The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Need legal advice.. Barn owner having problems and her mare being taken away.

8K views 41 replies 20 participants last post by  Annanoel 
#1 ·
This will probably be long,

I'm going to set the situation for all of you. We will call my barn owner Allie, and one boarder Bras, and the married couple Karen and John.

I'll shorten the story as I'm about to leave.

Basicly, Karen and John gave her enough money to cover 4 horses but since then have brought two more. So the owe $150. Allie was going to buy a mare from them. So they made a verbal agreement a month ago that Shiney is her's and they would not pay anymore board and it go towards her payments. Now they won't sign the stall agreement (their third one) and are trying to say "we think we are moving" and trying to take Shiney. Allie is very upset. But aside from that, they think they don't owe money. Well, if Shiney was still their's to sell they owe Allie $150 for the other two horses, $150 for Shiney because she's been on full care (thinking she's her's) pay her back for the feed and hay Allie was using for her AND the 30 days of training we put on her. They have had NOTHING to do with that mare the whole last month. I don't understand. There is so much more but based on that what can we do? The mares name is Lil Miss Shiney Chex look her up on.youtube..she is nowhere near what she use to be..someone ruined her since 2009.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
See less See more
#2 ·
It's a he said-she said situation. Your BO should have known to get the agreement in writing.

Honestly, why do people do verbal anything when it comes to horses and financial matters?

So, unless your BO has some sort of written boarding contract and can prove that they haven't made any board payments, she's SOL.

The fluff about the 'poor ruined horsie' is unnecessary and has nothing to do with the situation.
 
#3 ·
Well, I was just mentioning about the fact that she's not even close to that mare in that video anymore. Yet they are trying to ask a lot of money because of what she did is 2009. She doesn't ride that well at all anymore. That's how it relates. I wasn't saying the "poor ruined horsie" and you could have asked how it related in a way that wasn't so rude. I wasn't looking for symathy. Anyway, she tried to get everything in writing multiple times but there was always an excuse from them.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#5 ·
Well, I was just mentioning about the fact that she's not even close to that mare in that video anymore. Yet they are trying to ask a lot of money because of what she did is 2009. She doesn't ride that well at all anymore. That's how it relates. I wasn't saying the "poor ruined horsie" and you could have asked how it related in a way that wasn't so rude. I wasn't looking for symathy. Anyway, she tried to get everything in writing multiple times but there was always an excuse from them.
Posted via Mobile Device
And yet she continued to allow the status quo to be - and that is why she is in the mess she is in now. She basically volunteered for this by not insisting and ending the "arrangement" when her requests for written agreements were not met.
 
#7 ·
Legally , I don't think it's her horse. No bill of sale. She needs to make them leave - with or without that horse. No more boarders until everything is in writing
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#9 ·
The burden as far as paying board would fall on the boarders to prove they HAD paid. Other boarders could testify as far as the usual rate in lieu of a written contact.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#10 ·
The burden as far as paying board would fall on the boarders to prove they HAD paid. Other boarders could testify as far as the usual rate in lieu of a written contact.
Posted via Mobile Device
That's a good point. She may end up losing the horse but at least she can recoup the boarding fees owing. On the other hand if she does take that tactic, she might put the owners in a position to rethink what they are doing. Either way, she had better start documenting, checking out the law for her area and sending letters of intent, etc.
 
#11 ·
Most things end up in court because people don't put things down on paper.

Writing, writing, writing!!

If someone resists putting something into writing, that person needs to be booted NOW because they are not to be trusted. As clearly happened.

I'm sorry for your BO, but I hope she learned a valuable lesson. People are jerks. You can't just trust them. Writing!
 
#13 ·
When I had boarders I asked for cheques with "horse board" written on it. Many times I was paid with cash and had I wanted I could have been dirty and denied payment. We had no contract so when I wanted one out on short notice, he packed up and was gone or face a huge increase. I don't tolerate threats.
 
#17 ·
Your barn owner needs to wise up, I cannot believe that someone would be this silly to be honest.

They are not paying, and an agreement is made, fine - put something in writing. Would you buy a car without something in writing?

As they have not signed a new boarding contract, all she can do is kick them out. No notice is even needed, they leave her property. Then she really needs to wise up and learn from this.
 
#18 ·
In legal terms no matter which side of the Atlantic you are on, if it isn't in writing and signed by both parties, then there is no contract. The only hting the barn owner can do is sue for payment of rent arrears. Hwoever, it would probably cost her more to take them to court. Best thing she can do is give them notice to quit and wave goodbye to their horses...all of them! She doesn't own anything without a contract. Even if vets bills are in her name, this does not imply ownership in Law but she can sue the owners of the horse to recover the vets fees. From what you say though, I doubt she will recover any of her costs. Best to cut her losses .
 
#19 ·
Hey everyone, here's an update.

They moved their horses and tried to this mare. When they refused to open the gate because they owe the BO money they called the Sheriff.

When we arrived, me and the BO, the couple had already told them their side of the story and the sheriff was ready to cut the locks. Once we told the BO side, they were thinking differently. She provided the paperwork they had been given but not returned. Me and a few other people vouched that for the last 30 days (since the "verbal agreement" was made) they have not touched touched this mare, or acted as if she was their's. Even though they were there at least once a day. She was not in the same barn as the rest of their horses, she was in the BO's barn. She was being fed by us (pretty much full care) she was being fed her hay and grain. Why would my BO feed her of her hay, ride her everyday, and have her in her barn and not charge them board?

The sheriff said the horse stays where it is (at my BOs barn) and if they want to take her it goes to court. Two days later the mare is gone, they just took her. Bo calls the sheriff, they say, well idk what to tell you. Why did this happen?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#25 ·
If it aint written down it never happened
This is something for legal professionals to decide through the courts - the police are only there to keep the peace and ensure laws arent being broken so out of his jurisdiction as no proof of ownership had been established
The couple will no doubt claim that transactions were made in cash and no receipts given and since the BO seems lapse on paperwork that would sound plausible enough to anyone
She could try to use the vet bills as evidence of her taking responsibility but the couple might claim they repaid those in cash too
 
#28 ·
Time I think for Judge Judy! Seriously though, this is a tough lesson for everyone. If you don't have anything in writing and signed by both parties, no matter which country you are in, the Law is the same - nothing in writing means no contract no matter how many receipts etc you produce. In Law, if you pay for something for an animal on someone else's behalf e.g. vets fees without the owners written agreement or anything else which the owner has not given express permission to pay for, then you cannot claim compensation/prove ownership or anything else. It is a case of 'on your own head be it'. The ONLY exception to this would be if an animal was in extreme distress and needed life/death vetinary care then it would be a case of animal welfare and you could 'technically' ask for recompense from the owner. Still no guarantees you would get it. The moral of the story, do not do anyone favours, pay for an animal's needs which you do not own or believe a verbal agreement holds up in law. It doesn't and while most people are honest and would stump up payment for their animal, there are the few who spoil it for everyone else. As for the Sheriff telling the horse owners the 'horse stays where it is'. unless the Sheriff posted a guard /removed the animal to a place of safety or the owners lived on site and had the barn under security, there is no-one to stop the horse being removed by its legal owners. It would now be up to the Sheriff to pursue the matter if he or she so wished but somehow, it is going to be a case of the Sheriff having more pressing things to do than bother about owners taking their horse back. If you feel the animal is in danger or going to be badly treated then the only thing you can do is report the matter to animal welfare. It is a tough, harsh world.
 
#40 ·
If you don't have anything in writing and signed by both parties, no matter which country you are in, the Law is the same - nothing in writing means no contract no matter how many receipts etc you produce.
I just want to clear up some confusion here, since I've seen it repeated twice in this thread.
In the US, a verbal contract IS legally binding. It does NOT have to be in writing to be a contract.

However, the challenge becomes proving a verbal contract. It might require credible witnesses, or tape recordings, or some other method that is frequently not available. So it is always best to protect yourself with a written contract that can later serve as proof. But generally speaking verbal contracts are still legally binding.
 
#29 ·
Since no one has mentioned it, this mare, "ruined" or not is worth a nice chunk of change (a he!! of a lot more than a couple hundred $$) jut as a broody.) She is an own daughter of Shining Spark, and her performance record is pretty good!

2002 LIL MISS SHINEY CHEX (embt), f. by Shining Spark. $100,414 and 51 AQHA points: 2009 NRCHA Open Bridle World Champion; NRCHA Open Two-Rein World Champion; AQHA Reserve World Champion Junior Working Cow- horse; NRCHA Limited Open Futurity Reserve Champion (Champion of the Reined Work; Reserve Fence Work); Open Bridle Reserve Champion at the 2010 NRCHAFuturity;4th,NRCHAInt.OpenFuturity,etc.

Plus, she is a proven broodmare-here is just ONE of her babies records.
Cottonwood Springs Ranch: Broodmare | Shiney Lil Miss

So, frankly, I am of the opinion that your BO was trying to pull a fast one. This mare is worth a lot ore than a few hundred $$. JMHO.
 
#31 ·
I know she's not, that's the issue. These people were selling her for $1000 and that's it, because they are SCARED TO DEATH of her. She's a super sensitive mare, and gets nervous real easy and gets all snorty and out of control when she has too much pressure on her. I'm not saying this in relation to this thread, but I'd be slow to say these people need animals at all. Much less horses. They have 6. One has foundered from them switching him to straight alfalfa and a lot of it, from lower quality costal. They bought one mare who could hardly walk (I think an old break in her knee) and the vet said she should be put to sleep, but not bred or ridden at least. They come back and say they plan on breeding her for a mule. I don't know, I'm honestly worried about the health of their horses in their care. But anyway, I honestly miss this mare. She was a nice girl.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top