Actually, it isn’t even for me that I was asking. I was trying to understand why lessors would expect the lessee to foot all their horse expenses and risks while out of country.
I suppose if they don’t find a lessee they will have to pay the trainer or someone to keep the horse fit in their absence.
But I can see that I am in the minority of one!
The lessee has 100% use of the horse. Why wouldn’t they have 100% of the costs?
As for risks, several people have told you already that generally routine costs are covered by the lessee and there is generally wording in the ci tract about who is responsible for emergency vet costs and termination of the lease if the horse becomes unusable.
So generally the lessee has 100% of the benefits of horse ownership with almost none of the risks. You still seem to think the lessee is doing the owners a favour, but that generally not the case with leases.
Around here they would have people lined up to pay all the expenses to lease a safe, sound Third Level horse
It all depends on what you’re getting and what you’re comfortable with. Coming from h/j, my daughter outgrew her short stirrup horse. Mare was a saint - the quintessential nanny mare. We leased maer out (on farm) to a couple of different families. They were all in the program with our trainer, and all continued as such. Many friends have also leased out theirs for various reasons. Only one had a scary injury, but she’s doing great things now.
Almost all leases I’ve been privy to have the lessor responsible for vet care. They carry insurance for major medical. I wrote something into mine that would terminate the lease if horse was unrideable for ____ months due to an injury. THankfully, that never happened.
The horse isn’t changing pastures, grooms, or trainers, it would just be a different rider. Trainer would ride 2x a week to keep horse tuned, given that lessee doesn’t ride at that level.
And no one is looking for a free lease by any means or no strings, or a special deal – just a sense of fairness. I think splitting vet bills is reasonable, excluding catastrophic. I am not sure if the horse is insurable as it is older than 15.
I did make the assumption that the horse’s breed, size, scope would make a difference to a competitive lessee who wanted to go up the levels. I stand corrected.
Splitting the routine vet bills is reasonable and standard in a part lease, where the owner has use of the horse 3 days a week and the leaser has use of the horse 3 days a week.
But why would a leaser who has exclusive use of the horse 100% of the time expect to only pay part of the routine expenses? If you are looking for “fairness” in a deal, that makes no sense.
Again, a full lease essentially has all the benefits of horse ownership, without the expenses of purchasing and retirement care.
That might be the case here, too!
It is an expensive part of town and the costs are likely $25k+ for a year. Which is a lot, to me.
I simply wish the best for both lessor and future lessee. As long as both lessee/lessor feel they are getting benefit, it is a good deal.
I have just learned that if it were me, as a non-competitor, the costs and risks would be too great. I’d rather buy
Because a horse can get injured just standing in his stall, getting cast, arguing with a neighbor, abcess, hot nail, etc – things for which the lessee did not cause by having 100% use. But since one cannot for sure say “how” these injuries happen, I thought splitting vet bills is a reasonable compromise.
For a lot of people, the purchase price of a safe, sound, Third Level horse is way out of reach. Leasing is a way to make enjoying a well-trained horse accessible for those who can’t afford to purchase, or who don’t want the long-term commitment. If those are no issue, then purchasing often makes more sense.
The downside of a lease is the insecurity - regardless of what the contract says there is always the risk that the owner will take the horse back or sell it during the lease term.
Yes, if you’re talking about emergency vet bills. But a leaser is essentially assuming the role of owner, and should be responsible for day to day expenses and minor issues while the horse is in their care and control, just as they would for their own horse. It’s part of the risk of dealing with horses.
That being said, a leaser can ask for anything they want in the contract, and the owner can say yea or no. Some owners might agree to splitting minor vet expenses while many would not.
Despite your personal feelings asking a lessor to pay part or all of vet expenses within a reasonable limit is a normal part of leasing. If your lessor horse would rather purchase a horse then she should so she’s not wasting her money taking care of someone else’s horse then she should do that.
Right. Sign me up. I’d even pony up extensive maintenance costs to have the ride on a solid 3rd level horse without the worry of retirement etc.
Same thing could happen if there is no lease involved. In that case the OWNER is still responsible for all the vet fees - “things for which he OWNER did not cause by having 100% use.”
It is one of the costs of being responsible for a horse.
You are suggesting that leasing a horse bears the same responsibilities as owning a horse, but without the advantage of having a valuable/sellable asset at the end of the lease period.
I do believe the owner benefits from having a lessee – they are keeping their asset in good condition. There is a risk to this, and the risk is mitigated by requiring trainer input, etc – but the risk that their horse could injure themselves on their own still exists.
Is it reasonable to transfer that entire risk to the lessee?
It seems some contracts have mitigated that risk by including insurance, or stating that certain injuries are the owner’s and certain routine are the lessee. I think that approach is entirely workable.
Of course!
I think you mean “lessee” though.
Reasonable limit is the key, and you are right, depending upon what the lessor wants, it might not be worth the risk for the lessee. It might be easier/cheaper to take daily lessons on a schoolmaster.
That is the opposite of what everyone is saying. Leasing a horse bears the same responsibilities but without the same pitfalls of owning a horse. If the horse becomes permanently lame in the Lessee’s care then guess what, the horse goes back to the owner and sits in a field. It is no longer a “valuable” asset.
This, 100% (and I’m saying this as a leaser, not an owner).
Horses that are leased might be just a little bit too old to be “valuable assets” at the end of the lease period, but have a ton to teach the leaser. The leaser might not want to pay for the retirement costs (buying an older, trained horse with say, 5 more years of serious competition in him/her) but this takes the financial pressure off the owner who may be bringing up a younger horse.
I’m also a little bit surprised at the big distinction made between jumping and dressage upthread (not in your post). Dressage can be stressful on a horse’s body, especially if a rider is newish to the level. So an owner might be weighing retiring a horse and pulling shoes, sending the horse to a very low-key situation versus leasing the horse (income coming in, but also more risk and stress on the older horse, more maintenance required).
There might be some instances when a leaser could add value to a younger horse, or a horse that needs retraining, which would result in no fee, but I wouldn’t consider this the case in the cited scenario.
That’s precisely what a lease is in terms of responsibilities. Yes, there is no valuable / sellable asset at the end of the lease period, but that’s why a lease price (if there is one) is much lower than a purchase price. It’s a legal agreement that essentially confers the rights of ownership to the leader for a specific period of time. The benefit to the leaser is that they have no long-term responsibility to the horse, should it become unusable. The owner bears all the risk
It’s not much different in many ways than leasing vs owning a car. When you own you pay a lot more money upfront but you own the asset and can dispose of it as you wish. You are responsible for all the maintenance and repair costs, fuel, fluids, etc. for as long as you own the car.
When you lease you pay less money, and are subject to some restrictions, such as limitations on mileage. At the end of the lease period you can walk away free and clear. You are responsible for all the maintenance and repair costs, fuel, fluids, etc. for as long as you lease the car.
Are you perhaps mixing up a lease - which is a formal, legal agreement - with an arrangement to have someone look after your horse in your absence? Those are two very different things.
When I went to school overseas for a semester, I arranged for someone else to look after my horse for four months. I continued to pay his board, farrier, and routine vet care. The caretaker was responsible for taking care of him, keeping him fit, and was required to take weekly lessons with my coach at her expense. That was not a lease. I suppose I could have looked for a leaser, but it didn’t seem worth the hassle for such a short time period.
Think of it like asking someone to house sit while you are on vacation. They look after the house, water the plants, mow the lawn, etc. but don’t pay rent.
Leasing your house to someone is quite different. They have legal rights to the property during the term of the lease and are usually responsible for routine costs like electricity, heat, etc. Major repairs such as a roof replacement are usually covered by the owner or by tenant insurance held by the tenant, in the case of accident, fire, theft, etc.
Without the “advantage” of having POSSIBLY sellable asset, but without the responsibility of maintaining a “pasture ornament” for the rest of its life.
The owner is the one taking the risk. The person leasing gets to ride and enjoy and if the horse gets broken they get to hand it back to the owner and wash their hands of it. Then the owner has a broken horse that the person leasing got to enjoy.
Doesn’t sound the same when I put it that way, right?
The person leasing is using something of value, they need to pay for that. It is not rocket science. If you (general) do not want to take on a lease then buy a horse and pay everything and take on the risk.
I don’t think it really changes anything that the owner of the horse is travelling and that is the reason the nice horse is up for lease. Would you feel this situation was different if the owner was just willing to lease, not because they were travelling but because they wanted to share Dobbin’s amazingness with others?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
