She says more if you want to check it out on Facebook.
[QUOTE=Zanny;7023040]
from Rate My Horse PRO FB page âBarbara Dildabanian- I do want to say that the single most important point is simple⊠In the pre-purchase exam report it was not disclosed that there was any evidence of prior laminitis or rotation. Since finding out( from our ex trainers best friend) that this pony suffered from laminitis , it was then and only then we looked at all the pre purchase reports, radiographs and vet history of the year and realized that the initial radiographs showed rotation in both feet. Four independent vets CONFIRMED this finding from the initial X-rays taken.â[/QUOTE]
So she never looked at any of the vet info before plunking down $125,000? Phrases like âdue diligenceâ, âcaveat emptorâ etc. are popping into my mind.
and can someone confirm that âJoeyâ and âSportyâ are the same? I definitely got a little confused when I saw Mrs. D talking about their pony JoeyâŠ
Posted by Janeway:
So she never looked at any of the vet info before plunking down $125,000? Phrases like âdue diligenceâ, âcaveat emptorâ etc. are popping into my mind.
âfull disclosureâ pops into mine ⊠paid professionals are being paid to do a job ⊠the client isnât a vet, so of course they arenât going to be able to read x-rays like a âproâ :uhoh:
Joey and Sporty are the same, itâs in the complaint. Joey barn name Sporty (something) the show name. Ditto for the sheâs not a vet and hired professionals-thatâs her trying to protect herself. Yes, complaint is a tough read.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7022977]
And in Heritageâs defense⊠the complaint ainât a model of clarity and if itâs intended to have a breach of fiduciary duty count, itâs not styled expressly.[/QUOTE]
âStyledâ or âstatedâ?
You mean that the complaint (in order to take advantage of existing NY State law and work for the plaintiff) should have specified that Heritage breached their fiduciary duty? As in, the complaint may have meant to say that but didnât actually?
That might be a big deal since whether or not they were an agent is in question (I think they were and itâs clear), and just what the horse-buying agentâs duties are might be in question. I imagine there is case law that helps define these obligations.
But first you have a contract that establishes Heritage Farmsâ role and then specify the obligations of an agent, right? You canât make no reference to statutes and argue that âHeritage screwed over their client in a general way,â right?
[QUOTE=asterix;7023046]
Having just done several PPEs with a two different reputable sport horse vets - I absolutely expect a disc with the X-rays, at no charge, from the vet if I buy the horse in question. This is standard practice with the vets I use. Itâs part of the package, and of course I want them - down the road, any issue the horse has may benefit from a review of these films ( and last time I sold a horse, I provided the. 5 year old PPE X-rays to the buyer for review as part of HER PPE). Last horse I bought was in a different state - unlikely to go back for a lameness workup in 3 years, will simply bring disc to my regular vet.
Having trouble imagining why it is hard to believe a client would want the films.[/QUOTE]
I second this and itâs worth saying.
Damn straight the client as a legitimate use for radiographs of their horse.
[QUOTE=Janeway;7023201]
So she never looked at any of the vet info before plunking down $125,000? Phrases like âdue diligenceâ, âcaveat emptorâ etc. are popping into my mind. [/QUOTE]
Read Dildabanianâs FB post again. Itâs confusing, but she mentions a âpre-purchase exam reportâ that does ânot disclose that there was any evidence of prior laminitis or rotation.â
Later, events prompt her to look at âall the pre-purchase reports (and other vet stuff on the ponyâ.
Itâs not clear what those are. If they had belonged to the seller, those werenât necessarily available to the buyer. As badly written as that history is, it might not indicate that Dildabanian didnât read what she should have before buying the pony.
[QUOTE=Zanny;7023232]
Joey and Sporty are the same, itâs in the complaint. Joey barn name Sporty (something) the show name. Ditto for the sheâs not a vet and hired professionals-thatâs her trying to protect herself. Yes, complaint is a tough read.[/QUOTE]
Just wanted to clarify, âSportstalkâ is known in the barn as Joey. âSportserâ, a medium pony leased by Dildabanians last year, is known as Sporty. Two completely different animals.
Where is Joey now?
I saw them at Old Salem training with Timmy Keys. Not sure if the pony is boarding with them but I think so.
[QUOTE=mvp;7023253]
âStyledâ or âstatedâ?
You mean that the complaint (in order to take advantage of existing NY State law and work for the plaintiff) should have specified that Heritage breached their fiduciary duty? As in, the complaint may have meant to say that but didnât actually?
That might be a big deal since whether or not they were an agent is in question (I think they were and itâs clear), and just what the horse-buying agentâs duties are might be in question. I imagine there is case law that helps define these obligations.
But first you have a contract that establishes Heritage Farmsâ role and then specify the obligations of an agent, right? You canât make no reference to statutes and argue that âHeritage screwed over their client in a general way,â right?[/QUOTE]
I mean styled. There might be a breach of fiduciary duty claim inartfully pled in there but there is no specific count for breach of fiduciary duty.
And yes, you have to have a special relationship to give rise to a fiduciary duty. That relationship need not be based in contract though it may be. I am not knowledgeable about NY law on this issue. Duties can arive via contract but in many instances they can arise even in the absence of a contract.
[QUOTE=Piggiejump;7023263]
Just wanted to clarify, âSportstalkâ is known in the barn as Joey. âSportserâ, a medium pony leased by Dildabanians last year, is known as Sporty. Two completely different animals.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for clarifying.
[QUOTE=chunky munky;7017502]
@ Martha, likely you donât know about Jimmyâs tack, as it is not commercial or sold at many tack shops. Its kind of the high end. Quality of leather and workmanship will last you about 50 years if you take care of it. So the cost is not significant when you add up the years it will serve you.[/QUOTE]
But wonât it be too thick or too thin or too dark or too light next year and have to be replaced? 
[QUOTE=vxf111;7022538]
I know the complaint and motion arenât really easy to read (they truly arenât). But a lot of questions on this thread might be answered by: trying to read them; and/or reading some of the posts where people who have read them try to summarize the allegations and responses.[/QUOTE]
So put me down for not understanding and then donât get it yourself. High five.
Please someone explain why this case is not against the vet. The horse was sold
âas isâ. It seems a lot of info is based on what the vet knew but wasnât released. Surely thatâs on the vet, if they are paying, they are the client.
[QUOTE=AlexS;7024508]
So put me down for not understanding and then donât get it yourself. High five.
Please someone explain why this case is not against the vet. The horse was sold
âas isâ. It seems a lot of info is based on what the vet knew but wasnât released. Surely thatâs on the vet, if they are paying, they are the client.[/QUOTE]
The complaint is against the vet, as well as Heritage Farm and Patricia Griffith, Heritageâs pony trainer, for representing the pony as sound and suitable as an investment purchase. The complaint doesnât name the actual seller as a defendant, perhaps because of the âas isâ clause, perhaps as an oversight.
I doubt itâs an oversight. Maybe they donât have a case against the seller. Maybe theyâre hoping the defendants will bring in the seller through an impleader. Thatâs why I hated civil work. These pleadings are almost always repetitive, cumbersome and hard to read.
Let me start by saying I do not ride at Heritage and have never ridden or plan to ride at Heritage. That said Kit Miller has been my primary vet for over 12 years. In that time I have vetted a minimum of 12 horses for my family. Every time after the vetting is finished regardless of buying the horse or not a folder arrives at my house with complete vet findings during the exam. I find it hard to believe Kit would ever not send one to a buyer. As I believe, he like most vets, sends a written account so it is recorded for legal purposes. For what itâs worth I find that Kit has always been 100% honest and trustworthy. I think he is very tough when he vets a horse. He is extremely talented and up to date at maintaining show horses and keeping them sound and healthy. I canât imagine him passing a horse with rotations as he has failed horses for me with a lot less. As I said FWIW.
[QUOTE=majanick;7024691]
Let me start by saying I do not ride at Heritage and have never ridden or plan to ride at Heritage. That said Kit Miller has been my primary vet for over 12 years. In that time I have vetted a minimum of 12 horses for my family. Every time after the vetting is finished regardless of buying the horse or not a folder arrives at my house with complete vet findings during the exam. I find it hard to believe Kit would ever not send one to a buyer. As I believe, he like most vets, sends a written account so it is recorded for legal purposes. For what itâs worth I find that Kit has always been 100% honest and trustworthy. I think he is very tough when he vets a horse. He is extremely talented and up to date at maintaining show horses and keeping them sound and healthy. I canât imagine him passing a horse with rotations as he has failed horses for me with a lot less. As I said FWIW.[/QUOTE]
Not saying this is at all what happened but just a possibility of factors that could be involved here:
- as far as Dr. Miller knows, Heritage was the buyer
- the results were sent straight to Heritage
- Heritage scheduled the PPE, so Miller reported the findings to him
- Dr. Miller MAY have told Heritage, but they chose to cover it up
- Heritage could possibly have another vet involved in this who said âoh yeah, we can cover that up, donât lose this commissionâ
- Dr. Miller gets a LOT of clients from Heritage, and wanted to keep them happy⊠Sometimes even smart, honest people make a stupid decision when a lot of money is looking them in the face
As I said, I have NO idea what happened. I think they are suing Dr. Miller to cover all the bases, so to speak. I think that Heritage used Miller, and so the findings were reported to Heritage. Ms. Tichner must have had the x-rays given to her eventually because she cited that 4 other vets confirmed rotation. Heritage may have delivered some of the findings - as in, they withheld the written report or parts of it and gave some of the PPE to Tichner, so she had the x-rays but had no way to tell if they were good or not. No idea though. Just a possibility.
[QUOTE=AlexS;7024508]
So put me down for not understanding and then donât get it yourself. High five.
Please someone explain why this case is not against the vet. The horse was sold
âas isâ. It seems a lot of info is based on what the vet knew but wasnât released. Surely thatâs on the vet, if they are paying, they are the client.[/QUOTE]
I actually âget itâ just fine, thanks. And I have been trying to explain the allegations here. If you go back and read my explanations, it might shed a little light on what the complaint/motion say and/or are trying to say. I will admit theyâre not well written. But posters are asking questions that ARE pretty clearly answered in the complaint/motion if you make the effort to read and try to understand them.
You asked âwhy isnât the complaint against the vet.â I suggested trying to read the complaint. Because, if you look at the caption and the parties, one of the defendants IS the vet. So that answers your question âwhy didnât they sue the vet.â They DID.
If youâre asking why didnât they ONLY sue the vet, thatâs a different question. Again, trying to read the complaint would help. The complaint asserts (and not clearly, I grant you) that Heritage made representations about the suitability/soundness of the pony that the plaintiff believes Heritage knew to be untrue at the time. So the plaintiff believes Heritage is also at fault.
[QUOTE=lrp1106;7024743]
Not saying this is at all what happened but just a possibility of factors that could be involved here:
- as far as Dr. Miller knows, Heritage was the buyer
- the results were sent straight to Heritage
- Heritage scheduled the PPE, so Miller reported the findings to him
- Dr. Miller MAY have told Heritage, but they chose to cover it up
- Heritage could possibly have another vet involved in this who said âoh yeah, we can cover that up, donât lose this commissionâ
- Dr. Miller gets a LOT of clients from Heritage, and wanted to keep them happy⊠Sometimes even smart, honest people make a stupid decision when a lot of money is looking them in the face
As I said, I have NO idea what happened. I think they are suing Dr. Miller to cover all the bases, so to speak. I think that Heritage used Miller, and so the findings were reported to Heritage. Ms. Tichner must have had the x-rays given to her eventually because she cited that 4 other vets confirmed rotation. Heritage may have delivered some of the findings - as in, they withheld the written report or parts of it and gave some of the PPE to Tichner, so she had the x-rays but had no way to tell if they were good or not. No idea though. Just a possibility.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I tend to agree. FWIW the little I have ever heard about this vet is very positive. But an oversight is always possible, no matter how good a vet is. Vets make mistakes. Things get left out of reports. Reports that are supposed to be sent arenât due to secretarial glitches. Sh*t happens even to the best vets. And perhaps he didnât truly understand who his client was and therefore wasnât communicating with the right party.
