Free Lease gone super bad, WWYD?

[Moesha]

[QUOTE=Foxyalter;7168347]
Definitely fishy. I sent him there with no worries because I “assumed” if they had such high end horses and nice facility he would be in good hands. She leased him for adult beginners for her lesson program and camps because he is soo good at that and takes such good care of his riders. Do people not realize that these horses are priceless?[/QUOTE]

So sorry for you and your horse :(. Unfortunately as you know a barn seeming to be reputable means absolutely nothing in so many cases.

It is unfortunate that people behave like this and horses and good horse people’s trust are damaged like this. This is the exact kind of thing that damages the horse show world’s reputation among good people.

Hope your horse is better soon.

[Foxyalter]

[QUOTE=Fillabeana;7168351]
This is not legal advice, just my own opinion from reading many COTH trainwrecks.

First, do NOT express your (however justified) upset in ANY identifiable form on the internet. You’ve done fine here, just don’t ‘out’ anyone period. Posting details on the internet is not something you can ever take back.

Second, keep photos and detailed records of everything that is going on. Your expenses, your time (also an expense), supplies, vet expenses to return the horse to health.

Third, get good legal advice. Start with Sister-in-law, and if need be have her refer you to someone else.

Leaser may very well be sorry. Best to not make her angry and emotional. Do your darndest to keep emotion out of interactions, because what would probably be best, is to have leaser pay for the damages caused by breach of contract and WANT to pay for damages, not do you harm out of anger, retribution, etc.
If you can approach it as, ‘Of course you’re sorry, of course you feel awful for the horse. This is what needs to be done, what you agreed to do when you signed the papers to lease him.’ THIS is what you are obligated to do…

I know you’re beyond upset now. But the best (for the horse, for you, and for the leaser) thing would be to get the horse better, and expenses paid for, and forgive going forward knowing that the leaser was both repentant and financially responsible for what happened.[/QUOTE]

Good advice and I’ve seen many a trainwreck here. Yes, very emotional because I feel betrayed and feel for my poor guy because he was within 3.5 hours of me and this could totally have been prevented Not planning on outing these people but I do need to recover substantial vet bills incurred for the past few days. Very unfortunate and unnecessary.

[vxf111]

Just a thought on one sub-issue. Causation.

I like Smartpak a lot and I supplement my horses. But do you really, really think you can prove that going off an untested supplement can ever be proven to be the reason a horse with colic history (I am assuming that’s why you enrolled in the program) coliced? In addition to the intervening causes (stress of changing barns, possible change in feed, change in weather, etc.) there is the actual causation. He was returned to you un-colicing (if that’s a word). He then coliced in your care. Can you prove the cause was going off the supplement? If so, why didn’t he colid in the prior 3 months? There is NO scientific evidence that SmartDigest does a thing. Is you vet willing to swear under oath that is was something they did, and that alone, that caused the colic to a reasonable degree of veterinary certainty?

And this is a horse known to get leg infections. So much so that you told them to kep an eye out. As though you suspected it might be inevitable. Again, do you think you can prove that that did some specific outrageous/negligent thing that caused the sores? And not that he was going to get them from wet dewy grass no matter who had him? What’s your evidence that they did anything negigent (I am not sure swimming, though perhaps ill advised for this horse, would be deemed negligent). Is your vet, again, going to swear to the causation for you- but for whatever they did, this horse would have problem-free legs? If someone asked for her vet records, wouldn’t they show prior times she treated him for this very condition (albeit not as severe).

Which is not to say you don’t have every right to be pissed/angry. But think long and hard before investing a lot of time/money/psychic energy into pursuing this.

[Foxyalter]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7168389]
Just a thought on one sub-issue. I like Smartpak a lot and I supplement my horses. But do you really, really think you can prove that going off an untested supplement can ever be proven to be the reason a horse with colic history coliced? In addition to the intervening causes (stress of changing barns. possible change in feed, change in weather, etc.) there is the actual causation. There is NO scientific evidence that SmartDigest does a thing. So I think you have a major causation issue there.

And this is a horse known to get leg infections. So much so that you told them to key an eye out. As though you suspected it might be inevitable. Again, do you think you can prove that that did some specific outrageous/negligent thing that caused the sores? And not that he was going to get them from wet dewy grass no matter who had him?

Which is not to say you don’t have every right to be pissed/angry. But think long and hard before investing a lot of time/money/psychic energy into pursuing this.[/QUOTE]

This horse has done well on the Smartpak UlcerCare program and was his only form of insurance as he is older. No, obviously I cannot prove causation but the leasee did violate terms of contract by not maintaining him on his supplements. Just like the horse I leased in the past required hock injections 2x a year from a particular vet and per my contract I had them done.

In our area ALL horses are prone to leg issues particularly since this is a wet humid summer. All owners I know are being especially vigilant about fungal care and I know that I have to scrub my other horses legs everyday and keep them dry. This was discussed in depth with leasee before horse left. My vet also saw the horse a week before he left and knows that he had none of these issues prior, whether or not he is susceptible or not does not give the leasee the right to not have the sores treated by a vet during the 3 month period or send him back in this condition so that I have to deal with it. I also have fb pictures of riders from the barn swimming the horse in a local lake…

Also, horse has not been treated for colic or summer sores for the past four years and vet records will reflect that.

[vxf111]

Look, I am not saying they were right or that you don’t have the right to be angry (I’d be angry!) I am prompting you to think about whether you can prove what you’d need to to succeed if you decided to sue. Breach of contract doesn’t usually equal “I get paid for everything I am out of pocket for” and causation is going to be a big hurdle, potentially. Being able to prove breach is not the beginning and end of the analysis. It is one of several elements. This is just something you should evaluate and maybe discuss with your vet/sister-in-law before deciding what to do. Just because someone does something “wrong” and there are consequences doesn’t mean it’s always worthwhile to sue. I question, from the facts you’ve shared, whether that will be worth your while. These facts alone give them a lot of ground/arguments against you. If they get an attorney, I am sure that attorney will have other fodder as well.

[Rikerkv6]

Happened to me several years ago, my horse got laminitis instead of colic but needed lots of care to recover. He lost about 200 lbs, was beat up and very lame.

I did send a demand letter, which went ignored, so I then took her to small claims for the vet bills. I won, and was looking forward to getting my money when she filed for bankruptcy :(.

Never saw a penny but would have if it weren’t for the bankruptcy filing. Luckily my horse recovered and is now in a new lease situation and so happy. He’s only about 20 minutes away and even though he has been with his currently leasee about 18 months, I still check on him monthly.

Best of luck to you!

[BAC]

If you can afford to, I would pursue it legally. I’m tired of everyone saying to just chalk it up to experience, why is it okay to allow these people to get away with this kind of treatment and everyone is afraid to speak up. There is a reason for having a contract, if you are not going to hold someone to the terms of it, then don’t even bother having one.

And I wouldn’t be at all shy about letting other people know what happened under this trainer’s care, its a public service to unsuspecting potential clients.

[trubandloki]

I believe the breach of contract here is the part where they are supposed to return the horse in the same condition it left in and it was returned lacking basic medical care for a condition that was treatable.

[vxf111]

They took him off a supplement without permission. They let him get leg crud (I don’t know what “summer sores” mean exactly) and didn’t call the vet. This leg crud is the same type this horse was prone to under the OP’s care and the same type that “all” horses in the area are prone to due to the climate. Seemingly the kind that the OP herself usually treats without vet care under normal circumstances.

That was obnoxious and rude. Sounds like it was technically in breach of the contract (though for all the OP knows they ordered the supplement under a different name and did feed him and they were treating the crud, albeit ineffectively). I would be upset and expect better from a lease.

But THAT is getting everyone up in arms and suggesting she sue? Trigger happy group, y’all!

[Foxyalter]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7168401]
Look, I am not saying they were right or that you don’t have the right to be angry (I’d be angry!) I am prompting you to think about whether you can prove what you’d need to to succeed if you decided to sue. Breach of contract doesn’t usually equal “I get paid for everything I am out of pocket for” and causation is going to be a big hurdle, potentially. Being able to prove breach is not the beginning and end of the analysis. It is one of several elements. This is just something you should evaluate and maybe discuss with your vet/sister-in-law before deciding what to do. Just because someone does something “wrong” and there are consequences doesn’t mean it’s always worthwhile to sue. I question, from the facts you’ve shared, whether that will be worth your while. These facts alone give them a lot of ground/arguments against you. If they get an attorney, I am sure that attorney will have other fodder as well.[/QUOTE]

Not looking to sue, just to have the vet bills paid and be done with it. Leasee has agreed to pay the vet bills and verbally told vet that she would so we will have to see what happens. Just frustrating to see that they just bought a new expensive horse but sent my horse back in this condition.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;7168419]
I believe the breach of contract here is the part where they are supposed to return the horse in the same condition it left in and it was returned lacking basic medical care for a condition that was treatable.[/QUOTE]

Hope she has a vet report evaluating the horse the day it went on the trailer!

Again, proving breach is not the end of the analysis!

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Foxyalter;7168422]
Not looking to sue, just to have the vet bills paid and be done with it. Leasee has agreed to pay the vet bills and verbally told vet that she would so we will have to see what happens. Just frustrating to see that they just bought a new expensive horse but sent my horse back in this condition.[/QUOTE]

That sounds like a really fair outcome and I hope that pans out for you (i.e. that they follow through and do pay).

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7168421]
(though for all the OP knows they ordered the supplement under a different name and did feed him [/QUOTE]

This does not meet the lease either if it was stated that the horse had to stay on that supplement to stay actively enrolled in the colic care program.

BTW - you can not be enrolled in the colic care program if your horse has a history of colic so they might have just ruined the OP’s ability to partake in that program.

[Foxyalter]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7168425]
That sounds like a really fair outcome and I hope that pans out for you (i.e. that they follow through and do pay).[/QUOTE]

I really hope they do pay and yes the contract was breached in several areas.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Foxyalter;7168434]
I really hope they do pay and yes the contract was breached in several areas.[/QUOTE]

I would be just as angry as you sound under the situation. They didn’t do right by you or the horse. Luckily it sounds like it’s all reversible/treatable now. And they’re agreeing to pay the costs of the vet bills, which is a help too.

[FalseImpression]

Have not read more than the first few responses… “chalk it up to lesson learned!!” The leasor will learn a lesson, but the leasee? she will go right back and do it again if nobody takes a stand and pursues this.

SORRY is not good enough. Yes, OP, it will probably cost you money, but I would NOT let it go! She has to learn the lesson too.

Geez. It’s just too darn easy for people to not respect a written contract, knowing people will not follow through!

I hope your horse recovers quickly!

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;7168430]
This does not meet the lease either if it was stated that the horse had to stay on that supplement to stay actively enrolled in the colic care program.

BTW - you can not be enrolled in the colic care program if your horse has a history of colic so they might have just ruined the OP’s ability to partake in that program.[/QUOTE]

Again, she will have to prove that their care caused the colic. That’s going to be difficult. It happened not during their care but 4 days after the returned to the OP. I can name about 15 potential intervening causes… not to mention… I am not sure any vet will swear under oath that failing to give SmartDigest causes colic or that it caused this colic.

You’re very focused on the breach (all the people saying “sue, sue!” are focused on that). That’s one element of the breach of contract claim, typically. The party bringing the claim has to prove ALL the elements. Proving one element slam dunk style doesn’t get you out of the rest. Causation for the damages sounds like the tough element here.

[Foxyalter]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;7168430]
This does not meet the lease either if it was stated that the horse had to stay on that supplement to stay actively enrolled in the colic care program.

BTW - you can not be enrolled in the colic care program if your horse has a history of colic so they might have just ruined the OP’s ability to partake in that program.[/QUOTE]

Just wanted to say for the record that he was enrolled in the colic care program, did not have a history of colic or ever had colic surgery. He is a very finiky drinker as leasee was told, i.e. when shipping, wont drink out of dirty buckets, etc… like any good horseperson I have banamine on hand if he starts acting out of sorts…

Also, regarding “leg crud” this is not just some fungus, its open oozing sores, some the size of half dollars and two on coronary bands. And one leg has secondary infection due to this and horse is on antibiotics. I want this to remain anonymous but if I posted a link to the video of the horse’s legs when he returned you would be shocked. Again, can’t prove colic was caused by anything but staying up all night with a colicing horse is just the icing on the cake

[fourmares]

Vxf111 - I think you are confusing breach of contract and negligence. In this instance the leasor clearly breached the contract in a variety of ways. I think the summer sores are a slam dunk… the colic bill might be harder to prove is related to not getting the suppliment, but adding in the weight loss, the possible pain from the open sores, the move, etc. it sounds like a receipe for colic.

[vxf111]

OP hasn’t stated what state law applies but in the jurisdictions I am familiar with, you must prove a contract existed, a breach of essential terms, and damages caused by the breach. The issue of causation goes to damages. Unless there’s a liquidated damages clause in the contract, the damages are going to be those that flowed or could reasonably be expected to flow from the breach. And that is where causation becomes a factor under the facts as stated on this thread. There was no lease fee (free lease) and I am assuming no damages provision in the contract or else the OP would have mentioned that. If she wanted a moral victory/nominal damages-- that’d be one thing. But she is the one who said she was hoping to get the vet bills paid (post #22). Getting the vet bills paid means proving those are reasonable contractual damages and that’s going to require some showing that the breach caused the vet bills.