• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

padlocked stall door? Equine Law???

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Original Poster

    #41
    Originally posted by Coanteen View Post
    Honestly, if I was trainer and the horse was really valuable, I'd pay off the damned BO and file the necessary paperwork to get started on selling the horse.
    The problem will be serving the horse's owners - she'll probably need to hire a lawyer to advise since they're not in the US, not to mention someone to translate the legalese. Can that horse bring in what she's owed, what the BO's owed, and all the legal fees likely to be associated with an international civil case? While I'm not 100% sure about CA, usually the lien holder isn't even allowed to make any profit - strictly what they're owed, plus maybe their legal fees depending on what the statute says.
    Yes thank you, that is the track the trainer is taking and the horse is definitely worth all that and more.
    "When it comes to horses, there is no such thing as a passing fancy. They're a constant in life." -Jackie Kennedy Onassis

    Comment


    • #42
      I've seen BO's padlock horses in stalls before. It is stressful on onlookers who fear the 'what if's' but it is commonly done, especially in these kinds of situations.

      Something may have happened in the relationship between the 26 yr old and the parents, might be best to stay out of it and let the law run its course. The horse sounds abandoned to me and two professionals need to be paid.

      Comment


      • #43
        It certainly appears, from the laws copied & posted here, that the owner of the facility has the legal right to lock up the horse, even if it is unwise (even setting aside the inherent cruelty of the decision). Certainly if there were an emergency (fire, illness, etc.) that resulted in the death of the horse, there would be no more valuable asset.

        Not only that, but if the owners of the horse wanted to spirit him away in the night, a set of bolt cutters would do the trick. So the lock keeps out those well meaning souls who want to care for the horse, but will do absolutely nothing to stop someone who wants to leave with it. Based on that, I agree completely with the earlier poster who said that the barn owner was not being very smart.

        I also agree that the trainer's wisest move would be to pay the barn owner their relatively small amount owed, so she could then pursue her own lien, and if necessary, move the horse to another barn, so that the owner would not know where it was.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Hinderella View Post
          It certainly appears, from the laws copied & posted here, that the owner of the facility has the legal right to lock up the horse, even if it is unwise (even setting aside the inherent cruelty of the decision). Certainly if there were an emergency (fire, illness, etc.) that resulted in the death of the horse, there would be no more valuable asset.

          Not only that, but if the owners of the horse wanted to spirit him away in the night, a set of bolt cutters would do the trick. So the lock keeps out those well meaning souls who want to care for the horse, but will do absolutely nothing to stop someone who wants to leave with it. Based on that, I agree completely with the earlier poster who said that the barn owner was not being very smart.

          I also agree that the trainer's wisest move would be to pay the barn owner their relatively small amount owed, so she could then pursue her own lien, and if necessary, move the horse to another barn, so that the owner would not know where it was.
          Securing the horse in a locked stall is not "inherently cruel" if there's no loss. The lock may not stop a determined thief, but it will keep honest folks honest.

          In many states there's a BIG difference (like between a fine or a few days in a county jail and several years in prison) between taking property by just walking away with it and using instrumentalities to break locks after sunset. That latter practice can also earn somebody a butt full of buckshot.

          Both trainer and BO claim to have liens. The BO's is proably superior (as "first in time is first in right"), but that would depend on state law. In any event proceeding jointly would be economical and practical.

          If the BO is providing care to the horse IAW the contract then the entire matter it's nobody's business but thiers, and maybe the trainer's. In any event they should talk.

          G.
          Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

          Comment


          • #45
            I am not in favor of anyone getting stiffed. But padlocks that only one person can open represent a real safety threat to me.

            No matter how shitty the owner, the horse should have a fighting chance in the case of emergency.

            I am not a fan of padlocks.

            That is really freaking scary.

            I HATE the idea of halters on horses. But my horse wears one 24/7. Why? Because our barn is big, but older and on a busy road. All horses wear halters 24/7 so that in the case of fire they can be easily caught and led out.

            I still hate it on the one hand. But it makes so much sense.

            So if someone was PADLOCKING? OMG. I can't imagine.

            If you need to get out, you need to get out NOW.

            Scary.

            Yes of course, owner should pay. I don't think anyone disputes that. But no matter what someone owes, the life of the animal should not (IMHO) be put at risk.
            A good horseman doesn't have to tell anyone...the horse already knows.

            Might be a reason, never an excuse...

            Comment


            • #46
              I will say again, it depends on the state. In INDIANA, if you call the police, they will release the horse to the owner.

              The police are not around to decide if a contract is valid. If the barn owner violated the contract by not providing a service listed, could he still hold the horse until the owner paid up, or is the contract considered void and the owner may leave?

              That is a matter for the courts to decide and in that case the police will release the horse to the owner and let the matter be settled in court.
              http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by enjoytheride View Post
                I will say again, it depends on the state. In INDIANA, if you call the police, they will release the horse to the owner.

                The police are not around to decide if a contract is valid. If the barn owner violated the contract by not providing a service listed, could he still hold the horse until the owner paid up, or is the contract considered void and the owner may leave?

                That is a matter for the courts to decide and in that case the police will release the horse to the owner and let the matter be settled in court.
                I just reviewed Indiana's lien laws. There are here:

                http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/lien/in_lien.htm

                The question of possetion is not addressed. But under most lien law procedures the lien holder is entitled to maintain possetion until the lien is discharged. If the lien holder surrenders possetion then the lien is lost.

                Under these rules if an officer were to take possetion of the property under color of law and hand it over to the owner would they not violate the possesory rights of the lien holder? And would not the officer, and his employer, potentially be civilly liable to the lien holder if the debt is ultimately not paid?

                I'm not an Indiana lawyer but it seems to me that if the police, using the power of the state, direct a change of custody they are making a legal judgement on the matter and would be liable if they make a mistake.

                Anybody able the answer the question for sure?

                G.
                Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Guilherme View Post
                  Securing the horse in a locked stall is not "inherently cruel" if there's no loss. The lock may not stop a determined thief, but it will keep honest folks honest.

                  In many states there's a BIG difference (like between a fine or a few days in a county jail and several years in prison) between taking property by just walking away with it and using instrumentalities to break locks after sunset. That latter practice can also earn somebody a butt full of buckshot..
                  Yes, there's theft, and then there's breaking and entering. In this case depending on the value of the horse it might even be a felony theft without getting bolt cutters (B&E) involved.

                  If the BO knows the trainer is owed money and wants the horse they might rightly fear allowing free access means the trainers going to load it up and take off with it, and then they have the lien against the owner (who, as said, is 26--unless the parents signed the contract, they're beside the point-no matter what the owner says, if s/he signed the contract, s/he is solely responsible for the money) AND would have to get the law involved against the trainer as well. I doubt the boarders who AREN'T deadbeats would appreciate the only other thing I could think of which is reasonable, which is putting locked gates at all points where a trucker and trailer or lead horse can enter or exit the property to prevent someone from coming in and removing the horse.

                  If the trainer really wants the horse, she should get a lawyer and see if she can pay the back board and take possession legally and then sell the horse however the law permits. Otherwise she should just pull the blankets and stop fussing with it until the lien's resolved. The BO filed first and their lien has precedence, so whether or not the horse loses value to the trainer isn't the BO's problem. She shouldn't have tolerated the deadbeat client for so long. ($12,000?!?)
                  Author Page
                  Like Omens In the Night on Facebook
                  Steampunk Sweethearts

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                    Yes of course, owner should pay. I don't think anyone disputes that. But no matter what someone owes, the life of the animal should not (IMHO) be put at risk.
                    What you think matters not when it conflicts with what the lienholder can legally do.

                    The last time I checked, this country is still ruled by law, not by emotion or opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                      If you need to get out, you need to get out NOW.
                      The horse is no one but the barn owner's to control. If the deadbeat horse owner tried taking it they might get:

                      a) arrested
                      b) beaten up
                      c) worse

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        California rules; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...e=3080-3080.22
                        ... _. ._ .._. .._

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          In the instance I mentioned the owner of the horse was refusing to give 30 days notice or pay 30 days of board as her contract specified because, in her opinion, the Barn Owner had invalidated the contract by failing to fulfill their end. Because the police could not determine who was in the wrong (and if a lien was valid) they released the horse to its owner.



                          If it matters to anyone this particular barn lost 20 boarders in under 60 days.
                          http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Curious about the idea of Trainer paying of the board. Wouldn't that just release the lien the BO has, making the Trainers lien the primary? I don't see how this would transfer the actual ownership of the horse.

                            Can trainers put the same sort of lien on a horse that the barn owner can? I didn't think they could which is why most require payment up front for training. (I am assuming that much of that bill is commission). I don't think the trainer could lock the horse up/prevent it from leaving in the same way the BO could...could they?

                            It would seem complicated to me as the trainer would then have to be responsible for bills to keep the BO from locking the horse up again, but the BO would have a contract with the owner, not with the trainer. Just seems complicated and something that the BO should discuss with a lawyer.
                            Freeing worms from cans everywhere!

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by CHT View Post
                              Curious about the idea of Trainer paying of the board. Wouldn't that just release the lien the BO has, making the Trainers lien the primary? I don't see how this would transfer the actual ownership of the horse.
                              This is why I said the TRAINER needs a lawyer. It sounds like the BO has one and is doing what they have to do. The trainer really doesn't have a right to access the horse--it's not theirs, they're not being paid by the owner and any claim they might have on the horse is secondary. If they want the horse, they need to get a lawyer and see if there are any options other than waiting until the BO's lien is processed and buying the horse at public auction. If it's legal, it seems as though allowing the trainer to pay the back board and take ownership would make the most sense, but that might not be possible--but it's entirely the trainer's lookout to get a lawyer. The BO is doing nothing wrong--the horse belongs to the 26-year-old who has failed to pay board, the BO filed a lien and is making sure the horse isn't removed from the property until the lien's settled.
                              Author Page
                              Like Omens In the Night on Facebook
                              Steampunk Sweethearts

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Sounds silly to endagner the animal that you have a lein on...just saying.

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  No more silly than allowing the lienor to slip in and remove the only security they have to recover their money.
                                  "Absent a correct diagnosis, medicine is poison, surgery is trauma and alternative therapy is witchcraft" A. Kent Allen
                                  http://www.etsy.com/shop/tailsofglory

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by HGem View Post
                                    Sounds silly to endagner the animal that you have a lein on...just saying.
                                    It seems to me the owner endangered the animal more by not paying the board than the BO did by locking it up...just saying.

                                    Also, value is not the only thing that moves an entry into a felony. Sometimes if you enter at night or use force (i.e., bolt cutters, rock, etc.) to gain entry you move from Criminal Tresspass (usually a misdemeanor) to Burglary (always a felony).

                                    This is highly dependant on local law.

                                    G.
                                    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      In California, there is a process for a boarding stable to go through to place a lien on the horse for unpaid board. After they have gone through this process (filing paperwork, notices to owner, wait period, etc) they can legally own the horse and/or sell it for back board.

                                      If the horse is located in Marin, you should call Marin Humane and talk to them about how all this works, and also the locked door aspect. MHS is the Animal Control for Marin County. All public boarding facilities in Marin are inspected by Marin Humane as part of their boarding permit.

                                      If the horse is in Sonoma County AC, PM me and I'll get you a good contact at AC to answer your questions.

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        #59
                                        Originally posted by danceronice View Post
                                        This is why I said the TRAINER needs a lawyer.
                                        Please read what I've written before responding. The trainer HAS a LAWYER. She HAS a LIEN. Her lien is secondary but it's still there and she's taking every correct legal step. The problem is not with the horse owner anymore but the trainer-BO relationship where the BO is refusing to team up with trainer who is in same boat, but worse. She's owed even more money. Instead, BO will not allow her assess to horse, any control of lock, etc. It's ridiculous and not helpful when they should be a united force teaming up together against the horse owner. The BO should not be trying to exert power over the trainer. Her issues are not with the trainer. Also, if trainer pays off BO, BO is arguing that she cannot release the horse to trainer but must release possession back to owner who is MIA and is completely unaccessible or responsive to either trainer or BO.
                                        "When it comes to horses, there is no such thing as a passing fancy. They're a constant in life." -Jackie Kennedy Onassis

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by alexisgeo View Post
                                          Please read what I've written before responding. The trainer HAS a LAWYER. She HAS a LIEN. Her lien is secondary but it's still there and she's taking every correct legal step. The problem is not with the horse owner anymore but the trainer-BO relationship where the BO is refusing to team up with trainer who is in same boat, but worse. She's owed even more money. Instead, BO will not allow her assess to horse, any control of lock, etc. It's ridiculous and not helpful when they should be a united force teaming up together against the horse owner. The BO should not be trying to exert power over the trainer. Her issues are not with the trainer. Also, if trainer pays off BO, BO is arguing that she cannot release the horse to trainer but must release possession back to owner who is MIA and is completely unaccessible or responsive to either trainer or BO.
                                          Most of that is correct. In most cases, if the bill is paid, the horse reverts to the owner, no matter who paid it (in this case the trainer), until it goes to public auction. She can't just sell the horse to the trainer.
                                          "Sadly, some people's greatest skill, is being an idiot". (facebook profile pic I saw).

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X