What are typical lease terms for 3rd level off-breed horse?

[Janet]

@BlueDrifter

Great photo and story. I guess it depends upon the cost as well. Would you have leased this same guy for $20K+ per year?

Absolutely not.

[BigMama1]

@BlueDrifter

I mention “off-breed” just because I wasn’t talking about a huge warmblood/TB that I figured most competitive riders would want to learn from, especially if they are paying 5 figures to lease.

Third Level is Third Level, regardless of the breed. If someone wants to learn at those levels then breed isn’t relevant. It becomes relevant in competition, if the breed doesn’t typically have good quality gaits, for example, or the rider wants to show at YR or FEI Juniors, where am off breed is not likely to be competitive.

[BigMama1]

@BlueDrifter

think it is mutually beneficial, too. But the risks for the owner seem very low with the lessee footing the bill for any injuries or unsoundness, requiring the lessee work with existing trainers who can oversee anything going south, and likely the owner not leasing to someone for whom injury would be likely. (Now in H/J I can see that jumping is an inherent risk, but for dressage???)

Injuries are an inherent risk with horses, period. If the horse becomes unrideable, the leaser generally gets to walk away, leaving the owner with all the burden.

All the lease agreements I’ve seen, whether paid lease or care lease, specify that the lesser is responsible for all ROUTINE vet care/ maintenance and minor emergencies.

So vaccinations, dental work, any maintenance such as Adequan, chiro, massage, etc, and minor issues such as a cut requiring stitches are on the leaser. Major issues such as colic, catastrophic injury, etc. the contract should specify who is responsible (and whose insurance).

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

The argument for the full leaser to pay routine vet care and maintenance is that the need for this is often due to the wear and tear of regular riding, and also as a disincentive (in theory) for the leaser to take good care of the horse and not ride the horse into the ground. As a part leaser, I didn’t pay for vet care because 1. the horse wasn’t “valuable” in economic terms (though of course valuable to me emotionally) and 2. I wasn’t the only person riding the horse.

[Janet]

@BlueDrifter

But the risks for the owner seem very low with the lessee footing the bill for any injuries or unsoundness, requiring the lessee work with existing trainers who can oversee anything going south, and likely the owner not leasing to someone for whom injury would be likely. (Now in H/J I can see that jumping is an inherent risk, but for dressage???)

Yes, there is an increase in some type of injury from jumping, but barn injuries, pasture injuries, and diseases (e.g. EPM) are independent of the discipline.

[Buster]

This “paid lease” thing is a carry over from H/J land. In the past, I’ve had the pleasure of riding horses for owners that didn’t have the time. I’ve even had them pay for lessons/shows that I rode in. I think that’s because I brought something to the table. They got free training from a non pro, I got a NICE horse to ride (these were all fancy WBs). They got to say, “Look and ammy can ride it, lol!” Personally, it’s hard for me to stomach the paid lease thing because I am one of those anomalies where I’m fairly experienced, hard working, and take good care of the animal (as if he/she were my own!). I’ve considered a paid lease on a couple that could help me attain a medal that I’m still lacking. However, those that I’ve considered had prior soundness issues that made it iffy and I don’t want to pay for a horse that needs layup/rehab. Others were not super reliable showing…as in, even the owner/rider/trainer had “squeaker” scores. For an average horse (I know why you, OP, said “off breed” ) …no, I wouldn’t do a paid lease. Depending on my circumstances at that very moment, I might do a care lease, but honestly it still needs to be a super fun and easy horse to ride that I really enjoy. Otherwise, I might just offer to ride the horse, because I can either keep the training/soundness at its current level or perhaps even advance the training. Of course, I realize that some riders may not be able to offer this.

[BlueDrifter]

Right, and they are independent of the lessee, too – so I don’t quite agree that the lessee should bear all that responsibility. And since it is difficult to tell how an injury arose, I think the fair way is to split those type of costs at the very least.

[BlueDrifter]

I think your world is what I was thinking is the norm… but then, I have never been competitive, just had my horse shown by a trainer. I am a trail rider at heart, lol.

[Buster]

I agree. I was considering a lease where it was predetermined where the horse would live, it would remain in full training with same trainer (owner’s trainer as well), and I was like…well, what if the trainer reaggravates his soft tissue injury or the barn staff lets him loose accidentally. I didn’t want to be on the hook for everything. She was unreasonable about it so I walked.

[Buster]

It used to be the norm, even in the horse show world, but I think times have changed.

[BigMama1]

@BlueDrifter

Right, and they are independent of the lessee, too – so I don’t quite agree that the lessee should bear all that responsibility. And since it is difficult to tell how an injury arose, I think the fair way is to split those type of costs at the very least.

Then you specify that in the contract.

[TheBigEasy]

All of it is contractual, and a negotiation between two parties as to what is reasonable, satisfactory, and of agreeability between the two.
Clearly, there are a multitude of right answers. All depends on the situation.
Interesting to hear the various takes.

Also, the opinion of what a “3rd level horse” is can vary. Just got back from a schooling show with a couple third level entries. Two of the three could not show a 3rd level test with any acumen at all. Scores in the 40s.

So just cause a horse can ENTER a third level test doesn’t make it a third level horse.

[meupatdoes]

Imagine your horse is worth about as much as a ferrari.

Now imagine renting out your ferarri.
OF COURSE the renter pays for insurance and gas, plus a fee. You pay the same when you rent a Kia from Hertz.

The people leasing the competition horse want the ready made, are installed training for a short period of time without having to buy the whole horse. They are basically owning it for a set time period. Thus they pay all the expenses during that time period, plus a fee for getting to use the horse. The big eq horses go for thousands a weekend.

If a horse does not have any competitive skills or advantages built in, very fewer people are going to see the point in paying a lease fee on top of expenses. So those horses go at cost. Lessee takes on the horse’s tab but does not pay any additional fees.

Your question is in two parts: it starts with competition horse and ends with “The lessors want someone to care for their horse, keep it fit, have weekly lessons with trainer. They are not looking for the horse to be shown or improved while they are out of country.”

So you’ve answered your own question. If that’s what the owners of the horse want, that’s the agreement they should set up.

[BlueDrifter]

I can certainly understand your analogy – but a Ferrari doesn’t decide to skid rubber on it’s own, or play fight with other Ferraris, lol. I still don’t think the lessee should have to take all that risk.

Also, I guess I think of horses as being more than just vehicles, and for me, leasing them out to someone who is a competitor more than a caretaker would be tough.

It has been very enlightening to see how much leasing is a “business” more than a stop-gap for when life interrupts riding.

I think the lessors want care-taking more than $$, but we’ll see what happens.

[enjoytheride]

Good to know that a 3rd level non warm blood is worthless.

Why does someone think they can earn their bronze on someone’s well trained non warmblood and not have to pay a dime?

[BlueDrifter]

No one made that assumption, and in fairness, that is not what this discussion is about.

Lessee offers great care-taking, adequate rider. But no competitive aspirations. Lessor risk of horse becoming untrained is mitigated by a couple of trainer rides a week.

I was just surprised that the lessee takes on all the risk and costs.

If the lessee was trying for a medal, I could understand it a bit more, as they are benefiting from a trained horse. But even then, putting all vet costs on lessee when everyone knows horses can injure themselves in their stall seems unreasonable to me.

[atr]

Thats why most lessors insist on insurance.

[enjoytheride]

So then you can pay for insurance on the horse to cover you in the event the horse is injured.

Even the horses I have free leases on I have a contract requiring insurance or set a replacement/medical limit value on the horse. I don’t expect a lessor to pay for extensive injuries or long term care, but it didn’t get injured in my pasture, it got injured in yours yet I’m the one who gets stuck with a pasture ornament so expecting the lessor to be at least partially responsible is normal and expected.

It is highly unlikely that you are going to be able to free lease a “nice” horse with zero strings attached for you.

And yes, your thread title specifies “non warm blood” which means you feel the value of a horse is set by breed and has nothing to do with training which is not true. Training and breed make a difference.

[Janet]

@BlueDrifter

I can certainly understand your analogy – but a Ferrari doesn’t decide to skid rubber on it’s own, or play fight with other Ferraris, lol. I still don’t think the lessee should have to take all that risk.

To continue this analogy- If you lease a car, and someone else’s car runs into it while it is parked (on the street or in a parking lot), you re still responsible for the repair costs, even though it is not your “fault”.

[Mander]

@BlueDrifter It sounds like you know what you want the terms of the contract to be. Really the only question you have now is whether or not the owner is willing to accept those terms.