Ok let’s analyze another situation. Frank has kids that ride. Frank has money and decides to buy a 30 stall barn. Frank does not ride or train. He hires a trainer to work at the barn teaching and has her sign a non compete. He tells trainer Sally that she can hire an asssistant trainer. Frank gives assistant trainer Jessie new clients and encourages her to build her business… Jessie declares herself to be a trainer equal to original trainer. Conditions are not conducive to pleasant working environment. Sally decides to leave. Her name is on several leases for ponies that she has arranged since she got to barn but before Jessie became her competitor. Can she take those clients? Without a trainer, Frank owns a simple boarding business. He changed terms of trainer contract when he told Jessie to do what she wants where training is concerned. Sally has the right to make a living. What do you think?
No idea, be interesting to read the responses. In my long time barn, which was an upper level show barn, this never came up, horses were leased directly to clients, usually through trainer agents, usually with trainer and location clauses. Trainer was barn owner. Never came up.
Incidentaly, the best of the former assistants, who learned how to manage an upper level show barn and road string, all sat out the year more then 50 miles away working as an assistant elsewhere or leased a facility. Two returned to the area. They are all still in business still benefitting from the many contacts they developed under the first trainer.
Recently learned there was a non disclosure clause as well…and that, IMO is a very prudent thing to ask all employees to sign, nobody outside the princples needs to know financial details of their private sales and leases or status of their barn and show bills.
Have a co worker who’s adult child works as a contract rider for a racing BNT, they all sign a non disclosure, no idea about a non compete, different business model… Come to think of it, I signed a non disclosure with my current non horsey employer.
If Sally brought in the lease horses from somewhere else, than I see no reason she couldn’t take them. If I am understanding correctly other people own the horses, leased them to Sally for her business at Frank’s farm. If Sally is leasing the horses from Frank, I think it would be best to just cut all ties if she’s leaving, leases included.
As a client, I still think non-compete clauses would cast a bad light on the person wanting one. Clients can’t be stolen or taken. Even if it’s a mistake on the clients part where the new situation isn’t working, it was still their choice. If a program is THAT worried about trainers leaving and clients following, instead of spending time and energy on non-compete clauses, they should reflect on their program. Or realize their program isn’t for everyone at all times.
Someone up thread mentioned clients were happy at the barn until a trainer left and all of a sudden became unhappy. I can say, for me, when I have left barns due to being unhappy with training and how things are run, or the barn culture, the BOs and head trainers never knew it. I kept my mouth shut, politely and professionally gave my notice, showed no emotion when accusations were made and promptly moved my horse. Smart clients can sniff out the possibility of that behavior. If there is a possibility for that kind of behavior, they will never know I’m unhappy until they get my notice.
In my hypothetical situation, the lease horses came in for students of Sally with the understanding that Sally would make training and care decisions.
So Sally found the horses and her name is on the paperwork? If so Frank has zero control over the lease horses.
That is what I believe. One does not choose a barn for the services of a non riding/training Frank. One chooses a barn for a trainer who can ride and train. And owners entering lease agreements typically put a trainer’s name down. I know I did.
It’s not that black and white as a horse owner. Something tells me this isn’t exactly a hypothetical.
Not totally a hypothetical-I changed some details but premise is the same. Is a non compete binding if barn owner has no expertise and changes terms of training situation? To me, the barn owner’s business is simply boarding.
No idea. I have never been asked to sign one.
I’d go to the owners of these leased horses and confirm their intent was for the horse to stay in the training & care of Sally’s Training Service, not Franks Boarding Biz. If those were one-and-the-same when lease contracts were signed, then lessees & lessors need to update and initial the contract to clarify their intentions.
This assumes your riding clients are on board and want to stay with you, and all you need is the contract updated to reflect the current situation.
Or, the flap side of the flip, the clients aren’t on board and you are trying to strong-arm them with their lease contracts.
That is what I would do too. When I leased out a pony, she moved two or three times during the lease. The trainer always called me to make sure it was ok. I never even knew the barn owner’s name. The lease stated that the pony was going to be in the training of this person and had the barn’s address but never the barn owner’s name.
In my old Trainer owned show barn, clients sometimes left taking outside owned leased horses with them. Don’t recall any dust ups over that part of their leaving, the leases were between horse owner and client, they did have to advise horse owner the leased horse was moving to another trainer, get permission and modify the lease terms. Don’t recall any owners nixing the move or Trainer/BO throwing any fits over that. Maybe didn’t throw them a going away party…but no interference with leases between about to be ex clients and outside horses they leased.
When boarding in non trainer owned barns with trainers leasing stalls, never saw any BOs butting into lease arrangements. You might be involved with a crazy, Limerick. Mean if Frank owned those horses and signed the lease? He’d have a case. But he doesn’t own the horses, didn’t sign the lease and it’s none of his business.
It all depends on the what business arrangement is set up. Many trainers run their own businesses and lease out a facility. If a trainer leases a facility from a BO, then there can’t be a noncompete because trainer is not an employee but a tenant of the BO. Then you have some places where a trainer is brought in as an employee. That’s where a noncompete could come into play. Where I am there is 1 large lesson barn where after trainers came in, stayed for a year or two, left with most of the boarders they instituted a non-compete clause for any incoming trainer. I believe now they have pretty much revised their lesson program with less emphasis on going to rated shows - those who are interested in that can move along to another facility. I think their noncompete was 25 mile radius / 1 year. I also know of a vet practice who also had noncompetes with similar 25 mi rad/1 yr.
I do understand the non competes done to protect the business from assistants leaving with all the clients. What I don’t understand is where is the protection for a trainer if Barn owner changes training terms. Back to Frank bringing in Jessie and then telling Jessie she does not need to be an assistant, she can get whatever clients she can. Where is protection for Sally and her clients when environment drastically changes because Jessie is now a rival?
@Limerick2017, Sally has no protection. She should have insisted on an “exclusivity” contract with Frank: that way, she is the only trainer and he cannot establish another business within – miles that would compete with her training. Without it, this scenario happens all the time.
BTW, non-compete contracts are not legal in California. Non-disclosure is a whole 'nuther thing and is completely different in nature.
Basically, there is no “protection” unless Sally has/had the foresight to negotiate it. Sad, but true.
Exactly. Sally should never have signed a non-compete agreement without also insisting on contract language that protected her interests, as well. Sally has just learned a painful lesson from the school of hard knocks.
I was asked to sign one AFTER I had left a barn. I refused and the owner/head trainer threatened to hold my paycheck until I signed it. This happened during an “exit interview”. I got up to leave the room and told said person that my attorney would be in contact. Trainer handed me my check. That was the end of it. I think it would be hard (and very expensive) to enforce, and I would never sign one myself. Doesn’t matter if it is in your “backyard” or 45 miles away…clients are going to leave when they want and train with who they want. If you are that worried about clients following another trainer, I think that is on you. Clients who want to stay with you will, and clients who dont will leave. Simple.
Who is actually paying the lease, Sally? Or is it the rider/parent? If the lease is in Sally’s name and she pays the lease fee, she has the right to take pony with her. If the lease is in rider/parent name and they pay the lease fee, then the pony stays with them. If the lease specifies that pony’s care decisions are to be made by Sally, but the lease is in rider/parent’s name, then rider/parent needs to contact pony’s owner and tell them Sally is no longer teaching at that facility. It is up to pony owner whether or not they want the pony to stay at current facility with new trainer or have it sent back to owner (at which point a new lease between Sally could be initiated). Unless Sally pays the lease fee and the lease is in her name, she can’t take the pony or demand that the people move the pony to her new barn if they do not want to leave their current facility.
It has always been in my lease contracts as lessee that I must inform the owner of any changes to the location of the horse and confirm that the move is okay. This is relatively common lease language that would be dictated in the terms of the lease. If owner doesn’t want horse with Frank, then it doesn’t go there. If owner prefers Frank, then that is okay, but the owner has to generally confirm that moving the horse is okay. Lessees don’t just load up the pony and move him wherever they want without letting the owner know.
