Yes, but not for six weeks. Of course with 20/20 hindsight, you should never let a horse leave without money in hand and a signed lease. I probably would have taken the horse back after the first show if they hadn’t coughed up the lease agreement and the cash.
2 Likes
I am not a lawyer but: You have a signed contract and the money, which puts you at a huge advantage. It is hard to imagine what sort of legal grounds they would have for suing you–or where they could possibly claim $15,000 in losses. Maybe if they hadn’t vetted the horse, they could allege some sort of fraud. But their own vet documented soundness problems, they used the horse for six weeks, and they decided to proceed anyway. I would think that, plus as-is contract language, really limits their options.
I would find a lawyer you can employ when and if they sue. People are not always rational about these things. But if they’re really this worked up about $2,500, it’s hard to imagine they want to spend a bunch more on a lawyer.
6 Likes
Obviously you can’t go back and change anything that is already been done, but I couple of things I would have done differently.
- Horse does not leave my hands without a signed lease. (You stated they had the horse for 6 weeks before you even got that back.)
- What does your contract say? Does it say they get a refund if they return the horse before the 4 months is up? You need to spell EVERYTHING out in the contract. If you did not specifically say, then they probably will be entitled to a refund of the time they did not use. But they would not be reimbursed any of their money for vet fees, as I assume the lease said they are responsible for all vet bills while horse is in their care.
- I would “bill them” for you coming to pick up the horse, since they were supposed to bring the horse back.
- I call BS on the pre-existing claim. They chose not to do x-rays until later. And lease states “as is”. They do not get their money back … except maybe for the unused 1 1/2 months on the lease if your lease did not spell out what happens if they return the horse early.
But yes, get a lawyer. And do things differently next time.
2 Likes
How would I have handled it??? NEVER LEFT HORSE WITH “SOMETHING” SIGNED AND A DEPOSIT THEN GONE AND PICKED UP HORSE AFTER 1 WEEK OF NON PAYMENT. Oh and never let someone else give my horse banamine if I was not sure they needed it…you did not write in your original post that vet recommended a short term banamine trial. 
I would absolutely consult with a lawyer and have lawyer send a strongly worded letter to tell them to back TF off.
They had a PPE done. It was their choice to continue to lease the horse and show the horse with their PPE findings. You have no idea what they did with the horse while it was in their care. They could have ridden the snot out of it 3x per day for all you know. IME lease contracts should always contain a “Returned in same condition” clause, that spells out what happens if horse is returned broken or less sound than received.
No refund. Bye Felicia.
8 Likes
What everyone else said, plus, they never purchased insurance for the horse, which they were to do as part of the contract. Did you have insurance on the horse? If so, I would think that any money that they may feel they are owed for returning the horse early could be seen as being used to cover the insurance that they failed to purchase themselves.
2 Likes
Let me see if I understand.
- You were fully expecting this deal to fall through, so any money coming in was unepected bonus
- However, they took the horse
- Injected it ($$)
- Took it to shows and won everything and improved/maintained its resume at no expense to you
- There are now 1.5 months left on the lease out of 4 original months, so basically 2 weeks shy of half the lease is left
- You trailered the horse home from a show you were at anyway so no extra expense to you
- Horse is now in your possession and there is no indication he is any the worse for wear
…and for some reason you can’t just do be a reasonable business person to deal with and give them half their money back and call it even?
…???
I mean, clearly they are pains in the ass and they are not 100% right, but you can end this whole “nasty lease dispute” without becoming an a$$ yourself by just splitting the difference and getting over it.
1 Like
Mine in bold.
The OP is not being an ass at all.
The OP was supposed to make 6k for 4 months.
Now, with your logic, the OP should only get 2.5k… and be happy with it.
I’m sorry but I wouldn’t be happy losing 3.5k on this deal.
26 Likes
A lot of the advice here falls into the “Hindsight is 20/20” category. I just wanted to say that you were EXTREMELY trusting and patent with the leasers. And they took advantage of that. Hopefully, they will back off when they see you aren’t easy to intimidate. The best advice you got here, IMHO, was to wait it out and see what they do. And only have a lawyer reply to them.
Hopefully, it all works out for you!
2 Likes
Whatever you do do, I would get a complete and thorough examination of your horse,for his sake.
And Meup, I suspect that the lessors may be Professional A$$es. They or their trainer probably have a lot of practice.
14 Likes
I agree with this.
I do not see the OP acting inappropriately at all here. The OP has every right to make money off the lease of a nice show horse that can clearly go out and win.
9 Likes
None of the following should be construed as legal advice and OP should seek legal counsel for appropriate advice:
There are two sides to every story. In this case there is a third side - the horse’s.
Horse is 12, jumping 3’6" and has never had maintenance. Maintenance is there to prevent issues. Once you have an issue, you are not providing maintenance - you are in repair mode, and you switch from management to medicating/repair. I don’t know that most people truly “get” that. Now horse is flexing lame, so he is in repair mode. Legend and Adequan are nice intermediate forms of maintenance for those who don’t love steroidal joint injections. Perhaps horse was getting some form of maintenance and it’s a matter of semantics over what maintenance truly means. Is horse really getting absolutely no maintenance?
It could be entirely possible that horse was fine at home and not fine at lessee’s barn - footing plays a huge role in soundness - perhaps their footing was a bit harder. Perhaps the turnout schedule was different. So many variables at play here. Horse seems fine now that it’s back so I would think this has something to do with it, and would not necessarily immediately assume lessee was lying given the flexion results and the fact that the initial vet told them to pass. Regardless of who erred, the horse does seem to have an issue.
Everyone agreed horses needed specific injections, yet they were not all given. This I do not understand. Who was advocating for the horse? The lessee and the owner are both at fault here. Did the lessee come back and re-negotiate this, or was the owner simply passive and let them do what they wanted rather than what was outlined in the agreement (was there actually an agreement or was this all just “let’s try this and see if it helps” chit chat? That is also not very clear.
Lessee knew upfront that horse had issues but proceeded with lease and provided some veterinary care, to what extent it is not clear. Lessee has some culpability.
Owner knew horse had issues from PPE results and continued to let horse limp along with lessee and let lessee foot the bill for all care needed to get horse sound, which was apparently never achieved. Owner was okay with trying banamine to help lameness issue. Was full workup ever done to truly determine root cause? Are there radiographs to confirm diagnosis? Doesn’t seem like that is the case. Owner has some culpability.
If it’s in writing (in email, etc…) that the vet advised the lessee to pass on this horse, I would think that would be helpful to the OP in court, as it shows that they were aware of the issue upfront but still proceeded with the lease anyway, but this is not to be construed as legal advice.
I’m sure it’s scary to be threatened with legal action. There are a lot of details in the initial post and if they were factual and I was the lessee and came across this thread, I would be using the statement about confirmed lack of maintenance in my defense. Horse was overdue for some support and it was only a matter of time and situation before a problem presented.
This was an “as-is” lease, but what is the language around early termination? That would also be important to know.
I would love to hear the other side of the story because somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
I also wonder what the horse has to say about all of this? One thing is for certain - if we all truly put our horse first, we wouldn’t find ourselves in situations like these.
You have a valid, legally binding contract, which the person leasing the horse violated. Contract stated that horse was being leased in “as in condition”. They chose to terminate the lease early. I’m not an attorney, but I work with lease contracts professionally everyday. Legally, it appears that they don’t have grounds to sue you, although anyone can threaten to file a lawsuit with or without grounds. I would not respond to them further unless you receive a demand letter from an attorney representing them, in which case you need to hire an attorney. I would, however,
have your horse checked out by your vet for lameness, Your horse might be lame especially after being shown fairly heavily.
4 Likes
I’m going to totally derail the thread by asking this:
Do you give yourself maintenance steroid injections into your knees, to prevent yourself from having knee problems in the future?
If you don’t, why not?
20 Likes
Not at all inappropriate? She allows the horse to leave with no signed contract or funds. To me, that’s inappropriate.
Let’s be clear: “Maintenance” is an industry-wide euphemism for treatment of problems (usually arthritis related, but it could mean other things, I suppose) for a mild lameness whose cause has no cure.
You know that, I know that. I think just about everyone knows that. Also, most people know what steroids do in joints. That said, I don’t think human knees = lower joints of the hocks, and distal hock joints are not the same as coffin joints in terms of when and why anyone would inject them.
1 Like
I have seen no evidence published anywhere that adequan, legand and injections prevent problems. I’ve used Adequan in the past for horses that developed the need for it, and have had hocks injected. But not before they need it. Even with my 20 year old OTTB, my vet sees no need for injections until, well, he needs them.
How to you prevent problems? You keep your horses fit, you don’t overwork them, you provide plenty of turnout, keep their feet balanced, watch your footing and ride them properly so that they use their bodies effectively. Then you cross your fingers, do the special soundness dance, and hope for the best.
That’s not to say that the OP’s horse might not benefit from some medical treatment, but if the horse was sound and doing his job until now, there’s no need for it. If it was possible to prevent joint problems, that treatment would be in use for humans everywhere.
https://www.doctorramey.com/why-is-t…nd-for-people/
https://www.doctorramey.com/psgag-adequan/
https://www.doctorramey.com/intravenous-hyaluronan-legend/
11 Likes
My comment was in response to the statements made by meupatdoes. I was saying the OP was not inappropriate for expecting to make money off a nice lease horse that won for these people at a show.
I do agree that the OP should have gotten money and a signed lease up front.
Sorry, but that isn’t how the law works. It just isn’t. Anyone can not just “threaten” to file a lawsuit, they CAN ACTUALLY file a lawsuit and then it is up to a judge to determine if there are grounds for it to proceed or not. Especially in sue-happy United States. Whether or no ta judge ultimately throws out a lawsuit, the defendant is going to have to appear, with legal representation or not, and make a motion to dismiss (I’m simplifying legal process here, there are other ways for a lawsuit to “go away”, of course). You can have a signed liability waiver, an executed contract, etc but that doesn’t stop a lawsuit from being filed if someone wants to. Those signed documents are then entered as evidence and a judge determines intent of the parties.
A lot of lay people seem to believe that a signed document removes the possibility of a court dispute, but that is untrue. Most superior court cases and a lot of small claims court cases have at their basis some kind of signed document that the parties are then disputing the meaning of, or their understanding of.
The OP has not clarified if the contract in question stipulated a) who was responsible for vet bills during the lease; b) what was to occur if the horse went lame during the lease; and c) if there was any provision for return of funds if the lease term could not be completed due to lameness of the horse. Vagueness in a contract’s terms favours the person who signed the contract, not the person who wrote it. Assuming OP drafted the contract (which is the usual course of things, usually the lessee would) any vagueness could be interpreted by a judge in favour of the lessor.
I can make no comment on any potential success or failure of a court case as I have not seen the lease to know what terms it contains or does not contain, but I think some people here are being unrealistic as to what they think is fair or “should” happen and not what might actually happen.
This is why I can tell horse people until they are blue in the face to get a lawyer BEFORE you have problems, to draft contracts and give you advice, and not come running AFTER a big legal mess has been made. Most judges are NOT horse people and don’t understand the intricacies of the industry, and are going to treat this is as a contract dispute and nothing more.
I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice as I have not met or spoken directly to the OP or any person in this case and have not been retained
4 Likes
The above bares repeating.
