You beat me to it.
Darn it! HEIC images.
1 Like
I feel like when DH thinks you are a lunatic there is a major problem.
21 Likes
Are you stating that the board was LKâs burden to make not RGâs? So, if the benefit of RGâs work goes to LK and not RG then he works for her? Or would the deal be between MB and RG and RG gifts her the board?
LK and RG are not married. The horses are in LK/Daddyâs name. There is a legal separation there. LK and JK treat RG more like an employee and they pay him an allowance out wherever the money comes from.
AnyhooâŠ.there was quite a bit of commentary early on how JK negotiated the deal for RG to work on the house (some sort of âcontractâ was broken) so it seems daddy was definitely involved and it is not a situation where LK was playing daddyâŠ.
12 Likes
Way back in the thread, I posted the New Jersey requirement that the owner was responsible for permitting and meeting code, etc. the owner can do the work themselves that does not require a licensed professional and also have âhouse staffâ assist with the work. The owner can also hire a contractor and the contractor is required to be licensed. If A personâs sole work was for The property owner and he had no other source of employment, then that person could be considered an employee as opposed to a contractor. As an employee, that person must be covered by workmanâs comp, and the employee must pay into social security, Medicare etc. the article I posted listed the requirements of being considered a contractor.
New Jersey also recently dropped permit requirements on a great deal of residential work which has caused a hue and cry of worrying about unlicensed contractors.
I am not a lawyer. I am not sure where the work Discussed in this instance would fit, not counting that barter arrangements must be documented for tax purposes as well.
An unlicensed contractor trying to get paid could be subject to paying the owner 3X the damages. The owner could still be on the hook for unpermitted work fines if any of the work was required to be permitted. Most of the repair work from disasters or maintenance did not appear to require permits so long as there were not major changes.
The article described the differences between contractors and employees and itâs important for the responsibilities of the property owner to know the difference and comply with the requirements, not that people do, just when working relationships go bad, itâs a nasty mess if itâs meant to be a short job for cash or barter and someone gets hurt or the work isnât satisfactory or credit isnât given for work performed.
KM now thinks RG worked for LK which I think means she saw the questions arising from how the repair work by RG could be classified.
So, Iâm really not trying to pick on you hut-ho78 with this legal stuff, but I REALLY donât think RG would be considered to have been an employee of MB. Maybe if he was a general farm worker, i.e., turn out/turn in, feed, clean stalls, preparing sales/training horses, etc., but probably not if he was doing remodeling and such.
11 Likes
I havenât seen anything that connects JK to the barter deal. I just saw lots of discussion about the barter deal being an invention to get around the $5000 for the two horses board limit.
Well, seeing how some horse people tend not to be that clear regarding relationships, I doubt anyone thought that hard about it to sort out the specifics. Donât think it makes him an employee, at least not of MBâs, and as for being LKâs employee, well, I donât think heâs bringing a wage/misclassification claim against her so probably doesnât matter a whole lot.
8 Likes
Yes, I know, I read it. I have litigated such cases, among many other kinds of cases. 
39 Likes
RG testified LK paid him for his work, so he apparently agrees with KM.
He also testified he wrote out a bill for his construction services but LK wouldnât let him present it because it would âmess up the plan.â That to me doesnât sound like a house employee, but more like contracted work.
I fall back on the fact that if RG thought he was legit owed money, he would have legally pursued it at some point in the last 2.5 years. He also made it clear in court heâs not now or has been a part of any of the ongoing lawsuits.
21 Likes
Think first two or three threadsâŠ.and possibly some of that was deleted, but it was there.
7 Likes
Ok. I just donât remember RG saying that LK paid him.
This is quite accurate. The merry-go-round of interviews is exhausting.
2 Likes
Approx 17 minutes into cross exam:
RG: I get to spend time with horses and animals that I love, I could spend time with Lauren, uh, spend time with my dog.
MR B: So, were you getting paid to do that?
RG: Was I getting paid? Yes, I guess so yeah in a sense.
Mr B: What do you say you guess so in a sense? Was Lauren paying you money?
RG: Lauren gave me money to pay my bills
20 Likes
You keep desperately trying to make this work legal and you just canât.
20 Likes
No, you misunderstand me completely. A legal barter deal would require paperwork showing value of work done and value of work performed for tax purposes. I donât remember any of that being done.
1 Like
It does matter for other reasons. 
3 Likes
Not necessarily. There are equitable claims instead of claims based upon a written contact. In other words, someone can bring claims in equity for the âvalue of work done or performedâ absent a written contract.
The tax question is separate.
(this is not legal advice, lol).
17 Likes
Verbal agreements are enforceable agreements in all 50 states as long as they are not in violation of the statute of frauds.
Paperwork is not ârequired.â
As I said earlier, there would be nothing preventing someone who had no issue calling the building inspector, health dept, and child protective services from calling the wage and hours board if they thought it would get them somewhere.
Iâm in agreement with the attorney above that it would be awful difficult to say that someone was MBâs employee when he was working off a debt held by another person. Effectively LK employed him to meet her obligation.
23 Likes
