• 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

Paying to ride other people's horses- always end up a nightmare situation?!

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

  • #41
    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."

    Comment


    • #42
      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

      Comment


      • #43
        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.
        "Aye God, Woodrow..."

        Comment


        • #44
          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

          Comment


          • #45
            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!

            Comment


            • #46
              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.

              Comment


              • #47
                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.
                http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                • #48
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                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

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  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.
                                  "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple” – Barry Switzer

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    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.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      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?

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        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

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          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.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X