has lawers and collection agencies that will make their life miserable if they do not.

A contract is a contract. The lessor can hire an attorney, too, if it's worth it to her.

[Bogie]

A contract is a contract. The lessor can hire an attorney, too, if it's worth it to her.

The difference is that the rental car companies have lawyers on staff and it is part of their cost of doing business . . . the lessor would need to invest both the money and her personal time.

In addition, the car doesn't suffer if it isn't fixed.

[coriander]

I'm not sure what shots there are to be called? He has to have stall rest. 3 weeks. flatting-3 months. The lessee is icing, wrapping, hand-walking.

The barn manager will oversee the care of this horse, regardless of whether the lesseee, or lessor pays the board.

I just do believe that you dont get to 'rent' someone's horse that was 100% sound when placed in your care, break it, and 'walk away'. If that were the case, why would anyone ever lease a horse out? I feel as though they need to return the horse in the matter in which they received it. If in 3 months the horse is sound, and they'd like to return it, fine. But I see no reason why I should now be on the hook financially to rehab a busted horse that I had nothing to do with. It just Doesn't work like that.

Actually, whether it works like that depends entirely upon what your lease contract says, and no attorney is likely to offer advice without reading the contract and knowing law of the jurisdiction in which it is sought to be enforced. Opinions about who should do what in this situation are simply opinions, and you need a legal opinion. From an attorney admitted to practice in your state. You may in fact be on the hook, depending on the apecific language of your lease contract, as well as how your local courts interpret quarterly payments if the contract does not specify that the entire fee is due regardless of whether the horse sis sound for the entire lease term.



NOTE:The information contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and does not necessarily reflect the most current legal developments, or the law specific to your jurisdiction. You should not act or refrain from acting based upon information provided in this post without first consulting legal counsel licensed in your jurisdiction

[anthem35]

Actually, whether it works like that depends entirely upon what your lease contract says, and no attorney is likely to offer advice without reading the contract and knowing law of the jurisdiction in which it is sought to be enforced. Opinions about who should do what in this situation are simply opinions, and you need a legal opinion. From an attorney admitted to practice in your state. You may in fact be on the hook, depending on the apecific language of your lease contract, as well as how your local courts interpret quarterly payments if the contract does not specify that the entire fee is due regardless of whether the horse sis sound for the entire lease term.



NOTE:The information contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and does not necessarily reflect the most current legal developments, or the law specific to your jurisdiction. You should not act or refrain from acting based upon information provided in this post without first consulting legal counsel licensed in your jurisdiction

Yes, exactly.

I have contacted a lawyer in the State of jursidiction...

And as far as the contract goes, it states they are responsible for care and lease fees on the horse for a period of one year....with no regards to whether he is sound or not.

[Anselcat]

So do you actually have a question that you are posing to the board?

Are you just venting?

Are you trying to get a thread going to shame/scare the lessee?

[anthem35]

So do you actually have a question that you are posing to the board?

Are you just venting?

Are you trying to get a thread going to shame/scare the lessee?

Uh,...No I'm not trying "to get a thread to shame/scare lessee". That sounds like child's play.
I actually wish they were on this board, they'd be better informed all around.

I was trying to get people's opinions, and what they would do in this case, or have done in a similar case. And I thank the very many of you who PM'ed with so much valuable info from experience!

If perhaps you were mislead by my title, I apologize.

It is not that I am literally looking for an equine lawyer,

[BridalBridle]

If this horse is valuable to you, get it home and walk away from the money. Rehab it yourself(which there is probably nothing wrong with it)and re lease it. That is not the legal but the practicle way to handle it. It's not worth the fight and they will probably try and say you "hid" something from them and that's what went wrong. Then you'll have legal bills out the a$$ and you lose. Judges have no sympathy for horse people.

[anthem35]

If this horse is valuable to you, get it home and walk away from the money. Rehab it yourself(which there is probably nothing wrong with it)and re lease it. That is not the legal but the practicle way to handle it. It's not worth the fight and they will probably try and say you "hid" something from them and that's what went wrong. Then you'll have legal bills out the a$$ and you lose. Judges have no sympathy for horse people.

Thanks...

The horse is 'home', and 'was home'...its at the same barn, just different person responsible for board. And I am very happy with the care he has been, and will be given.

The situation is this-The vet has noted that this is a 'new condition',...The only problem is the lessor has just 'decided' that regardless of the legal responsibility he assumed, under contract, he will not pay for any care, board, lease or rehab going forward. Mind you, for a horse that was injured during the period of his responsibility.

I can't help but wonder what kind of message this sends to the kid who had been riding him.
Certainly not one of taking responsibility. At All.

[WWGeorgeMorrisD]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't seem like the world's easiest person to work with. I wonder if that is part of the explanation for what is happening now. Did you ever hear that bit about the vinegar and honey?

If you don't want advice, why are you posting and why did you post in the first place? If you feel like you know your legal position, and you are right, and nothing is going to budge you, then what more is there to say? You have your mind made up and to heck with everyone else.

If the trainer is involved, why not let the trainer sort this out?

[Jumper Diva]

I have both leased horses and leased out my own horses. I don't know the exact terms of your lease but here is my opinion. As the leasee, if the horse sustained a minor injury that required minimal time off (under a month) I would assist in rehabing the horse and continue to pay the agreed upon ammount. If the horse sustained an injury that was either a result of a previous injury or a general wear and tear injury (i.e. an injury due to years of jumping etc.) then I would hesitant to continue the lease. I would have leased the horse for a specific purpose and if the horse could no longer suit my need I would opt out of the lease if allowed by the terms.

As the Leasor I would expect that the Leasee continue the lease if it was a minor injury and assist in care of the horse. Unforutnately horses are unpredictable and injuries happen, I think that this needs to be taken into consideration by the Leasee.

In your next lease you may want to consider putting a clause in that states something to the effect of, "horses are unpredictable and can sustain injury without warning, leasee will still be responsible for payment of board if recovery time as deemed by a vetrinarian is less than 1 month"

[heartinrye]

We are missing a lot of details here, but IF the horse was leased to be jumped and shown - then I'd argue that this IS a big deal. The lessee is probably going to lose at least a third of the time they are paying for in terms of the horse not doing what was expected.

The insurance will pay the lion's share of the vet bills after the deductible is met, but it probably won't pay for things like hand walking, wrapping, etc. So the lessee is going to have to either do all that or pay for it to be done out of pocket.

Most horses aren't going to be much fun to ride for a while after 3 weeks off, so it's likely that the lessee will also either have to pay a pro or suck it up for at least a week once the horse is back under tack - and that's for a quiet horse. There will probably be a period where even the regular flatwork will be restricted when the horse is put back into work; especially with a suspensory issue.

Once they are finally cleared for jumping again, frankly the horse probaby isn't going to be able to go right back to the ring at it's former level either.

Most leases have some sort of clause that allows the lease to be terminated with proper notice. If the horse can't be used for the intended purpose, it's a shame but barring negligence on the lessee's part, frankly I can understand wanting to end the arrangment. There is typically a big difference between leasing/jumping a show quality animal and borrowing somebody's schoolie and the prices involved would differ as well. It was very nice of the BO to offer... but that doesn't change much in terms of the value received by the lessee.

Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

I know this horse personally (and love him to death), I saw anthem get on him after 4 months of rest (long winter of showing!) and he plodded around like the saint that he is. No need for pro-rides on this horse EVER.
He is also amazingly easy to take care of, hand walking a horse is not a big deal especially when it is this one.

[heartinrye]

I would also like to add that I myself leased a horse in Wellington for the sole purpose of showing him at WEF for a few months.
Payed & signed a contract stating that we were responsible for everything but insurance.
4 weeks in horse goes lame and call owners to notify them this is going on. 2 weeks after that (after horse is semi-better, still not able to jump- aka not able to show) get horses back injected & tell owners. And they ever so casually say: well of course thats why he's off he hasn't been injected in over a year, and he's supposed to have it done every 6 months.:eek::eek::eek: Well how the heck was I supposed to know this after only having him 6 weeks and you with holding that info???
Did I get money back for the (eventual) 4 weeks I couldn't show horse (while still paying for show stall/groom/care/cancelled entry/office fees PLUS vet bills)? No, even though it was the lessors fault they left something out of contract, AND did not mention anything when he was off (not a leg thing either).

I believe anthem has every right to want to continue being payed for her horse that she leased out in 100% sound condition.

[cloudyandcallie]

I would also like to add that I myself leased a horse in Wellington for the sole purpose of showing him at WEF for a few months.
Payed & signed a contract stating that we were responsible for everything but insurance.
4 weeks in horse goes lame and call owners to notify them this is going on. 2 weeks after that (after horse is semi-better, still not able to jump- aka not able to show) get horses back injected & tell owners. And they ever so casually say: well of course thats why he's off he hasn't been injected in over a year, and he's supposed to have it done every 6 months.:eek::eek::eek: Well how the heck was I supposed to know this after only having him 6 weeks and you with holding that info???
Did I get money back for the (eventual) 4 weeks I couldn't show horse (while still paying for show stall/groom/care/cancelled entry/office fees PLUS vet bills)? No, even though it was the lessors fault they left something out of contract, AND did not mention anything when he was off (not a leg thing either).

I believe anthem has every right to want to continue being payed for her horse that she leased out in 100% sound condition.

I agree with you. What happened to you is the other side of the coin.
You got lied to and were taken advantage of.

Anthem should sue. As you should have sued. The law is supposed to be there to protect people like who and anthem who rely on good faith in dealing with people who cheat and lie.

The courts are there for those who are taken advantage of and where there is a remedy for that.

I can't believe people would tell the OP to suck it up and forget it.
Take the horse back, in the same barn, and sue the crap out of the lessee.

And heartinrye, if the statute of limitations has not run on your case, do the same, sue.

It works both ways, the lessor Anthem is in the ( legal) right in her case and heartinrye is in the (legal) right in her case.

[anthem35]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't seem like the world's easiest person to work with. I wonder if that is part of the explanation for what is happening now. Did you ever hear that bit about the vinegar and honey?

If you don't want advice, why are you posting and why did you post in the first place? If you feel like you know your legal position, and you are right, and nothing is going to budge you, then what more is there to say? You have your mind made up and to heck with everyone else.

If the trainer is involved, why not let the trainer sort this out?

I dont take this the wrong way, and I admit to having my own faults, HOWEVER, I am, in fact, extremely easy to deal with.
I allowed them the horse to use, for months before any payment exchanged hands, to use and show regularly when their current leased horse wasnt working out.
I allowed them to make quarterly payments, to make it easier on them financially.
I lowered the amount he was insured for, to allow for lower insurance premiums.

I have given all the honey I have to these people, who in return, have taken it and given me pure vinegar.
I wasnt so much asking for advice, I know what I have to do.
I am, however, a believer that all people are good, and that they are responsible, and truthful.
In this case, I was wrong.
And now, I am paying the price.
It bums me out tremendously, and makes me lose faith in my "people are good' theory.
:(

[findeight]

I can't believe people would tell the OP to suck it up and forget it.
Take the horse back, in the same barn, and sue the crap out of the lessee.


Know I shouldn't but can't stop myself;).

Nobody said suck it up and forget it because these people are right-they are deadbeats trying to get out of something they cannot afford. We DID say it will be pointless in all probability and cost more then she will ever recover and it would be in the best interests of the HORSE not to force it to stay with somebody who won't pay for it.

Been there, done that, have the worthless judgement from small claims court that you have to pay somebody to serve them with and STILL can't collect on.

Anything more then small claims where a lawyer actually represents you in a court gets into waaaaay more money then you would ever collect from somebody that can't even afford a full year lease up front.

The people are deadbeats or made a serious error in what this would cost and are trying to weasel out of it. BUT it may cost more to recover anything then you would recover. That is our point. Take months as well, 6 to 8 for even small claims....and am guessing what you want is over what small claims is able to award.

That is all we are saying. You ARE RIGHT. They ARE WRONG. But it is almost impossible to get anything out of it based on our many personal experiences with similar deals gone bad.

[vxf111]

I agree with you. What happened to you is the other side of the coin.
You got lied to and were taken advantage of.

Anthem should sue. As you should have sued. The law is supposed to be there to protect people like who and anthem who rely on good faith in dealing with people who cheat and lie.

The courts are there for those who are taken advantage of and where there is a remedy for that.

I can't believe people would tell the OP to suck it up and forget it.
Take the horse back, in the same barn, and sue the crap out of the lessee.

And heartinrye, if the statute of limitations has not run on your case, do the same, sue.

It works both ways, the lessor Anthem is in the ( legal) right in her case and heartinrye is in the (legal) right in her case.


How can you say this without having read the applicable lease agreements?! We're only going on one side's version of the facts and NONE of us have actually read the agreement. For all I know, yes, anthem and heartinrye are the party in the right but based upon scattered facts here and there-- and no review of the actual contract at issue, I don't know how in the world you can tell someone they have a good case, are the party likely to succeed, and should sue.

[anthem35]

Know I shouldn't but can't stop myself;).

Nobody said suck it up and forget it because these people are right-they are deadbeats trying to get out of something they cannot afford. We DID say it will be pointless in all probability and cost more then she will ever recover and it would be in the best interests of the HORSE not to force it to stay with somebody who won't pay for it.

Been there, done that, have the worthless judgement from small claims court that you have to pay somebody to serve them with and STILL can't collect on.

Anything more then small claims where a lawyer actually represents you in a court gets into waaaaay more money then you would ever collect from somebody that can't even afford a full year lease up front.

The people are deadbeats or made a serious error in what this would cost and are trying to weasel out of it. BUT it may cost more to recover anything then you would recover. That is our point. Take months as well, 6 to 8 for even small claims....and am guessing what you want is over what small claims is able to award.

That is all we are saying. You ARE RIGHT. They ARE WRONG. But it is almost impossible to get anything out of it based on our many personal experiences with similar deals gone bad.


You know? I know you're right. it is going to be an uphill battle to collect from these deadbeats.

I think, honestly, that I am so upset, and mad at myself, for believing in these folks.
Looking back, I don't think they even needed the reprieve from paying upfront. I believe they did this deliberately, to protect themsleves, in this case.
I have leased this horse before, While I have pursued other interests (did the jumpers for a bit, went off sailing, or, just plain couldn't afford the time and money.) and have never even HAD a written lease.
I just always believed that the lessee would 'do the RIGHT and moral' thing to do.
Wow.
Did I get a lesson.

I am fortunate to have accumulated a lot of friends, who are being tremendously helpful and supportive, and have put me in contact with a VERY high powered lawyer who has done a LOT of legal work with USEF, as well as very high profile equestrians.

He was kind enough to look over my lease, and put me in touch with someone who could/would pursue this for me.

I am going to remain hopeful that good things happen to good people, and that my efforts to be fair to them initially, will come back to me.

:)

[findeight]

What is the lawyer going to do...try to scare them into keeping the horse they don't want and can't afford?

That is my question, I wouldn't want these people to be responsible for it's care if they are going to walk off.

Making them pay out AND surrender the horse is bleeding the proverbial turnip.

That lawyer will ask you that same question as well...what do you want. Give it some thought.

In my years ago case, we settled on half the outstanding board balance to allow me to reclaim my horse on advice of my family friend high powered attorney. Tried to then sue the leasor but they took a chapter 11. But I got the horse back which is what I wanted.

So...do you want the horse back or do you want the money? Force them to keep it when they don't want it and cannot pay and try to collect? Get the horse back AND make them pay?

Give that some thought...what do you want?

[anthem35]

What is the lawyer going to do...try to scare them into keeping the horse they don't want and can't afford?

That is my question, I wouldn't want these people to be responsible for it's care if they are going to walk off.

Making them pay out AND surrender the horse is bleeding the proverbial turnip.

That lawyer will ask you that same question as well...what do you want. Give it some thought.

In my years ago case, we settled on half the outstanding board balance to allow me to reclaim my horse on advice of my family friend high powered attorney. Tried to then sue the leasor but they took a chapter 11. But I got the horse back which is what I wanted.

So...do you want the horse back or do you want the money? Force them to keep it when they don't want it and cannot pay and try to collect? Get the horse back AND make them pay?

Give that some thought...what do you want?

Well, the horse is in great care, and is the responsibility of the full care facility that he is boarded.

The problem is, this family CAN afford it, they just don't WANT to. After all, they can't RIDE him, WHY should they PAY for him? They have no sense of responsibility in that this injury, that is confirmed to be a NEW injury, happened when he was in their possession.

He's broken, Theyre just going to "Walk Away" and find another horse.

I want them to pay the balance of the lease, that they should have paid up front, but I was nice enough ( read-stupid) to allow to be paid quarterly.

I will take back my 'now lame' horse, and assume all responsibility going forward.

They can be alleviated of any board, vet, etc..but I should be paid for the balance, at least to assist with paying for the care and rehab I'm looking at going forward, caused by them.

I hardly think it's right to take what budget they had for this horse, that is now lame due to no fault of the owner, and just pay it toward another sound horse.

The owner, had leased her perfectly sound horse out for one year, received 3 months worth of lease fees, and is left with a lame horse, and months of costly rehab. The balance of the lease fee would be helpful, to say the least, in just affording the next few ( hopefully only a few) months, of vet bills as well as daily care.

Its certainly IS a concession, as they SHOULD be responsible for board, care and vet bills for the period of the lease, as per the contract they THEY SIGNED.

[Madison]

anthem, asking for the lease fee that they normally would have paid up front anyway does not sound at all unreasonable -- just make sure that if you are taking the horse back and taking over the bills that you get it in writing that this is the compromise so that they don't come knocking on your door wanting the horse back once you've rehabbed him and he's rideable again within what would have been their year!

[findeight]

Well that makes sense. Ask for the balance of the lease fee they contracted for and take the horse back.

That makes your intent alot clearer and is probably something you can actually get with only minimum effort on the part of the attorney.

Wasn't clear earlier on what you wanted to accomplish. Good luck getting the money. And, of course, don't do quarterly or monthly payments unless it is a quarterly or month to month lease in the future.

[anthem35]

Well that makes sense. Ask for the balance of the lease fee they contracted for and take the horse back.

That makes your intent alot clearer and is probably something you can actually get with only minimum effort on the part of the attorney.

Wasn't clear earlier on what you wanted to accomplish. Good luck getting the money. And, of course, don't do quarterly or monthly payments unless it is a quarterly or month to month lease in the future.


Thanks, it certianly seems more than fair to me.

I think my original intention was get people's thoughts, mostly on the lack of sensitivity of the lessee, who could damage someone else's property, in this case, my PET, and just wipe their hands clean of it, and find a new victim.

Sad lesson their kid is learning. Doesn't help much for teaching her responsibility for an animal, or respect for someone else's belongings, that you 'borrowed'.

Thanks for all of your support. :)

[Plumcreek]

So your goal is to get the lease money to offset the rehab time costs? I would set a budget limit for the lawyer - maybe send a short, to the point letter. If that does not faze the leasee, then preserve your funds and walk away from your contract. Just like a casino, set a limit to how much money gets flushed, then leave. Do not get sucked into ongoing legal fees. I once had to go up against a contractor who used threatening lawyer letters for toilet paper. (I prevailed and did a sherriff's seisure - the 'no assets' contractor somehow found $10,000. in 3 hours).

One of my clients sued her sister over a $50,000. family inheritance. It was the principle of the matter to her. She ended up with a jury trial and won. The legal fees topped $100,000. Go figure.

[LarissaL]

The balance of the lease fee would be helpful, to say the least, in just affording the next few ( hopefully only a few) months, of vet bills as well as daily care.

I thought it was not a lot of money? From page 2:

As far as Lion's share of bills-there are not a lot. He just needs rest.

In that case, why not just have the child of the contractually-obligated-but-now-rebelling adults continue the physical task of rehabbing the horse? In exchange for the remainder of the lease fee? Or the lease fee for the quarter (three months the horse is non-jumping)? It saves you, personally, the time to assist with rehab, the time and money involved in working with a lawyer AND you get to teach the kid the "lesson" you believe her parents failed to.

If the horse is so leasable, as you think, you'll only be out three months of board.

[Trixie]

If the lessee wants out and doesn't pay board, even with low vet bills the OP still has to pay board and daily care on the horse - she said he is on full care board.

For the record:

If the horse is so leasable, as you think, you'll only be out three months of board.

Where I come from, full care board can be between $500-1000 a month. You could be looking at $3K in boarding bills for those three months, on a horse that isn't useable and was contractually in someone else's care. For a lot of us, "only out three months of board" ISN'T CHEAP and in this economy, may not be feasible for everyone.

[LarissaL]

Oh I know what it is, but compared to the time and $$ invested in going through a lawyer and the courts? Wouldn't seem a bad alternative to me, especially if you can get them/others to resume the lease after rehab.

[cloudyandcallie]

Legally, the lessee is responsible for the damages to the horse, and costs of rehabilitation, vet bills, farrier bills, etc., and for the year long lease costs.
So breach of the contract, for whatever reason, subjects the lessee to owing the owner the entire amount of the lease, but the owner is required to, if the horse gets sound again, to mitigate damages by trying to lease the horse.
If horse gets sound in a month, then owner must advertise or try to find a leasee, if unable to find one, then lessee owes for the rest of the term of the lease.

If horse is unsound for the year, leasee owes for term of lease.

If horse is permanently disabled and this was caused by overjumping or whatever that the lessee did, then lessee also owes for the value of the horse.

Oh as as for "collecting" on a lawsuit that you win? You can levy on their houses, on their cars, on any personal property (motorcycles tractors, horses that are business related, etc) and of course garnish their wages. I once referred an agg. assault victim to a private lawyer and he collected 38000 for her (less his fees) on a motorcycle and car and other items. So you can get your money if the person owns anything of value. Once you put a lien on someone's house they usually pay off.

Why should someone lease a horse, cause it to become unsound and walk away??????? Legally the leasee cannot do so.

This is not enforcing someone to continue a lease they no longer want, it is breach of a contract, and whether the contract involves a horse or an object, the law is the same.

Court costs and attorney's fees can usually be recovered also in most states.

It costs money up front to sue, but a written lease is not compromised by parole evidence, so the writing trumps any oral agreements.

And the owner can take back her unsound horse, rehab it, and get that cost back from the lessee.

Otherwise anyone could lease a horse, ruin it, and walk away. That would be unconscionable, and this country is based on english common law (except Louisiana) and english law requires that people act in good faith.

The lessee here has not acted in good faith.

OP should not allow these people to get away with this. They will continue to do so until they are stopped by someone who will sue them.
BTW have they leased a horse before? Wonder if they have done this before?

[LarissaL]

Also, can I clarify something?

Did the lessee have anything to do with the horse getting injured? Or was it a pasture injury?

You cannot just 'rent a horse', and when you break it, just 'walk away'.

But I see no reason why I should now be on the hook financially to rehab a busted horse that I had nothing to do with.

mostly on the lack of sensitivity of the lessee, who could damage someone else's property, in this case, my PET, and just wipe their hands clean of it, and find a new victim.

Your language seems to indicate the lessee caused the injury. It would explain a lot of your frustration.

[vxf111]

cloudyandcallie, I don't understand how you could make those broad comments about contractual rights, without knowing the terms of the contract or the state of jurisdiction!? Just in Pennsylvania, I can tell you that several of the statements you've made are wrong and not supported by the law. I don't know about the law in other jurisdictions. I would be careful telling anyone that their rights are absolute and/or that they would prevail on a contractual dispute if you aren't intimately involved with the contract at issue.

[cloudyandcallie]

cloudyandcallie, I don't understand how you could make those broad comments about contractual rights, without knowing the terms of the contract or the state of jurisdiction!? Just in Pennsylvania, I can tell you that several of the statements you've made are wrong and not supported by the law. I don't know about the law in other jurisdictions. I would be careful telling anyone that their rights are absolute and/or that they would prevail on a contractual dispute if you aren't intimately involved with the contract at issue.

I've tried over a 1000 jury trials. So if what the OP is saying is true, then she has a good case. I assume that the OP is telling us the truth. If she has a written document, since we have english common law in this country, she should prevail in any jurisdiction. Plus been a federal law clerk, and a Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellow.
And I PMed the OP to hire a local lawyer and find out the variations in the state laws.

[vxf111]

Regardless of the "English common law," several of the pieces of advice you've given are not correct in regards to the jurisdictions where I practice. You haven't seen the contract, you don't know whether it has any ambigous clauses that would be construed against the OP or permit the introduction of parol evidence. You don't know if there are clauses that make the lease appear to be a month-by-month. You don't know whether there are complicating factors or whether the OP is credible/is relaying the entire story (not accusing her of being dishonest, but pointing out that without assessing all the facts no one can really give an accurate legal opinion). I think it's fairly irresponsible to post a lot of what you've posted as though it's THE LAW that will apply regardless of jurisdiction or the language of the contact.

[anthem35]

Regardless of the "English common law," several of the pieces of advice you've given are not correct in regards to the jurisdictions where I practice. You haven't seen the contract, you don't know whether it has any ambigous clauses that would be construed against the OP or permit the introduction of parol evidence. You don't know if there are clauses that make the lease appear to be a month-by-month. You don't know whether there are complicating factors or whether the OP is credible/is relaying the entire story (not accusing her of being dishonest, but pointing out that without assessing all the facts no one can really give an accurate legal opinion). I think it's fairly irresponsible to post a lot of what you've posted as though it's THE LAW that will apply regardless of jurisdiction or the language of the contact.


As cloudieandcallie mentioned, she was kind enough to take the time to PM me, and I have given her all the details that I have, and the whole truth and nothin' but the truth.

There are no 'opt out' clauses', and the lease is a yearly lease, 09/08-09/09.

It is a very simple lease, drawn up by the barn itself, with no other clauses than that I get to ride/show on occassion.

It also mentions that the lessee is authorized, and liable for all care, and veterinary treatment treatment during the lease period that may be required for the health adn well being of the horse.

Please don't be quick to accuse CnC of being irresponsible, I realize you were unaware that we have had conversations that may not have been visible to all parties. :)

[vxf111]

Unless an attorney has read the contact and is aware of the applicable law, I think it's pretty irresponsible to advise someone they have a slam dunk case-- even if one party "gave the details" to that attorney. If CnC has read the contract, I wasn't aware of it and she should probably preceed her comments with that explanation, lest she give other posters the idea that her advice applies regardless of the language of a contract and in all states.

[vxf111]

Out of curiosity, what state are you in? Does the lease contrate explicitly state that the prevailing party can be awarded attorneys fees? I'd be curious to know where in the U.S., absent fraud, a breach of contract can result in the prevailing party being awarded fees where there is no explicit provision in the contact.

[Scott Free]

I'm picking vxf111 to be on my team.

[Anselcat]

vxf111 is on my team also.

[Dixon]

. . . I just do believe that you dont get to 'rent' someone's horse that was 100% sound when placed in your care, break it, and 'walk away'. If that were the case, why would anyone ever lease a horse out? . . .

Because some owners want the income of a lease fee and the relief from board/training/maintenance costs without giving up ownership. Whether due to sentimentality ("I can't part with this horse") or practicality ("I can't ride and show this year, but want to keep the horse for next year") or market conditions ("I can't sell the horse for enough in this market"), the owner figures the benefits of leasing out the horse outweigh any benefit in selling. By continuing to own the horse -- ANY horse, whether leased out or not -- an owner gambles that things will go smoothly and the horse will stay healthy and useful. If the owner wanted out from under the horse, the expenses, and risk of injury all together, they should have sold the horse, not lease it out.

[equinelaw]

Unless an attorney has read the contact and is aware of the applicable law, I think it's pretty irresponsible to advise someone they have a slam dunk case-- even if one party "gave the details" to that attorney. If CnC has read the contract, I wasn't aware of it and she should probably preceed her comments with that explanation, lest she give other posters the idea that her advice applies regardless of the language of a contract and in all states.

In general, when C&C offers to give advice on a case she spends much more time on it then paid lawyers. She is older and has many years of experience, but that woman can still google like a teenager.

She seems to remember every law in every case she has been a part of and never gets closed up to knew input. If you talk to her about a case she will follow up on any new idea or lead and have more information back in an hour then most 30 something attorneys can find with full Westlaw privileges.

What other posters may or may not infer from her posts is up to them. If they have any questions they often PM her--usually dozens of times. Because she is retired she spends a big chunk of the day helping people on-line for no fees, no thanks and no end to the amount of work she will do just to be helpful.

If she has been told the state she will have read that state's code, looked at the case law and 9 times out of 10 has already refereed the OP to a good lawyer she knows in that state.

What she posts on-line is encouragement for people to seek justice even when everyone else might be telling them its their fault and just to get over it. What she puts in PMs and e-mails would make us younger lawyers bow down in awe and hope to some day be half the lawyer she is.

She was one of the first female lawyers to go to her law school, one of the first females to be hired in the south as a criminal prosecutor is a large city, and hes has lived and worked on more states that most of us have ever visited. She just sounds all fluffy and nice on-line, but many of us female lawyers would never had a chance for anything more then paralegals if not for her.

So, I guess what I am saying is that while vxf111 would be my pick for the opposing party, I would always pick C&C for my team:)

[vxf111]

While CnC may be a lovely person and accomplished lawyer, I stand by my opinion that it's irresponsible to post a bunch of general statements about "the law" when this type of dispute is very much govenered by the terms of the contract, and the outcome will vary from contract to contract. It's one thing to make those statements to the OP personally, having read the contract, but to come on a public forum and make these broad statements is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I am still curious about what jurisdiction allows the recovery of attorneys fees in the absence of an explicit provision or fraud. I also think it's a bit misleading to say "there's a written contract, so no parol evidence will be admitted." We both know that may or may not be true, depends on the contract's language and circumstances. Which is not to diminish from anyone's personal accomplishments, I just think some of the posts go beyond what is appropriate.

[Ravencrest_Camp]

I've tried over a 1000 jury trials. So if what the OP is saying is true, then she has a good case. I assume that the OP is telling us the truth. If she has a written document, since we have english common law in this country, she should prevail in any jurisdiction. Plus been a federal law clerk, and a Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellow.
And I PMed the OP to hire a local lawyer and find out the variations in the state laws.

If you have in fact tried over 1000 jury trials, then you know that there are three sides to every dispute. There will be the plaintiffs side (the OP), the defendants side, and then there will be the truth, which usually lies somewhere in the middle.

[medalrider]

And Yes, I do expect the lessee's to take responsibilty for this. You cannot just 'rent a horse', and when you break it, just 'walk away'. Completely irresponsible, and fortunately in this case, protected by the contract. As someone else started, you 'buy' a year of the horse's life...A lease fee was agreed upon for a period of a year. A contract was signed. There is no opt-out clause. The quarterly payments were permitted as a 'favor' to the lessee.

For what it's worth, when I've leased my medal horses out, I had a specific clause in it that the horse was sound and in good health when turned over to the Leasee (I vet check my horses before they go out so I have a baseline exam in the event of a dispute - learned the hard way having a few horses ruined by BNTs), that they agreed the horse was 100% sound and usable for their intended use, and if the horse was to be injured during the lease, the Leasee had to pay for all vet bills, rehabilitation bills, board and care until MY vet passed the horse as sound. If the horse was deemed to be permanently unusable, then they had to pay the full purchase price of my horse of X dollars within 14 days of my vet's prognosis or they could pay half and return the horse to me.

IMO it keeps people from treating the horse like a disposable/replaceable object, and makes them take greater care of it. If they have nothing invested to lose but the use of the horse - they can simply walk away scot free and move on to their next object, leaving me with a ruined horse. By making them responsible for the horse if they "break" it, they will be more careful about how and when they use them! If there is no accountability they can ruin the horse and walk away.

Hope your horse gets better soon, and no complications arise. FWTW, I'd expect them to pay for all care & vet bills until the horse is usable. After all - they had care, custody and control over your horse and if they hurt him, they should be responsible for fixing him.

[Figment]

An important point for all of us is that a lease is simply an agreement between two people. Cars, apartments, horses, all can be leased in different ways from each other. All of us need to think through any lease we sign, including bad things that could happen.

[Bogie]

For what it's worth, when I've leased my medal horses out, I had a specific clause in it that the horse was sound and in good health when turned over to the Leasee (I vet check my horses before they go out so I have a baseline exam in the event of a dispute - learned the hard way having a few horses ruined by BNTs), that they agreed the horse was 100% sound and usable for their intended use, and if the horse was to be injured during the lease, the Leasee had to pay for all vet bills, rehabilitation bills, board and care until MY vet passed the horse as sound. If the horse was deemed to be permanently unusable, then they had to pay the full purchase price of my horse of X dollars within 14 days of my vet's prognosis or they could pay half and return the horse to me.



Bingo. I'm not saying that the OP doesn't have a case, but it's clearer if everything is spelled out up front.

[meupatdoes]

Thank you, medalrider.

Your post should give serious pause to the people in this thread who have been expressing a "use it and if it breaks, throw it back and expect a refund" mentality (which personally I think is a deplorable way to talk about having someone else's animal in one's custody and control).

I am noting this so I can put those terms in the lease when I lease my horse out.

[Rye]

Quit futzing around looking for free advice. Find a equine lawyer in your area and hire them to evaluate this mess. It will actually mean something, and not be a bunch of web posting bs.

[anthem35]

Quit futzing around looking for free advice. Find a equine lawyer in your area and hire them to evaluate this mess. It will actually mean something, and not be a bunch of web posting bs.


Wow, that was angry for no reason...

At no point was anyone looking for free advice...certainly not me, the OP.

If you actually had read the entire thread, you would have seen my reason for posting.

But thanks for your unneccssary bitterness...and more importantly, thanks to all those that actually took the time to contribute something worthwhile.

[bambam]

gotta say I am with vxf111 on this one- I am sure c and c is a lovely person and it appears she is an experienced attorney but I have seen c and c make flat out incorrect assertions about the law before (this is not the first time she has said that you can usually get attorneys fees and costs on a contract or tort dispute which is wrong in every single jursidiction I have ever worked in) and make statements in absolutes like she has here when the law is a realm that rarely deals with absolutes.

[Rye]

Your interpretation of my tone is way off base. I'm not angry or bitter. It was a suggestion to be more efficient and look for answers and actions that really matter.

This board is a great place to get basic info, chat about horse shows, chat about life. It's not something to rely on if you have an issue that needs to be addressed by a professional of any type (ie a lawyer, a vet, a farrier)

In the time it took for the original post, the drafting of everyones responses, and reading all the posts, one could have just called an equine attorney and resolved this issue.

[anthem35]

Your interpretation of my tone is way off base. I'm not angry or bitter. It was a suggestion to be more efficient and look for answers and actions that really matter.

This board is a great place to get basic info, chat about horse shows, chat about life. It's not something to rely on if you have an issue that needs to be addressed by a professional of any type (ie a lawyer, a vet, a farrier)

In the time it took for the original post, the drafting of everyones responses, and reading all the posts, one could have just called an equine attorney and resolved this issue.

Thanks for the advice...

That was done long before the posting.

In a nutshell, I was more looking to 'chat about life' rather than get free advice, and certainly not rely on it.

And yes, the board is great place for that.