[Come Shine]

In response to the OP; Yes, I got stuck once. Lessee agreed to trailering arrangements and then backed out to the tune of costing me a few hundred dollars to maintain the relationship with the shipper. I considered it a cheap lesson on my end and ended the lease.

Good luck with it.

[ako]

If the lessee knew the insurance was lapsing, then they should be on the hook for the full amount, not you. Since you didn't formally authorize the work with the vets, then I think they really will understand if you politely explain the situation and ask them to bill the other party. I would let them know that you wish to maintain a good working relationship with them and that you pay your bills in a timely manner. You can even forward any communication that will allow them to collect the fees more easily.

The lessees are not your friends, so there's no point in trying to maintain a good relationship that really just isn't there.

[LochNessD]

Agree with paying the vet and taking the matter to small claims court (you don't need a lawyer for that). It's a small enough amount that a lawyer would be too expensive, but big enough to be worth the bother of recovering.

Might be worth paying for an hour of legal advice from a lawyer to find out whether paying the bill yourself before taking them to small claims court would hurt you, as others have cautioned. You could also get some pointers on how to handle the matter, check all the boxes and cover your bases.

If you have evidence of the agreement as you say in the contract (even if it wasn't written by a lawyer), texts, and emails, there's no reason you can't show a judge that this was a clear expectation and agreement between you and leasee.

[ParadoxFarm]

I think I agree with the side that says do not pay. I would show the vets the contract and supporting documents and have them go after payment. You should not be liable. The other party is legally responsible. It's no different than if you bought a horse from someone and that previous owner used the same vet, why would you be responsible for any outstanding vet bills the previous owner did not pay. Good luck, I know it is not an easy situation.

[Kryzlstoff]

I would not pay. I would communicate with the vet the situation, apologize profusely, then call up a recommended lawyer and find out what the best course of action is. I also think a letter will go a long way.
You had a contract for a reason...

[Bogie]

Here's the problem with going to small claims court. Even if you win, it doesn't mean you will get the money back. Getting a judgment in your favor would only the first step.

My guess is that the vet would have an easier time collecting than you would. Plus, you did have a contract for a reason. Use it!

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dont pay the vet.. not your bill. Let him or her chase the lessee.

[goodmorning]

Do not pay the vet! Instead, as mentioned, let the vet know you are doing your best to try to resolve the many issues left behind by these people.

[leilatigress]

oh yes, been there done this dance. Part of the reason I will never ever ever ever do anything other than a full lease on DD's mounts. I'd rather full lease and put mount in partial training with my trainer than share a lease with someone and expect them to actually pay.

I'm with the crowd that says don't pay the vet and give them the info they need to collect from the other leasee.

[goldcoast]

Trying my best to give small details to protect the person involved in case they do post here or in general so I am not blatantly pointing a finger.

Story has shifted, first lessee tells the vet that she and I had a mutual agreement that I would cover this procedure done on the last day of the lease. This conversation never took place. Later in the day lessee tells the vet that she never authorized the charge so she should not be responsible. Also e-mails me stating that she was never notified that this procedure would be taking place, and had she been notified she would never have agreed to pay for it. She was very aware this procedure was to take place, was told before while we talked at the barn, vet said we will try one procedure first, of not we can try the other last - she was there for this and agreed to try the first procedure and hope it would work (could cause trouble). After it was done, she was notified that it was done, truth is she never replied (could cause trouble) however she was absolutely notified and never once declined, asked question or thought to mention that she was unhappy about this even when she was seen at the barn, until now. Procedure and conversation happened over 45 days ago, why is this just now being an "I'm not responsible for this" issue. This should have been tackled before she cancelled the horses insurance, relocated to a different location and picked up a lease on another horse. I am noticing so many holes in the conversations that she could easily wiggle out of however I still feel as though the e-mail stating that she would take care of the horse medically is reason enough, this is the only word I was relying on!

I am hoping we can solve this amicably, I despise conflict in these situations. If you cannot afford something that you are responsible for, whether you deem it fair or not, you cannot walk away 'just because'. This type of situation upsets me so much. Makes me wonder why I even do favors for people in the first place. If i've learned anything from this it's that I will make a highly detailed contract and not miss a single thing, seems even the most detailed contracts I've read through the years wouldn't have helped this situation.

Sadly they have quite a few bills here and there that have been unpaid, this is not the only case.

[Bogie]

Was she required to carry insurance on the horse during her lease period?

Was the vet present on the day when you discussed the procedure and heard her agree to try it?

It's a shame you need to go through this but don't let your distaste for the situation pressure you into paying for a bill that she should have covered.

Obviously, you know that in the future it never hurts to confirm this stuff in writing -- "Dear lessee, per our discussion on this date, Dobbin will have the procedure done. As you know, this will be covered under the insurance plan so please be prepared to contact the carrier."

[trubandloki]

I am confused by your latest post. Who arranged with the vet to have any of this done? Did you make the appointments?

[Eclectic Horseman]

Here's the deal with the vet.

First, if you want to continue using that vet, I would not leave the bill outstanding, whether you owe it or not. It is worth paying it to keep the vet's good will. A first step though, may be to have a frank talk with the vet. Any vet that has been around for a while has had these situations come up. Most will ask, "to whom should I send the bill." If you get lucky, maybe the vet will agree that the lessee is responsible for payment, and in that case, you might not incur any ill will for not paying it. Remember, if the vet believes that you owe it, your credit may be impacted if the vet sends it to a collection agency or reports it to a credit bureau.

Second, the agreement is between you and the lessee. The vet is not involved in that contract. If the lessee called the vet, and the lessee had an understanding with the vet that she was going to be responsible for the bill (she may have signed something there) then the vet can go after the lessee, but only you can judge whether the vet will continue to extend good will toward you and the horse, if the vet is left holding the bag.

There is a theory under which the vet can recover the money from you as the owner of the horse. Even if you did not have had a contract with the vet for these particular services--as the horse's owner, you received the benefit of the veterinary services for the horse. Under a legal theory called "quantum meruit" you are liable for the benefit of the services that you received, whether you contracted for them or not. As an example, if a barn owner or trainer calls the vet for your horse, and the vet comes and provides services to the horse, you are liable to the vet, not the barn owner or the trainer.

So for these reasons--pay the vet. Then seek reimbursement, to which you are legally entitled, from the lessee.

[Giddy-up]

Don't pay the vet. You weren't the customer.

I bought a horse who had a lot of outstanding fees on him. Vet, farrier, board. It was not my responsibility to re-pay all the debts. They went after the former owner for payment just as your vet will have to go after the former leasee for payment. I agree with helping the vet by providing documentation of your lease for proof, but I would not pay the bill.

And if the vet did work on a horse without first finding out who would be paying the bill, doesn't this fall back on them anyway? I am assuming the vetwork done was not life or death time is of the essence so they could have contacted the owner first before proceeding. Also, my vets require payment at the end of service so how did leasee get out of the clinic without paying??

[Pennywell Bay]

So, did YOU authorize WITH the vet the procedure? On the last day of the lease you terminated? Just asking for clarification. Yes, the leasee should have carried insurance if that is in your contract. If you requested a procedure to be done on the last day of the lease by the premise "she'll pay for it", that is shady.
When she agree to it, was that before or after you notified the lease was ending? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly.

[meupatdoes]

There is a theory under which the vet can recover the money from you as the owner of the horse. Even if you did not have had a contract with the vet for these particular services--as the horse's owner, you received the benefit of the veterinary services for the horse. Under a legal theory called "quantum meruit" you are liable for the benefit of the services that you received, whether you contracted for them or not. As an example, if a barn owner or trainer calls the vet for your horse, and the vet

Please also in your Wikipedia exploration of legal concepts explore "foisting." Feel free to additionally stop by the concepts of "contract formation," including "offer" and "acceptance."

If I show up and paint your house lavender while you're on vacation and send you a bill for it, you received the benefit of my services, did you not? So obviously you will pay whatever bill I send, right?

[katarine]

Trying my best to give small details to protect the person involved in case they do post here or in general so I am not blatantly pointing a finger.

Story has shifted, first lessee tells the vet that she and I had a mutual agreement that I would cover this procedure done on the last day of the lease. This conversation never took place. Later in the day lessee tells the vet that she never authorized the charge so she should not be responsible. Also e-mails me stating that she was never notified that this procedure would be taking place, and had she been notified she would never have agreed to pay for it. She was very aware this procedure was to take place, was told before while we talked at the barn, vet said we will try one procedure first, of not we can try the other last - she was there for this and agreed to try the first procedure and hope it would work (could cause trouble). After it was done, she was notified that it was done, truth is she never replied (could cause trouble) however she was absolutely notified and never once declined, asked question or thought to mention that she was unhappy about this even when she was seen at the barn, until now. Procedure and conversation happened over 45 days ago, why is this just now being an "I'm not responsible for this" issue. This should have been tackled before she cancelled the horses insurance, relocated to a different location and picked up a lease on another horse. I am noticing so many holes in the conversations that she could easily wiggle out of however I still feel as though the e-mail stating that she would take care of the horse medically is reason enough, this is the only word I was relying on!

I am hoping we can solve this amicably, I despise conflict in these situations. If you cannot afford something that you are responsible for, whether you deem it fair or not, you cannot walk away 'just because'. This type of situation upsets me so much. Makes me wonder why I even do favors for people in the first place. If i've learned anything from this it's that I will make a highly detailed contract and not miss a single thing, seems even the most detailed contracts I've read through the years wouldn't have helped this situation.

Sadly they have quite a few bills here and there that have been unpaid, this is not the only case.

It sounds like YOU scheduled the vet to perform said procedure so I think YOU need to pay the bill.

[trubandloki]

It sounds like YOU scheduled the vet to perform said procedure so I think YOU need to pay the bill.

That is how I read it too, that is why I asked for clarification. If the OP scheduled all this with the vet, even if done in theory on the behalf of the person leasing the OP needs to pay.

[BAC]

Why in the world would you want to "maintain the relationship" with people like this?

Lucassb always has good advice, I would listen to her. Although I agree you shouldn't be responsible for the vet bill, I would rather pay it in order to stay on good terms with the vet, if you can't get the leasee to pay it.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Responding to meupatoes--Actually, we covered all that stuff (and more) in my contracts class, first year of law school. (I'm trying to be helpful here.)