Lease contract ... is this part normal?

[Jheregvonmunch]

Ive leased horses before. 1 year. 1/3 all expenses the problem of lessee… standard wam bam thank you mam.

Well now I have one client doing a short lease to another for the board fee only. The owner wants a clause in the contract that states if the lessee injures the horse during the lease they have to pay the vet expenses. Fine. No problem there… but they also want a clause to say once the 4 months is over and the lease is ended if the horse is still off due to that injury they want the lessee to continue to pay the medical expenses. The owner has a 10K major medical insurance policy but Im still having a hard time allowing the clause to lock the lessee into still having to pay medical expenses months after the lease ends? I am trying to be neutral to both parties.

Thoughts anyone?

[SquishTheBunny]

Sorry, your post is worded a little funny its hard to understand exactly what the issue is?

Im assuming the issue is that leasee is required to pay medical bills to leaser PAST the end lease date.

If thats the case, then no…thats silly. Leasee should cover the 4 months of medical insurance (with possibility of increasing to 100% coverage) and must pay deductable within the lease time period. After the lease has ended, its ended.

[TheBarnRules]

[QUOTE=Jheregvonmunch;5520575]
…but they also want a clause to say once the 4 months is over and the lease is ended if the horse is still off due to that injury they want the lessee to continue to pay the medical expenses. [/QUOTE]

Why do you think this is not fair? If the lessee caused the injury, shouldn’t they pay for it in full? The lessor’s insurance policy is immaterial.

[Ajierene]

I have not seen that before but think it is pretty reasonable. If you injure my horse and hence I cannot ride it even though the lease is up, and now you want to stick me with the bill?

What if you injure the horse at month 3 and a half?

If the leasor is not asking for board, just additional medical expenses if the horse is still injured, that would not turn me off.

[nycjumper]

Um… no. If the leasee wanted to take on lifetime responsibility for medical care, I assume he/she would be buying.

Personally, if I were leasee, I wouldn’t sign on for that.

[sar2008]

I agree with the other posters. If leasee injures horse, they need to pay the vet bills and continue leasing horse until horse is 100% back in same condition it was brought to you in.

This is just standard ettiquette (sp?) IMO.

[sar2008]

[QUOTE=nycjumper;5520602]
Um… no. If the leasee wanted to take on lifetime responsibility for medical care, I assume he/she would be buying.

Personally, if I were leasee, I wouldn’t sign on for that.[/QUOTE]

Ummmmm, ok.

So if you leased a horse, horse pulled suspensory, lease ran up…you would expect to give the horse back to the owner and have them take over vet bills YOU caused??

Um…no.

[FrenchFrytheEqHorse]

@Jheregvonmunch;5520575

Ive leased horses before. 1 year. 1/3 all expenses the problem of lessee… standard wam bam thank you mam.

This is the part that confuses me. My horse is currently leased out for 1/3 of his approximate market value. But the person leasing him is responsible for 100% of the costs of his care and maintenance during that time, including major medical and mortality (with me as beneficiary) insurance costs.

I’ve never seen a lease that stipulates the lessee is responsible for 1/3 of all expenses. Perhaps I misread your first paragraph, but if that was indeed how you wrote it, that’s not a particularly standard lease either…

I think the trouble with a clause like this in any lease agreement is that it’s very difficult to prove that any one party CAUSED an injury. If the horse pulls a suspensory during the lease, and it happens in turnout, I wouldn’t really call that anyone’s fault. Even if the lessee were riding the horse while an injury happened, it’s going to be difficult to prove it’s anyone’s fault (did the horse spook? trip? hang a leg?). Aside from the lessee actually, like, stabbing the horse or beating it to a pulp, most common injuries are pretty much freak accidents…

[klmck63]

@sar2008;5520607

So if you leased a horse, horse pulled suspensory, lease ran up…you would expect to give the horse back to the owner and have them take over vet bills YOU caused??

As someone whose horse has been off since November… You know people with lame horses don’t do this stuff on purpose, right?

If the lessee hurts the horse on purpose… (well you shouldn’t let them lease your horse!) but sure, then they need to pay for the bills.

But standard injuries that happen to horses all the time no matter what kind of excellent care you take of them? No way, vet bills are over once the lease is over. And would you really want someone who has absolutely no investment in your horse, and only rode it for four months, responsible for all the vet bills? I guess it depends on how good your contract is, but if you as the owner decided you wanted some IRAP or tildren or shockwave done to help healing, I certainly wouldn’t be paying for that.

[TheBarnRules]

[QUOTE=FrenchFrytheEqHorse;5520623]
I’ve never seen a lease that stipulates the lessee is responsible for 1/3 of all expenses. Perhaps I misread your first paragraph, but if that was indeed how you wrote it, that’s not a particularly standard lease either…[/QUOTE]

I’ve written lease agreements where the lessee is paying only a portion of the horse’s expenses - usually comes up when the lessor wants to maintain some (okay, a LOT :lol:) of control.

[meupatdoes]

Yes it is fair to have the lessee continue to pay medical expenses until the condition that occurred during the lease is resolved.

Otherwise they could say, “Oh look, the lease is up tomorrow… hm, I have always wanted to try my hand at bull fighting,” get the horse gored in the stomach and then leave the owner with the bills because whoopsie the lease is up.

Obviously a dramatic example but you get the idea.

The clause also makes a lessee DEMONSTRATE commitment to the care of the horse and returning a sound one, instead of just paying lip service to the concept with plans to leave the owner high and dry if anything happens.

[alibi_18]

This is really complicated.

I agree it would be fair that if the leasee injured the horse, he should pay until the horse is healed. On the other hand,

What if the horse have then a lifelong issue requiring meds?
Or what if the horse develop a medical condition like asthma, after lets say getting a cold because not properly blanketed horse, while being under the leasee care? (could that be considered like an injury? or would that be taken care by the leasor?)

[sar2008]

[QUOTE=klmck63;5520641]
As someone whose horse has been off since November… You know people with lame horses don’t do this stuff on purpose, right?

If the lessee hurts the horse on purpose… (well you shouldn’t let them lease your horse!) but sure, then they need to pay for the bills.

But standard injuries that happen to horses all the time no matter what kind of excellent care you take of them? No way, vet bills are over once the lease is over. And would you really want someone who has absolutely no investment in your horse, and only rode it for four months, responsible for all the vet bills? I guess it depends on how good your contract is, but if you as the owner decided you wanted some IRAP or tildren or shockwave done to help healing, I certainly wouldn’t be paying for that.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I disagree. A suspensory is not a standard injury. At least not at my barn. An abscess, yes-fine but big injuries that can be prevented…no way.

STA: Obviously people don’t injure horses on purpose :rolleyes: but the leasee needs to take some sort of responsibility for the horse while in their care.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=sar2008;5520650]
Sorry, I disagree. A suspensory is not a standard injury. At least not at my barn. An abscess, yes-fine but big injuries that can be prevented…no way.

STA: Obviously people don’t injure horses on purpose :rolleyes: but the leasee needs to take some sort of responsibility for the horse while in their care.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

Obviously leasing is an alternative to life long horse ownership and provides many people the opportunity to ride a horse of a quality level they could never afford otherwise, but this does not mean it is a “use the horse as you like but get out of jail free whenever you like” situation either.

Too many lessees act like they are doing the owner a huge favor when really if they had to come up with a horse of similar quality on their own budget or as a result of their own training skills it would be completely out of the question.

So take some resonsibility for it while it is in your care custody and control.

[klmck63]

[QUOTE=sar2008;5520650]
Sorry, I disagree. A suspensory is not a standard injury. At least not at my barn. An abscess, yes-fine but big injuries that can be prevented…no way.[/QUOTE]

A suspensory is a preventable injury? Nope. Horse gets silly in turnout, horse trips while you’re walking around cooling it out after a ride, horse spooks and bolts, etc. etc.

Anyways, to the OP I would never sign up for a lease that held me accountable for vet costs after the lease was done. If someone else had been riding my horse when he hurt himself (and as a matter of fact we can’t actually tell when my horse hurt himself) I would not be holding them accountable for last five months of treatment and vet visits, contract or not. As an example, he has had three issues, all semi-related to the first issue. Thousands of dollars of vet bills. Would the lessee have to pay for all of those, too?

@meupatdoes;5520645

Otherwise they could say, “Oh look, the lease is up tomorrow… hm, I have always wanted to try my hand at bull fighting,” get the horse gored in the stomach and then leave the owner with the bills because whoopsie the lease is up.

This is silly. Anyone I would trust to lease/ride my horse I could trust not to do something stupid like that.

[nycjumper]

Horses injure themselves all the time in freak accidents despite responsible care.

If leasee causes injury to horse due to gross negligence, then yes, leasee has responsibility to cure that damage financially. If horse injures himself through circumstances outside of leasee’s control, than no, not standard to say leasee will hold the financial responsibility forever.

I’m a little unclear as to which circumstance the OP was refering to when stating “if lessee injures horse…” Does that mean through gross negligence/neglect? Then yes, of course, wouldn’t disagree. However if the latter, and it is an accidental injury while horse is in leasee’s care - then no, it’s not standard in the contracts I’ve seen and again, I wouldn’t personally sign on for that.

And regarding horse care - every lease contract I’ve seen or signed had a clause in there about leasee being responsible for maintaining certain level of care and any violation of that was grounds for termination of lease.

[klmck63]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;5520671]

So take some resonsibility for it while it is in your care custody and control.[/QUOTE]

They do… By paying the vet bills and other expenses while the horse is in their care custody and control. Not afterwards.

[Jaideux]

Only responsible for medical bills while the horse is in the leasee’s care. That’s part of the risk of leasing out, and part of the benefit of leasing.

You have to figure out if you’re comfortable with that level of risk, on both ends.

Most standard leases say the leasee can be held responsible for gross negligence. What that means I suppose is up to the individual contract, but no one is suggesting the leasee can get off scot-free for being an asshat. They are only responsible for the costs of the horse during the lease that fall under the lease agreement (shoes, vet, insurance, etc).

That’s also why, usually, the leasee is paying INTO the insurance while they have the horse- to cover events like this in the event the horse is returned unusable out of gross negligence or an accident in the pasture.

[kristinq]

[QUOTE=nycjumper;5520676]
Horses injure themselves all the time in freak accidents despite responsible care.

If leasee causes injury to horse due to gross negligence, then yes, leasee has responsibility to cure that damage financially. If horse injures himself through circumstances outside of leasee’s control, than no, not standard to say leasee will hold the financial responsibility forever.

I’m a little unclear as to which circumstance the OP was refering to when stating “if lessee injures horse…” Does that mean through gross negligence/neglect? Then yes, of course, wouldn’t disagree. However if the latter, and it is an accidental injury while horse is in leasee’s care - then no, it’s not standard in the contracts I’ve seen and again, I wouldn’t personally sign on for that.

And regarding horse care - every lease contract I’ve seen or signed had a clause in there about leasee being responsible for maintaining certain level of care and any violation of that was grounds for termination of lease.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

In order to reduce confusion, there needs to be a distinction as to whether the injury was caused by gross negligence or by conditions which are outside of the leasee’s control. If the leasee is responsible for the injury then they should also be responsible for paying those specific bills even after the contract is up. However, if the horse gets hurt and it is not the leasee’s fault then they should not be held responsible for those bills.

Of course, there might be problems with determining who is at fault.

[sar2008]

I guess I have never had issues because I require my leasee’s to carry INSURANCE. Which covers injuries so they don’t end up paying anything, except the deductable, out of pocket. When someone else is paying for it, people don’t tend to gripe as much.

But then again, you all that think giving back a lame horse is okay probably hoot and holler about paying insurance as well. flame suit on