sticky situation- opinions/help please :)

[JanM]

There is no way I would continue a contract binding me to pay all vet bills for a horse that is ridden by others, even the owner. You could potentially lose everything financially because of this clause. I would end the contract this second for breach (or whatever they call it). There are tons of horses available out there and this is not a good deal for you.

[WildBlue]

So what is the penalty if you break the lease? While it is common for lessors to pay normal/usual vet bills (so they don't over use/abuse the horse). But what in the contract that enforces you to pay major medical expenses rather than just walking away or breaking the lease?

I am assuming you are not very old, or you would understand a whole lot more about how contracts work - ro don't - in the real world.

Please realize that as a lessee, you liability is VERY limited. The horse and its bills, health and welfare are ALL ultimately the responsibility of his owner. No contract will alleviate that, only somewhat mitigate it if the contract is truely well written and legally enforceable.

So, you're saying that people who have lease contracts specifying that the leasee is responsible for all veterinary care--including emergency care--and owe the lessor replacement value for the horse in the event that it is killed or becomes unrideable (hence leasee carrying insurance on the horse) might as well have saved the ink because the leasee doesn't *actually* have to follow the terms of the contract she signed?

Damn, my lawyer must be very young and unworldly to tell me otherwise.

[Bogie]

Damn, my lawyer must be very young and unworldly to tell me otherwise.

Having been involved with a non-equine related law suit last year where the vendor breached my contract with him, let me just say the following.

- Being right doesn't mean you win a lawsuit
- Winning a judgment is not the same as collecting the money, and
- Lawyers are very expensive.

[LLDM]

So, you're saying that people who have lease contracts specifying that the leasee is responsible for all veterinary care--including emergency care--and owe the lessor replacement value for the horse in the event that it is killed or becomes unrideable (hence leasee carrying insurance on the horse) might as well have saved the ink because the leasee doesn't *actually* have to follow the terms of the contract she signed?

Damn, my lawyer must be very young and unworldly to tell me otherwise.

Depends on the lease. But let me give you an example of what I am saying:

Say the horse cracks his stifle hard on a jump and fractures his patella. Vet says he needs surgery to stabilize it and 9 months to a year of stall rest. You contract says you pay the vet. Initial vet bills for this are estimated to be 10 to 12 thousand just for the surgery and don't include all the follow up and on going care, nor the extra board and care for stall rest and meds. But you only have 5 months left on the contract and can opt out of the contract with a months notice and a 20% penalty. Exercising that option will save you 9K and you can go find another horse to ride.

What would you do? And who do you think would have to pay the vet if you decided tpo bail without footing the surgery bill? Even if it was legal?

Also, if there was no "out" clause in the contract, but you just. did. not. have the money, what do you think would happen? The owner would pay. The owner ALWAYS pays in the end.

See Bogie's post. It's not right, but it is what mostly happens.

Having been involved with a non-equine related law suit last year where the vendor breached my contract with him, let me just say the following.

- Being right doesn't mean you win a lawsuit
- Winning a judgment is not the same as collecting the money, and
- Lawyers are very expensive.

Exactly.

SCFarm

[Stacie]

You have paid for the privilege of training the horse for the owner. To get the horse where he is now, she would have had to pay someone else to do it. You are being used by the owner and the trainer. Tell the owner that if she wants to ride the horse than she needs to terminate the lease.
Go buy a nice prospect and start over with your own horse. you have all the liability a none of the benefit of owning (which is controlling who can ride him, and being able to sell the horse at a profit)

[Luckydonkey]

People keep suggesting this girl buy the horse- but maybe the horse is not for sale- and to the person who had the example where the horse needs a year of stall rest due to injury- what if that happens when the owner is on the horse instead of the lessee?

[LLDM]

People keep suggesting this girl buy the horse- but maybe the horse is not for sale- and to the person who had the example where the horse needs a year of stall rest due to injury- what if that happens when the owner is on the horse instead of the lessee?

My point are simply that as an owner has ultimate responsibility for AND has the final say on access. If that is what the OP wants, she should buy, not lease. She is not likely to to get final say on access tot he horse unless she owns it, esp. in this situation where the trainer doesn't agree either. Most leases are relatively easy to break or negotiate out of.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the OP has done anything wrong. I can understand her frustrations and concerns. But I just don't think it is going to work out like she hopes unless she buys the horse (or some other horse).

Oh, and if the horse was hurt when the owner was riding, it would be even easier to break the lease. What judge would try to enforce that? (Or lawyer recommend trying?) I'm not trying to be mean, just realistic given what the OP has shared so far. And to dispose her of the idea that improving the horse holds any sort of official weight or standing in her situation. It's great for the horse, but it doesn't help anything else. Nor is it unfair. The owner was probably persuaded to free lease because the rider would likely improve the horse. Why would the owner lease to a crappy rider, esp. for free? (and given the inherent liabilities in leasing?)

Hoping it all works out - esp. for the horse.

SCFarm

[RugBug]

If *I* were the owner of this horse and was reading this thread, I might feel you are acting entitled about riding *my* horse.

But she is entitled...she's leasing the horse, free or not.

If you are full leasing your horse out, you don't ride it. It "belongs" to someone else for the term of the lease, whether that be month to month or an extended period. The lessee has care, custody and control of the horse 7 days a week and can do with it as desired as long as things aren't specifically spelled out in the lease contract.

Please realize that as a lessee, you liability is VERY limited. The horse and its bills, health and welfare are ALL ultimately the responsibility of his owner. No contract will alleviate that, only somewhat mitigate it if the contract is truely well written and legally enforceable.

This isn't the lessee's repsonsibility, it's the owners. If the owner doesn't want the potential liability with a lease situation, they shouldn't lease their horse out.

I had a horse for sale and a few people asked if I would lease him instead of sell. I said no, and explained that it put all the liability on me with none for them. It's kind of a stupid venture for the owner, IMO. Right now, said horse has two people riding him during the week (one 3x/week, the other 1x/wk every other week). I want control over what they do, and I also want to ride the horse myself, therefore neither is "leasing" the horse, but rather just riding him. One wants to take some dressage lessons on him. I have tentatively agreed, but have put some rules into place on what those lessons will entail and I have talked to the dressage trainer. This horse gets easily fried, so it's in my best interest to oversee a situation where he could be fried.

If I were to lease him, I would turn over control per the details of the contract to the lessee. Them paying for the lease, whatever that entails, is what forfeits my right to control the horse. IT's a huge risk...and one I'm not willing to take. But if an owner goes that way, they need to abide by the lease...which in the case of the OP, sounds like they don't get to ride the horse.

[Bogie]

But she is entitled...she's leasing the horse, free or not.

If you are full leasing your horse out, you don't ride it. It "belongs" to someone else for the term of the lease, whether that be month to month or an extended period. The lessee has care, custody and control of the horse 7 days a week and can do with it as desired as long as things aren't specifically spelled out in the lease contract.

Wouldn't it be great if a contract was always followed to the letter?

We don't know what the OP's contract says.

Does she have complete say over what this horse does/is used for? we don't know.

Does the owner have the right to change her mind about a full lease versus a part lease? It depends on what the contract says. If the OP then decides she wants to have a share lease with the owner, of course she should renegotiate.

We don't know what the owner of this horse thinks.

We don't know what the trainer promised each of them.

IME these types of free leases can be problematic because they generally are not well written, they do not anticipate the issues that can arise and they there is vast potential for misunderstanding and resentment on both sides.

Just because it's in a contract it doesn't mean you can enforce that contract.

Who in their right mind is going to court over a free lease contract? Is the OP going to hire an attorney to force the owner to comply? I think not.

So, whether the OP is right or not, if the owner really wants to start riding the horse again, they need to sit down and renegotiate. Regardless of her "contract."

If it were my horse that was being leased out my contract would have anticipated contingencies and addressed the in advance.

[Bogie]

But she is entitled...she's leasing the horse, free or not.

If you are full leasing your horse out, you don't ride it. It "belongs" to someone else for the term of the lease, whether that be month to month or an extended period. The lessee has care, custody and control of the horse 7 days a week and can do with it as desired as long as things aren't specifically spelled out in the lease contract.

Wouldn't it be great if a contract was always followed to the letter?

We don't know what the OP's contract says. We don't know what the owner thinks that the contract says. We don't know what the trainer promised each of them.

All I know is that in the real world no one takes someone to court to enforce a contract for a free lease on a horse.

So, if this owner has decided she wants to ride the horse the ONLY thing the OP can do is negotiate a half lease agreement that she feels is fair.

If I were the OP I would not be happy and I would NOT continue to pay full lease pricing for a shared lease experience. I have never suggested that.

As an owner who has leased a horse I would be annoyed if someone leasing MY horse told me I couldn't ride it. BUT, and this is a big but, MY contracts are very clear and this situation would not have occurred.

For what it's worth, I do NOT agree that the horse "belongs" to someone during a lease. They have specific usage rights, not a temporary transfer of ownership. When I have leased out my horses I am VERY specific about what someone can and cannot do with MY horse and I retain control of that decision making process.

Other people may have different needs. In fact, maybe this owner has become unhappy with how much out of her hands the lease has become. Does the fact that she's changed her mind means she needs to suck it up until next year when the horse is no longer leased? I have never seen a lease agreement that says "take my horse and call me next year, whatever you do is okay and I won't check on it or make any comments on its health or training." Sure, they probably exist, but is this what the horse owner signed?

[bigeq77]

hey guys-

so the moment you've all been waiting for- the meeting.

what happened was i opened with my complaint of the fact that she has been riding/showing the horse i've been leasing/her horse without any communication with me and that i'd prefer that she wouldn't ride him until the lease is up. (i did use your idea of saying that its great to have her riding again )

the owner, not to my surprise, argued that it's her horse and even though i'm paying for its upkeep, i'm not directly paying her anything. so our trainer brought out the original contract, which stated that no one is to ride the horse being leased out, unless there is given consent from the leassee, which the owner did not have.

so what we all decided was that i'm going to continue with my lease, without the owner riding, until the end of october and then we're going to renegotiate and see if the owner still wants to ride the horse at that point.

after the meeting and when the owner left, my trainer pulled me aside and apologized for what hadhappened previously with the show and riding from the owner. she said that i guess the owner told her that i said it was ok for her to show him, even though it never came up between the owner and i, and that she should've second checked with me beforehand. she also said that she doesn't believe the owner will want to ride her horse in the winter, because she never really did when she origiannly owned him.

so all in all, i felt the verdict was fair and everything worked out in the end but thank you so much for all of your opinions and help with this, I probably wouldn't of figured this out as well as i did without you guys!

[Trixie]

In the latter type of lease where you've paid a fee that's equivalent to a percentage of the horse's value, you'd have a stronger case for not sharing him with the owner. As it is, I don't think the owner needs to get your consent to ride or show her horse -- although I think it's quite rude and not something I'd want to tolerate. In fact, as an owner I have always reserved the right to terminate a lease if I felt it wasn't working out from my end.

If the owner signed a contract stating that no one was to ride the horse except the lessor, the owner absolutely does need the lessors consent to ride and show her horse, because she is in violation of the contract.

If it's written as the OP says, it would appear the language is actually quite explicit.

I can see how it would make a difference. If you are paying a lease fee for a horse it's more like a sale. Generally those leases are more formal and more difficult to break. If you are being paid for someone to ride your horse (usually $$$) you are less inclined to mess with the lease.

A contract is a contract is a contract.

Well, it does all depend on how the lease is written. BUT. Really. As long as the the leas is free (upkeep only) then I don't get why anyone here is surprised that the owner wants to ride too.

Then the owner should have WRITTEN THAT INTO THE CONTRACT, not written up a full lease. We don't know the full terms of the OP's contract, but I find it peculiar that many of you are deciding that a written contract is only enforceable when it suits someone's personal interests.

If the OP is paying board, shoes, vet, and insurance on the horse, I totally get why she would have issue with the owner riding and taking the animal to a show. That's not "zero investment" that's a total investment of bills and expenses for the animal for the terms of the lease.

Does the fact that she's changed her mind means she needs to suck it up until next year when the horse is no longer leased?

Yes, EXACTLY. Unless she has an out clause, she signed a contract. If the owner was unhappy with the terms of the contract, or wanted to be paid a lease fee, she shouldn't have agreed to that contract.

Why do we even bother to insist upon contracts in the horse industry if so many people have decided that they're apparently useless? It really speaks to the ethics and business acumen of those in the industry.

[alto]

[Luckydonkey]

So, Who wants to bet that the horse will end up for sale in October(or sooner)- and if I were you I would keep a watch out for the owner riding anyway- and the trainer playing both sides...quite frankly if this was me, I would get out now. Your trainer is playing both sides, and you have an owner who suddenly feels like she is not getting anything out of her horse(even though he is not costing her anything at the moment, and all his needs are being met)

[WildBlue]

Depends on the lease. But let me give you an example of what I am saying:

Say the horse cracks his stifle hard on a jump and fractures his patella. Vet says he needs surgery to stabilize it and 9 months to a year of stall rest. You contract says you pay the vet. Initial vet bills for this are estimated to be 10 to 12 thousand just for the surgery and don't include all the follow up and on going care, nor the extra board and care for stall rest and meds. But you only have 5 months left on the contract and can opt out of the contract with a months notice and a 20% penalty. Exercising that option will save you 9K and you can go find another horse to ride.

What would you do? And who do you think would have to pay the vet if you decided tpo bail without footing the surgery bill? Even if it was legal?

Also, if there was no "out" clause in the contract, but you just. did. not. have the money, what do you think would happen? The owner would pay. The owner ALWAYS pays in the end.

See Bogie's post. It's not right, but it is what mostly happens.



Exactly.

SCFarm

I'm not arguing out of sheer bloody-mindedness. This is important to a LOT of people, as horse leases are pretty common.

WHY, exactly, would any owner with half a brain lease a horse to someone who does not have the resources to fulfill their part of a contract? Unless you're willing to say "Oops, well, we'll just have it euthanized", wouldn't you make sure there was mortality and major incident insurance on the horse? And that your contract was written to minimze your risk in case things go south?

From a business perspective, the owner assumes risk when leasing a horse out because they want the gain that comes from it. In the case of an expenses lease, the owner doesn't have to pay upkeep (>$5K/yr, at $400/mo board plus farrier, etc.), their horse get worked and--with the right person leasing it--training and show miles that increases its value, and they still own the horse. For a lease with expenses plus a fee, the owner can recoup some or all of the purchase and training cost of the horse. That gain is balanced against the risk of loss or injury, poor riding, etc. and it only makes sense to have a well-written and enforceable contract designed to minimize those risks.

[magicteetango]

I am so glad this worked out well for you OP. I understand you didn't pay a lease fee, but you are relieving this owner of vet, farrier, and board bills, as if she had no horse at all. So I'm glad it all worked out.

I've leased horses out before, and I have leased them. I would never have gone and ridden my horse, nor would I have accepted an owner coming and riding theirs unless I had offered it to them.

Good luck with the rest of the show season!

[LLDM]

To the OP - I am very glad for you that this worked out the way you had hoped. You obviously have a good/fair trainer - and I am VERY glad to hear she apologized to you for not checking with you.

I'm not arguing out of sheer bloody-mindedness. This is important to a LOT of people, as horse leases are pretty common.

Neither am I. And while leases are common, good leases aren't. There are lots of things that can go wrong and lots of hastily drawn up worthless pieces of paper. Usually it's the horse who suffers, with the owner following close behind.

WHY, exactly, would any owner with half a brain lease a horse to someone who does not have the resources to fulfill their part of a contract? Unless you're willing to say "Oops, well, we'll just have it euthanized", wouldn't you make sure there was mortality and major incident insurance on the horse? And that your contract was written to minimze your risk in case things go south?

Well there are a lot of half brained people. But there are even more people who aren't paying attention or who believe that some other party is the one thinking things through and/or acting on their behalf.

From a business perspective,

Horse people are the absolute WORST business people I know. Even good business people often lose all their business sense when they come within a mile of a horse. Don't ask me why, I'm just sayin'

the owner assumes risk when leasing a horse out because they want the gain that comes from it. In the case of an expenses lease, the owner doesn't have to pay upkeep (>$5K/yr, at $400/mo board plus farrier, etc.), their horse get worked and--with the right person leasing it--training and show miles that increases its value, and they still own the horse. For a lease with expenses plus a fee, the owner can recoup some or all of the purchase and training cost of the horse. That gain is balanced against the risk of loss or injury, poor riding, etc. and it only makes sense to have a well-written and enforceable contract designed to minimize those risks.

I agree, when all goes well, it can be all that. But often it just doesn't always work out that way. Expectations may not be set properly or people make too many assumptions on how things are supposed to work. To believe otherwise is to be a bit naive. I don't know why otherwise smart people can be so dumb and short sighted about horses. I consider it one of the great mysteries of the universe.

Hopefully this thread can educate to both sides of the issues. Again, I am glad it worked out for the OP.

SCFarm

[joiedevie99]

Good for you for sticking up for yourself and getting everything to work out. Congrats!

[Bogie]

Glad it worked out!

[evenstar]

Sounds like it may be working out ok, but I'd be finding an especially intricate way to hang the bridle so I could tell if someone else had been using it.

Just sayin...