The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2007
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    9,694

    Default

    ETR, finding a paid lease on a horse that needs work is pretty hard, but that doesn't stop people from trying Assigning more value to one of your own assets than others would agree it has is hardly moral turpitude, though. That's all I'm saying. Asking someone to lease your horses isn't "taking advantage of them."



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec. 16, 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Ambrey--again, don't you think there is a difference between a well-trained horse, versus a greenie? Come on, you don't honestly think it's fair to charge someone to put training on a horse? They should either hire a trainer, or allow someone who's not a professional but an experienced rider to work with the horse if they're too cheap for training.
    I saw the angel in the marble and I set him free. - Michaelangelo



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug. 15, 2008
    Posts
    4,653

    Default

    For the people confused by the point I'm taking on it, the woman who owns the horse is the one who is, at the end of the day, responsible for their bills and care. If she can't afford her horses without someone "leasing" (how the lease came about is questionable to me) she needs to lighten her load. Stuff happens. As proven by the OP, any number of things can happen in a heartbeat to the person leasing. A lost job, an accident...anything and that extra money is gone.

    If that is all it takes for the person owning the horse to go into financial crisis and panic, then that owner has too many horses they can't afford. Period. It by no means should be the OPs responsibility to help financially care for these animals. Especially if she is physically unable to reap what her money is sowing. In my opinion, she gave her notice when she told the owner she lost her job and could no longer afford to pay to play.

    If I were the owner, I'd look long and hard at what sort of deal I had going for me with this woman. I've got someone working a greenie I need to sell (and PAYING ME FOR IT), because I can't afford my animals and or don't have time. I'd graciously thank her for making my horse more sellable, possibly ask her to be involved with the sale, as she now knows the horse better than I do, and keep that bridge unburned.

    I WILL say that the OP sure should have read what she was signing. Absolutely.



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    If someone doesn't want to pay to ride a horse, then they shouldn't pay. No one held the OP at gunpoint (as she herself agrees) to make her pay to ride. If she thought it was a raw deal, she should have said, "See ya!" when the owner first asked for money.

    I have a made horse out on a free lease and a not-yet-made horse up for half(ish)-lease. The entire reason I've leased out the made horse is because I DON'T have the money to support two horses full-time right now. (If I did, I'd probably find a kid who couldn't afford a horse and give them the ride for free.) So far, I've been able to find a new lessee before the lease period was up with the old one. THAT'S the point of 30 days notice! If I couldn't, I'd could work out finances for two for a little while, and if worst came to absolute worst, I'd sell the younger one.

    I daresay MOST people that lease out horses - especially free leases (be they part or full) - do it to help pay the bills. That doesn't mean they are irresponsible, but it does mean that they may not be able to cope so well with having those expenses dumped back in their laps with no notice. I fail to see why it's somehow better for ME to not have the money to pay MY credit card bill than it is for someone else (who is contractually obligated to pay me each month or week or whatever) to not have the money to pay THEIR credit card bill. Both of 'em suck, and that's WHY we have contracts.

    (For the record, if I won the lottery tomorrow and the next day my lessee called me up and said, "We can't afford to keep him anymore," I'd say, "OK, I'll come pick him up right away." Or, more likely, I'd offer to pay his upkeep so they could still ride. But since I'm pretty unlikely to win the lottery tomorrow - seeing as how I don't enter - the whole 30 days notice thing is kind of important to me.)

    Thus far, I've had no bites on the younger horse, partly, I'm sure, because I live in the Middle of Nowhere (tm). I wouldn't expect her lessee to TRAIN her, any more than you train every horse every time you ride - but she's definitely not made yet. My terms and price are clear, and it's up to potential lessees to decide if the deal works for them. It's not the end of the world if no one takes me up on it, and I really don't see that it makes me somehow immoral or crazy to give it a try. No one is forced to agree to a deal or sign a contract. If you don't like it, don't do it.

    And for heaven's sake, READ the bloody contract before you sign it!
    Proud member of the EDRF



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2007
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    9,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cu.at.x View Post
    Ambrey--again, don't you think there is a difference between a well-trained horse, versus a greenie? Come on, you don't honestly think it's fair to charge someone to put training on a horse? They should either hire a trainer, or allow someone who's not a professional but an experienced rider to work with the horse if they're too cheap for training.
    Everything is fair if it is agreed upon by two parties. She didn't force this person to lease her horses!



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2007
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    9,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Spot View Post
    For the people confused by the point I'm taking on it, the woman who owns the horse is the one who is, at the end of the day, responsible for their bills and care. If she can't afford her horses without someone "leasing" (how the lease came about is questionable to me) she needs to lighten her load. Stuff happens. As proven by the OP, any number of things can happen in a heartbeat to the person leasing. A lost job, an accident...anything and that extra money is gone.
    Part-leasing out horses to be able to afford them is a very common way to be able to manage horses in expensive areas such as I live in. It might sound weird to you, but totally normal out here.

    As a consequence, the ability to part lease a horse- paying a fee for an agreed-upon right to ride rather than having to take on the responsibility of owning one- is also quite popular around here.

    It's a win-win situation when it works.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun. 1, 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    11,905

    Default

    I think part leasing because you can't afford your horse on your own is stupid. You want to lease a horse out to make some extra money, help out a rider without a horse, or put some extra miles on your horse that's fine.

    If you can't afford to own your horse without someone paying half the bills you are in a dangerous position as soon as people stop leasing and you do not need to own a horse. If anything you should be the one doing the leasing.

    You have to recognize the difference between leasing a made horse and leasing a green horse.

    You also have to recognize that it is a bit bitchy to ask someone for money after they have been severely injured. The OP did agree to the lease terms originally but now she is unable to ride or even afford her own expenses.



  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep. 29, 2007
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kementari View Post
    I daresay MOST people that lease out horses - especially free leases (be they part or full) - do it to help pay the bills. That doesn't mean they are irresponsible, but it does mean that they may not be able to cope so well with having those expenses dumped back in their laps with no notice. I fail to see why it's somehow better for ME to not have the money to pay MY credit card bill than it is for someone else (who is contractually obligated to pay me each month or week or whatever) to not have the money to pay THEIR credit card bill. Both of 'em suck, and that's WHY we have contracts.
    If she loses her job, how is she supposed to pay? It's the blood out of a stone thing, there isn't any. And she's injured, so it's game over. The owner should graciously back away and leave the girl alone. Hard times for everyone.



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AiryFairy View Post
    If she loses her job, how is she supposed to pay? It's the blood out of a stone thing, there isn't any. And she's injured, so it's game over. The owner should graciously back away and leave the girl alone. Hard times for everyone.
    We should all have enough money tucked away to be able to pay our bills during a short period of unemployment, yes? Why is the lease fee any less of an obligation than other bills?

    I'm not saying that the owner is GOING to be able to collect. I'd agree that she's probably SOL in this situation. I'm simply saying that the owner is legally ENTITLED to collect (depending on the contract language, of course).

    And I'm not sure why leasing out a horse as a way to help cover costs is any different than having a second job to help cover costs (or a first job, for that matter). A lease may fall through - but so might a job. Either is likely enough, especially in this climate, and either requires a rearrangement of finances when it happens. And either is made easier if the job-holder/horse owner is given notice - something which is potentially (likely, in the case of a leasing arrangement) contractually required.
    Proud member of the EDRF



  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep. 29, 2007
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kementari View Post
    We should all have enough money tucked away to be able to pay our bills during a short period of unemployment, yes? Why is the lease fee any less of an obligation than other bills?

    I'm not saying that the owner is GOING to be able to collect. I'd agree that she's probably SOL in this situation. I'm simply saying that the owner is legally ENTITLED to collect (depending on the contract language, of course).

    And I'm not sure why leasing out a horse as a way to help cover costs is any different than having a second job to help cover costs (or a first job, for that matter). A lease may fall through - but so might a job. Either is likely enough, especially in this climate, and either requires a rearrangement of finances when it happens. And either is made easier if the job-holder/horse owner is given notice - something which is potentially (likely, in the case of a leasing arrangement) contractually required.
    Too many people are living hand to mouth these days, there usually IS no savings, and having been unemployed in the last two years, for seven months, I can tell you that any savings goes immediately to the basics, food, rent, car, insurance, paying off bills to try to keep from bankruptcy, and it goes VERY fast. A horse lease would be the least of my worries. If I was able I might be willing to work off part of it, but would that be top of my list? No. Horses are a luxury, period.



  11. #51
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2006
    Location
    Transitioning
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ambrey View Post
    No, a partial lease doesn't usually involve any of that. The only difference is that you're paying for a RIGHT to ride the horse.

    And most partial lease agreements that I've seen (and the one that was signed by my part leaser) involve some level of care for horse and tack.
    In my experience what you are describing is basically riding lessons with out the instruction! You might as well use your money to go on a pony ride. When I've leased horses I would pay the money and basically have the horse, I would board it somewhere, pay its expenses, etc. If I wanted to pay to ride a horse and only have the ability to ride it and clean its tack I would just take lessons at a lesson barn.

    When you lease a car does it stay in someone else's garage? Do they pay for the oil changes and repairs if you get in a crash? The whole idea of a "lease" has gotten warped in the horse world because @ss hole owners have learned to take advantage of people without horses.



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar. 13, 2006
    Location
    Sno County
    Posts
    3,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cu.at.x View Post
    I can understand a lease on a schoolmaster, but it sounds like you were training her horses for free ("the greenie is coming along nicely...") Maybe I should buy a greenie and make someone sign a contract to pay ME to train my horse. I am going to look at a horse next week that was offered for me to ride; the lady does not want to pay for training but she is not charging anything either. Anyway, unfortunately you did sign a contract, which you're obligated to fulfill. Kind of crappy that she doesn't cut you a break for your bad luck, but that's people for you.
    There was an ad on craigslist a while back that someone was wanting people to pay to come and train her unbroke colt. I had to read the ad a few times before I figured out that the owner wanted the trainer to give her $150 month to work with her horse. I guess the chance to get hurt by an unruly bronc is worth paying for.

    O.P. Sounds like you were already doing your fair share of the work and then being asked to pay on top of it seemed a little shady.
    Yogurt - If you're so cultured, how come I never see you at the opera? Steven Colbert



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    If you think half leases are evil incarnate, then fine: don't enter into a half lease. It's a simple solution.

    I'm dismayed by the idea, though, that just because horses are a luxury and the average horse owner doesn't have the means to collect from a deadbeat lessee means it's OK to ignore a contract when you hit hard times. I don't think you should keep putting your grocery money to riding month after month, mind you, but I DO think you should honor an obligation to give 30 days notice and pay for those 30 days. The contract someone signs with me has no less legal or moral weight than that they sign with a credit card company. The thought that it's apparently OK to fail to fulfill your contractual obligations to someone just because they don't have the same legal power at their disposal as Citibank is just sad.
    Proud member of the EDRF



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep. 6, 2007
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    If you can't afford to own your horse without someone paying half the bills you are in a dangerous position as soon as people stop leasing and you do not need to own a horse. If anything you should be the one doing the leasing.
    I completely agree. If you have to lease out your horses to afford them, maybe horses aren't the sport for you. What happens if there is the unexpected extraordinary vet bill? Or the owner loses their job? Or the leasee suddenly bails out without notice? Sometimes people get into horses without really knowing the costs they entail. You can soon find yourself over your head unable to pay your board. This all happened to a boarder at my old barn. Once the leasee quit, (she gave notice but the owner couldn't find a replacement), the owner couldn't keep up with the board. The BO locked her stall and ended up taking the horse to auction.



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FancyFree View Post
    I completely agree. If you have to lease out your horses to afford them, maybe horses aren't the sport for you. What happens if there is the unexpected extraordinary vet bill? Or the owner loses their job? Or the leasee suddenly bails out without notice? Sometimes people get into horses without really knowing the costs they entail. You can soon find yourself over your head unable to pay your board. This all happened to a boarder at my old barn. Once the leasee quit, (she gave notice but the owner couldn't find a replacement), the owner couldn't keep up with the board. The BO locked her stall and ended up taking the horse to auction.
    What happens if your standard, every day owner loses THEIR job? Lemme tell ya, in this economy, that's a real possibility for many of us. Should I get rid of my horses because if I were unemployed I couldn't afford them long-term?

    If my lessee bailed (which I hasten to add I don't think she would), I'd be in a much better position than if I lost my job. Either way, I can pull together the resources to handle it in the short term - and I have the worst case scenario plan for the long term. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't seriously mess with my finances in a way I'd rather they not be messed with. Hence the contract.

    I love the whole unexpected expenses argument, too. It never occurs to the holier-than-thou crowd that maybe people CAN have a plan for unexpected vet bills, etc - and part of maintaining that savings instead of spending it elsewhere involves a lease or boarding at a cheaper barn or not buying a custom saddle or whatever the if-you-can't-afford-that-then-you-can't-afford-the-vet flavor of the day is.
    Proud member of the EDRF



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb. 4, 2009
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    I think what bothers me about this situation is that it strikes me as sort of a "bait and switch". The OP answered an ad and started riding the horses with no money changing hands either way.

    After she got attached to the horses the owner wants money, even though she is doing what seems to be a large share of the barn labor. The OP obliges, money changes hands, still no contract. Then comes the contract. It just stinks of someone taking advantage of the goodwill of someone else.

    Granted the OP didn't have to sign the contract but by this time I'm sure she felt that she had developed a friendship with the woman and could trust her. That to me is a betrayal of trust. Had the OP been in a lease agreement from the beginning I would feel differently about it.

    I ride a horse that isn't mine. His owner has several other horses that need to be ridden and she doesn't have time. The horse is a bit green and needs the miles as he is destined to be a schoolie. I'm a re-rider, the horse is kind, and I need the miles.

    It works out for both of us. I get a decent ride, and she gets her horse in regular work toward his ultimate use. I'm also happy to help out around the barn when I can. If she were to ask for money I'd have to re-evaluate the situation and I'm sure the dynamic would change. As it stands now I ride her horse toward her goals. If I were paying a lease (on any horse) I'd be riding toward mine.

    I think that is what the OP signed up for and the BO changed the rules after earning her trust. Legally I don't know enough to even hazard a guess about who owes what but I think changing the terms was a lousy thing to do.



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep. 6, 2007
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    Kementari: Personally I wouldn't go into something I couldn't afford independently. The only reason I would ever lease out my horse was if 1) I didn't have time to ride myself or 2) the leasee was going to bring some kind of training, that I couldn't do, to the table. I think it's financially irresponsible to even get into horses if the person can't afford it independently. That person should be leasing instead of owning.



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,453

    Default

    I agree, it does sound a bit like bait and switch.

    Didn't the OP say she was 17? Isn't she technically a minor? What age are you allowed to enter into a contract? I thought it was 18?



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FancyFree View Post
    Kementari: Personally I wouldn't go into something I couldn't afford independently. The only reason I would ever lease out my horse was if 1) I didn't have time to ride myself or 2) the leasee was going to bring some kind of training, that I couldn't do, to the table. I think it's financially irresponsible to even get into horses if the person can't afford it independently. That person should be leasing instead of owning.
    Define "independently." How long could you (or any of us) afford horses if you lost your job?

    My point is simply that having horses is dependent on income. Part of my income is from one of the horses (well, it's not direct income because it's just most of his expenses are covered, but functionally it's the same). Most of my income is from my job. Neither of those is exactly guaranteed to keep going in this economy, and I don't see the essential difference.
    Proud member of the EDRF



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2007
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    9,694

    Default

    Whether it's a good idea or not in your eyes, it's a common practice There are benefits on both sides- one gets a horse to ride with none of the big risks of horse ownership, the other owns a horse but gets a break on the bills.

    In this bad economy, I'm seeing a lot of people decide to try to lease out their horses rather than sell them. They are hoping for an "interim fix" that allows them to keep the horses until things improve. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of leasers, but that doesn't stop people from trying.

    If you look here:

    http://www.socalequine.com/classifie..._for_lease.htm

    you'll see a lot of people trying to get a deal like the owner in the OP's case was getting.



Similar Threads

  1. Horses/Mules Being Dropped Off in People's Front Yards
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct. 3, 2012, 02:04 PM
  2. Do you ride other people's horses for them?
    By Gnomeland in forum Off Course
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Aug. 26, 2011, 01:10 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Dec. 27, 2009, 12:54 PM
  4. How many people's horses are completey barefoot?
    By CosMonster in forum Endurance and Trail Riding
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: Aug. 26, 2009, 07:16 PM
  5. Replies: 103
    Last Post: Feb. 19, 2008, 06:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness