Tortious Interference.... Legal beagles out there?

[ThirdCharm]

Long story short: trainer is married to show facility owner’s ex-spouse. One relationship was over for excellent reasons before the other began and it was a loooooong time ago (long enough that if there had been kids they would have their own families by now). Absolutely minimal, and civil at that, contact between parties involved in decades since. Facility is now part of a show circuit with points, championships, money classes, etc, and facility manager has been advised to tell trainer’s clients that trainer is not allowed on premises due to owner’s personal grudge.

Obviously this interferes with trainer’s ability to conduct business as clients cannot expect to reasonably pursue circuit championships etc without their coach at a third of the shows. Jurisdiction has pretty definite tortious interference laws… Party C is not allowed to maliciously (for non business reasons) interfere with business between Party A and B such that it causes party A economic loss. Applicable?

Farmalter

[Guilherme]

Multiple variables, here, and insufficient facts.

If the trainer wants real answers they need to talk to an attorney familiar with laws of the jurisdiction and of the circuit involved.

G.

[222orchids]

Show facility is a privately-owned property. I fail to see how trainer (who is now married to property owner’s long-time ex) has any right to come onto private property at all, without the consent of the owner. Unless property owner has leased all or some portion of the facility to another barn operator, and that barn operator has engaged the trainer to teach its students or train its horses. And in that case I do not think property owner can shut trainer out of the facility. We def need more facts.

[SnicklefritzG]

I don’t see how the property owner could refuse to let any particular trainer/client group attend a show unless they (a) have an outstanding balance with that show series/stable or (b) a restraining order in place.

What an @$$.

[HungarianHippo]

Not a lawyer but you have not convinced me with the above outline that the facility owner is maliciously interfering in the trainer’s contract performance. The facility owner does not have any obligation to welcome someone on their private property.
The damage to her business seems incidental

[Scribbler]

If this facility is part of a circuit that is managed by an organization (a breed organization or a local hunter/jumper or dressage organization, surely they might be surprised that the success and reputation of their show is being hampered by the wierd behavior of the property owner?

[OverandOnward]

I have no idea what the answer to your question is, but subscribed! Fascinating situation for several reasons …

I think Scribbler’s comment above is on to something …

Facility is now part of a show circuit with points, championships, money classes, etc, …

Legal question aside … (and why do people tend to grab for legal recourse when there may be other ways to resolve a situation? and the legal is the most difficult, expensive and uncertain as to outcome?)

There may be another way to resolve the situation. Get the sanctioning organization involved to smooth things over, assuming the trainer and the trainer’s students who show there are all members. In order for the facility to run a sanctioned show, it would seem they have to treat all participants fairly according to the rules of the sanctioning body. If the trainer is in good standing with the organization then the trainer should be able to function at any show just like any other organization member. If not, maybe the show can’t be sanctioned.

And it helps if the trainer is one who brings a big block of entries with them. Point out to the organization and the show what they risk losing if the trainer and all their entries go elsewhere. This also gives the organization a talking point when they discuss the sticky issue with the show organizer/facility owner - “look at the entry fees you are losing”.

With luck this is a momentary blip in the mind of the facility owner, in response to an old but painful wound. Many such cases can be resolved verbally by the right people in the right position and at the right time. The facility owner may simply need to make their feelings known, and then be persuaded to let it go. Then everyone pretends it never happened.

[csaper58]

Does the ‘circuit’ lease the property for the duration of the show? Do they have legal control of the facility?

Does the ‘circuit’ or any affiliated organization (USEF, AQHQ, etc) have any opinion on whether the ban is acceptable?

How would a boycott by other trainers in support of the banned trainer affect the facility owner?

For an accurate assessment of your standing regarding Tortious Interference consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

[fordtraktor]

Probably not but you should speak to a local attorney.

Why not? Because generally speaking to prove one of these torts, you have to meet all elements – and that includes the business relationship has to end and the plaintiff needs to suffer provable damages. Have clients left the trainer because they are unable to attend shows at that grounds with the trainer there? Can trainer prove that was the causative reason (they weren’t also unhappy with care or training or whatever)? Can the trainer prove that any losses are the result of the show grounds owner’s act? Seems hard to me.

Tortious interference comes in a few varieties. Contract requires a contract to exist and for it to be broken. So that’s probably out. Business expectation doesn’t require a formal contract but it does require the relationship between the two interfered-with parties to end, and damages. Doesn’t seem to have happened here.

Then there is the question of intent – the defendant would have to know of the relationship and that his act would likely destroy it. Malice is not an element, knowledge is. is it reasonable for the show grounds owner to believe that the other trainer’s clients will leave because the trainer isn’t permitted to come to his show? you could probably show that he knew the relationship existed, but harder to prove he knows his act would destroy it. there would have to be additional facts to come close, I would think.

I don’t think that loss of possible year end awards would count because 1. you don’t contract to win awards, I hope, and it isn’t really a broken business relationship and 2. proving you lost just because of trainer’s lack of access to the showgrounds would be very hard (I mean, your horse could be lame or you could fall off anyway and not get points at that show…points are not guaranteed…and particularly hard to prove you would have won just because the trainer was there). it’s not impossible, maybe, but I think a judge would be pretty skeptical. Especially since the clients can go, just not the trainer.

This is all blackletter/general law-based, there may be variance in your local jurisdiction. Again, you need to consult a local attorney to make sure of what the laws in your local jurisdiction have to say and how it would apply to your case (looking at writings/precise wording of exchanges between the parties which could change things). and perhaps they will see the merits differently.

others have offered you some good ideas about working it out outside of court.

I am not a licensed NC attorney so this is all theoretical, not legal advice.

[findeight]

Think this one is up to the principles and their attorneys to sort out.

If the show is rated by some organization or other? Facility owner really can’t hope to ban certain competitors from attending and keep that rating. That might be the way for affected trainer to proceed. But…do they HAVE to show there? That’s kind of “right fighting”- might win but never be treated well or made to feel welcome. You can’t legislate ancient divorce hatred away even if you force actions.

[NoSuchPerson]

Like everyone else has said, consult an attorney.

My definitely non-legal opinion is that I can see an attorney fashioning compelling arguments for both sides of the argument.

I hope you will keep us updated.

[OverandOnward]

Business expectation doesn’t require a formal contract but it does require the relationship between the two interfered-with parties to end, and damages.

The AQHA has been sued by people invested in the organization in many ways, over the high-whites and then again over registering clones. The logic behind those suits might point a way for a legal action re this organizer and the trainer.

But I repeat my previous post that I think it is very much on the wrong track to go legal on this issue. Honestly, what for? Very time-consuming, no assurance of outcome, and the only people to come out ahead will be the attorneys when they collect their fees.

Do everything and anything to resolve this while AVOIDING the legal route. There is little, probably no, upside to anyone by going legal - except the attorneys, of course.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;9040134]
The AQHA has been sued by people invested in the organization in many ways, over the high-whites and then again over registering clones. The logic behind those suits might point a way for a legal action re this organizer and the trainer.

But I repeat my previous post that I think it is very much on the wrong track to go legal on this issue. Honestly, what for? Very time-consuming, no assurance of outcome, and the only people to come out ahead will be the attorneys when they collect their fees.

Do everything and anything to resolve this while AVOIDING the legal route. There is little, probably no, upside to anyone by going legal - except the attorneys, of course.[/QUOTE]

Concur that private settlement of disputes without attorneys is generally a Good Thing.

But if somebody gets their back up and starts cutting into your livelihood with malice aforethought what are the odds of a “private solution?”

The owner of private property not open to the general public can exclude pretty much the entire world with a “no trespassing” sign. If the place is private property but open to the public then there is still a pretty broad discretion on the part of the owner to exclude folks as long as the civil rights laws are not violated. The authority to exclude can become limited if the owner signs a contract with another that allows some sort of event on the property. This is all very much controlled by local law, thus the advice to check with a lawyer on what you may or may not do and how what you do needs to be done. This does not prevent private settlement of disputes nor guarantee litigation.

G.

[Bluey]

I keep reading this title as “tortoise interference”.:lol:

All I know is, get the best attorneys for the job you can find and then follow their advice.

[FitToBeTied]

The cost of the attorneys will far outweigh the cost of the prizes won. This is one of those things that make me shake my head when people start talking about suing.

The trainer in question should go to the association and ask them to move the show from that facility but involving attorneys is ridiculous.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Bluey;9040282]
I keep reading this title as “tortoise interference”.:lol:

All I know is, get the best attorneys for the job you can find and then follow their advice.[/QUOTE]

Leave the turtles alone!

In all seriousness I think the best plan is to reach out to the organizations sanctioning the shows. I suspect they’ll either tell the BO she has to accept all org members or take away the show’s rating. Problem solved if either happens

[meupatdoes]

A wise trainer would go to the association that governs the shows, make her case, and ask them to assist her in mediation.

[Come_Shine]

Many years ago, Spruce Meadows banned Eric Lamaze from the grounds. Iirc that did go through legal channels and because of the international nature of the competition, they had to allow Eric to compete.

[SnicklefritzG]

According to Benjamin franklin this is how it goes with lawyers:

Two beggars find a oyster and go to court to see who gets to keep it. The judge’s decision? “A shell for thou, a shell for thee, the middle is the lawyer’s fee”

Yes, settle disputes like this privately.

[fordtraktor]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;9040134]
The AQHA has been sued by people invested in the organization in many ways, over the high-whites and then again over registering clones. The logic behind those suits might point a way for a legal action re this organizer and the trainer.

But I repeat my previous post that I think it is very much on the wrong track to go legal on this issue. Honestly, what for? Very time-consuming, no assurance of outcome, and the only people to come out ahead will be the attorneys when they collect their fees.

Do everything and anything to resolve this while AVOIDING the legal route. There is little, probably no, upside to anyone by going legal - except the attorneys, of course.[/QUOTE]

The High White and the cloning cases were based on claims that are not possibly relevant here. Both were primarily antitrust suits based on concerted (that means multiple parties) refusals to deal. Here the show owner is apparently engaging in unilateral behavior. Also, the plaintiffs lost on the antitrust claims IIRC. The other claim in the high white case was a due process claim – in other words, that AQHA’s decision-making process lacked fairness/impartial decisionmaking. They won on that theory in the high white case but only with respect to the single horse’s registration – then AQHA was permitted to revise the process and continue to exclude future high white horses if they made it “fair.” the decision explicitly said so.

Both those issues (high white and cloning) were resolved by AQHA Rule Changes, not litigation. However, the changes likely resulted because the suits were expensive and they decided it was not worth it to hold out, changed the rules and thus no more expensive and resource-draining litigation. So indirectly the litigation had an effect – that said as a former antitrust lawyer I bet both parties spent well over 6 figures on litigating those cases.

I totally agree with the others that going through the show series and trying to negotiate a truce would be far preferable even if there were decent legal claims to make.