# Tricked into leasing a lame horse



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

I guess there are different laws in different states. I personally would just not touch horse anymore and would ignore the owners and what they say and the gossip thrown around unless it somehow creates problem with the work or your kids. You can't change people, you know, and true friends won't care about the gossiping. I'm sure it'll calm down with time.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Well... that's poopie. It's actually a big problem in the horse world. People can be jerks. I think in any world actually. I'd just leave the horse alone and continue on as if nothing ever happened. The other horsey folks will eventually see the reality of the situation (hopefully).


----------



## ErikaLynn (Aug 3, 2010)

Welcome to the horse world. This person is not the last person you'll meet that acts this way. Just ignore this person, and act like nothing is wrong.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

I agree with Kitten_Val.

I just want to say, to me it does not sound like you were horribly wronged. It sounds like you assumed some things that maybe you should not have (unless they are just pieces left out of your long story) and you were very reactive.

Horses get lame. Heck, the mare could just have a hoof abscess. That makes them VERY lame but it is very fixable and not that big of a deal.

The horse having arthritis at 19 is pretty much a given. 

Did your wife ask up front if she could jump the mare? Jumping is one of those things that you just do not do with other people's horses with out asking them first. Considering your say your wife's last horse experience was growing up, and even you knew this mare had not been worked in sometime, I am sure the owner never imagined the mare would be taken out to jump.

I am not sure why you reacted so harshly when you found out the mare was lame. This could have ended very differently if you simply asked about the mares condition, etc.


Edit to add - Just re-read your title. You were not tricked into leasing a lame horse. Geez. Your wife thought it was sound enough to jump it.


----------



## dop (Nov 7, 2009)

Hi Remydon,

Welcome to the forum.

My take on your situation is that it will be difficult for the owners to prove exactly what caused the lameness..in a court of law and otherwise. The horse has existing arthritis. Further, the owner permitted a trail ride (in fact, insisted on a trail ride to give Mel exercise) following the jumping your wife did. So, I'm not sure what kind of claims they could present in small claims? Hopefully, the owners will investigate the lameness if it persists and get help for their horse. 

As far as the gossip, my advice is to let them talk. As Farmpony and others have said, you will find many people like these women in horse barns everywhere. Maybe suggest that your wife rise above it? However, if I her, I wouldn't be volunteering my time to help the likes of anyone in that barn again lol. Lesson learned!

Hope it all works out for you..


----------



## TKButtermilk (May 20, 2010)

I'm sorry you feel so wronged by this situation but I also believe you're really overreacting. Almost all horses get some form of arthritis as they get older, its practically a given. Having arthritis would hardly make a horse be considered "lame'" unless it was severe in which case your wife had bo business jumping the horse. Not to mention who randomly decides to jump a 19 year old horse who hasn't been ridden for awile? That's quite irresponsible. I'm sorry if I'm comming off as harsh or rude, that's really not my intention.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dop (Nov 7, 2009)

The owners told the OP's wife that Mel was sound and bombproof...not that she had arthritis. It was only after the wife reported the popping sounds did the owners reveal to her the horse had arthritis. 

OP's wife sounds responsible and compassionate to me as evidenced by immediately stopping the small jumping she was doing and then reporting to the owners what she heard. She could have kept the info to herself but she didn't. Further, she suggested to the owner she not ride Mel on the trail ride after learning about the arthritis but the owner insisted Mel needed the exercise. Also the OP stated his wife rode the horse for a week before allowing the horse to take the small jumps so it wasn't that she randomly decided to jump the horse. And at the time of the small jumps, she didn't know the horse had arthritis.

I don't think the OP is overreacting at all. He and his wife are concerned they may be taken to court over the situation. It's no fun either to be the brunt of gossip. I can totally see why he feels the way he does.

OP - I don't see a legal case for recovery by Mel's owners but then I'm not an attorney. I do see a case of hard feelings all the way around which is unfortunate because I think your wife had the best of intentions. The owners are just ****ed now because they can't sell the lame horse. They're playing the blame game.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

dop said:


> The owners told the OP's wife that Mel was sound and bombproof...not that she had arthritis. It was only after the wife reported the popping sounds did the owners reveal to her the horse had arthritis.


You would be VERY hard pressed to find a 19yo horse that does not have some arthritis. Period. And like has been pointed out, arthritis does not equal lame. There was no real reason for the owners to mention it. And I am sure it came up when the popping sound was discussed the same way an old injury comes up when someone asks about a scar.

My horse has arthritic changes (x-rays to prove it), but I would not consider him lame. 

So, Mel is sound. And I am not sure what bombproof has to do with the conversation.



dop said:


> T
> OP's wife sounds responsible and compassionate to me as evidenced by immediately stopping the small jumping she was doing and then reporting to the owners what she heard.


Not responsible. Maybe compassionate. But certainly not responsible.

You do not jump a horse with out FIRST asking the owner. Period. 
Add, if you know the horse has been out of work for some time you certainly do not start jumping it a week into riding it. 

Not even close to responsible, really!



dop said:


> I don't think the OP is overreacting at all.


He over reacted when they immediately canceled the lease because the horse was lame.

An abscess makes for a dead lame horse. It is in no way terminal or long term. That could be all that is wrong with Mel. 



dop said:


> The owners are just ****ed now because they can't sell the lame horse. They're playing the blame game.


We do not even know what the gossip is. I would put more money on it that the owners are talking more about how the OP and his wife backed out on a lease so quickly and with out cause and how the OP's wife was jumping with out asking first.

Lets add how ridiculous it is to think that arthritis is something that immediately equals unsound.


----------



## dop (Nov 7, 2009)

Alwaysbehind said:


> You would be VERY hard pressed to find a 19yo horse that does not have some arthritis. Period. And like has been pointed out, arthritis does not equal lame. There was no real reason for the owners to mention it. And I am sure it came up when the popping sound was discussed the same way an old injury comes up when someone asks about a scar.
> 
> My horse has arthritic changes (x-rays to prove it), but I would not consider him lame.
> 
> So, Mel is sound. And I am not sure what bombproof has to do with the conversation.


If the horse had/has arthritis and shouldn't be jumped, this should have been made crystal clear to the lessor. Any kind of medical condition past or present should be outlined in a lease...and certainly in an actual sale. As far as your bombproof statement, I was just repeating the description of the horse the OP made.




Alwaysbehind said:


> Not responsible. Maybe compassionate. But certainly not responsible.
> 
> You do not jump a horse with out FIRST asking the owner. Period.
> Add, if you know the horse has been out of work for some time you certainly do not start jumping it a week into riding it.
> ...


Op's wife said small jumps less than a foot. Horses make jumps like that during trail rides.




Alwaysbehind said:


> He over reacted when they immediately canceled the lease because the horse was lame.
> 
> An abscess makes for a dead lame horse. It is in no way terminal or long term. That could be all that is wrong with Mel.


They cancelled the lease after they saw the sign on the door "Lame Horse No Riding." The sign imo was rather sensational or overkill. These people or the wife had a short term informal agreement to ride the horse. Don't you think it would have been better for the owners to simply call the couple they had the riding agreement with and discuss the situation? No instead they put a sign on the stall for everyone to see, which no doubt embarrassed and likely angered the couple. It got people gossiping, too. Pretty childish and lousy communication on the part of the owners imo. They never revealed the arthritis and the owner pushed the horse with the trail riding. Further they don't make a simple private phone call to the couple and instead make it a 'barn issue' by the sign on the door? Ridiculous.


----------



## dop (Nov 7, 2009)

Guess I should have said 'made crystal clear to the lessee' or by the lessor. The couple or wife was the lessee. My bad.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Okay, reality check here - 

The "lessee" was paying a $60/month stall fee. Not feed, not hay, not farrier, not vet, not an actual lease fee - $60 a month stall fee. You can't lease a school horse for a hack twice a month for that fee in my area. I wouldn't let you hack out my guest horse twice a month for that. So the lessee has certainly not been cheated financially in any way, shape or form. If she rode the horse more than twice for the princely sum of $60 she got a bargain. 

Other than that, it sounds like some miscommunication and misunderstanding between the lessee and lessor that's escalated into something ****y. It could be as simple as the lessor thought your wife was only interested in trail riding, or that they thought they made clear that the lease was only for trail riding. 

My advice would be to try to make amends with the horse's owners; ie, inquire after the horse's health, offer to help with hand walking or treatment, etc. but do not continue the lease. Being gracious and concerned at this point will forestall some of the nastiness and gossip. The sign on the stall door is classic passive/agressive behavior, the best response to that is to be direct, not to be passive/agressive yourself. 

Finally, if you enter into a lease agreement again, expect it to be a real lease, with cost closer to the cost of keeping the horse, and have the terms spelled out clearly in advance.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

dop said:


> Any kind of medical condition past or present should be outlined in a lease...and certainly in an actual sale.


You are kidding right?

Any medical condition past or present? Really?

Does anyone really care about the abscess that occurred six years ago?

Get over it.



I do not find the sign to be that passive aggressive. (Though it could be, not knowing the people who knows.)
I find it more to be a base covering thing.
The OP's wife has made it clear that she is relatively unknowing (with things like OMFG, I can not ride the horse at all on a trail ride if it has arthritis, oh no....) so they may have put the sign up to be sure the wife knows the horse can not be ridden. Who knows if she came to ride before checking messages, etc.


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

dop said:


> If the horse had/has arthritis and shouldn't be jumped, this should have been made crystal clear to the lessor. Any kind of medical condition past or present should be outlined in a lease...and certainly in an actual sale. As far as your bombproof statement, I was just repeating the description of the horse the OP made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was no 'trick' here. And there was nothing ridiculous about ensuring no one rode the horse.

Did the wife mention she intended to jump an out of shape 19 year old horse?

Jumping a foot on a normal trail ride? Ah - no.

Heaven sakes - it's $60. $2 a day to be able to ride a horse? As was mentioned, arthritis at 19 is more of a given than not.

I think the OP needs to sit down with these folks and have a talk.


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

dop said:


> Guess I should have said 'made crystal clear to the lessee' or by the lessor. The couple or wife was the lessee. My bad.


 
No agreement was signed. No human was wronged.


----------



## dop (Nov 7, 2009)

Well said Maura.

Ab-you keeping going back to your abscess analogy? An abscess is a temporary impairment. Arthritis is a chronic condition. Apples and oranges. And yes, if I was leasing or selling a horse, I would reveal all that had gone on with the horseif it affected the horse's current condition. It's called disclosure..an important consideration when doing business of ANY kind. The fact that the owners didn't reveal the arthritis is a failure to disclose or misrepresentation on their part. How was the wife supposed to know the horse's condition if she wasn't told its history?

Through a handshake agreement, gentleman's agreement, informal agreement, whatever you want to call it, a lessee and lessor existed..was more my point when using those terms.

Direct communication between the parties would have been the way to go on this but that didn't happen. Hopefully with time the situation will resolve itself but I see no wrong doing on the part of the couple.


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

dop said:


> An abscess is a temporary impairment. Arthritis is a chronic condition. Apples and oranges. And yes, if I was leasing or selling a horse, I would reveal all that had gone on with the horseif it affected the horse's current condition.


NORMAL riding to keep a horse with arthritis actually benefits the horse.

Again - nothing was signed. At the time of the VERBAL agreement - the horse was healthy and sound. And 19.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Abscess could be why the horse is currently lame. Their sudden onset of acute lameness most likely has nothing at all to do with arthritis. Hence the abscess being mentioned.


Do you really provide every person who thinks about leasing or buying from you a point by point many page document of every nick and cut the horse has ever had? If not every nick and cut how do you decide what is a pertinent injury?


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

There are two perspectives evidenced in this thread. One, the OP's and dop's, is a strict contract law perspective. "We made a verbal agreement for X$ for Y use of horse." The other perspective, the one evidenced by most of the other posters, and I suspect, the horse's owners, is a horseman's perspective about appropriate use and care of the animal.

The conflict between those two perspectives is what's driving this. 

As far as the horse currently being lame, someone's making some faulty assumptions: 1.) that the OP's spouse's riding somehow caused the lameness, or alternately, 2.) that the lameness was known and a predictable consequence. Neither may be true. The horse may have stepped on a nail or been kicked in the pasture or have another lameness (like AB's abscess) that's completely unrelated. The fact that everyone jumped to an explanation that would allow fault to be determined is disturbing. 

The things that jump out at me in these posts is the word "tricked" in the title - there's no evidence anyone was tricked, regardless of the amount of money involved AND that there's been absolutely no follow up about the poor horse. How lame is it? What's the cause of the lameness? Is it on stall rest? Could someone please act like they care about the horse?

To the OP - if you like this community, and your wife would like to continue riding there, make some amends with the owner. EXPRESS SOME CONCERN FOR THE HORSE, rather than just the value of the balance of the contract. 

And to the OP and dop - I absolutely recognize that your interpretations are correct in the strictest, contract law sense. Please understand that that's not the pervading one in a horseperson's community, and don't expect a lot more invitations to ride in your persist in that interpretation.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

dop said:


> Direct communication between the parties would have been the way to go on this but that didn't happen. Hopefully with time the situation will resolve itself but I see no wrong doing on the part of the couple.


I also see no wrong doing on the part of the lessor.

Do you agree it's possible that the OP's wife overstated her horse experience? People do it all the time.

Regardless, it seems to me that there was quite a bit of miscommunication on the part of* everyone* involved, lessor and lessee.

I have a 24 y/o horse with arthritis. I've retired him due to other issues _not_ related to his arthritis. At 19 y/o he was still being ridden, and didn't seem to have any problems.

Arthritis doesn't just suddenly crop up. It's a preexisting condition that won't necessarily affect the horse adversely, unless it's being over used. If the animal truly does have arthritis and its owner is aware of it, then yes, it should have been mentioned. 

However, if the owner was unaware that the animal had it and it was exacerbated by the OP's wife jumping the horse, then what I see is that both the lessor _and_ the lessee are probably a lot less experienced than they want others to believe. Which means they point fingers at each other for the horse's condition.


----------



## leonalee (Jul 1, 2010)

dop said:


> They cancelled the lease after they saw the sign on the door "Lame Horse No Riding." The sign imo was rather sensational or overkill.


It sounds like the OP's wife has a problem with being not completely rational when it comes to horses (like other posters have said: who jumps a horse that is 19 and hasn't been ridden in a while after only a week of riding?). Not maliciously, just not having as much knowledge as she may think she has (after however many years off, I really don't think she had any business jumping HERSELF, much less the horse). 

The OP also sounds like they maybe aren't all that pleasant to talk to (immediately cancelling the lease?). That being said, it is very reasonable that the owner of the horse made it clear to not just the OP and his wife that the horse was not to be ridden at all (like it has already been said, OP's wife was not rational with jumping this horse), but to everyone who walked by and saw the horse, in case the OP's wife decided to ignore the lameness, and other people saw her riding and could alert the actual owner, etc. 

ORRR, even more simply, perhaps they couldn't get ahold of them to tell them that they had checked the horse again and decided it should not be ridden and wanted to make sure it was known before the wife tried to ride again. My bet is that the OP is leaving out a lot of the interaction that had gone on, and admittedly has a lot to learn about horses. OP: I don't think you've done anything of malice, but just of not knowing better. I completely agree that you should not lease a horse whose performance you are not pleased with, but before jumping into something so blindly again (pun intended): PLEAAAAASSSEEEEE, you and your wife find someone knowledgeable that you get along with and like who can teach you about horses from the ground up! If your wife had enough experience to jump, she should have had enough experience to know better.


----------



## Lottii (Jul 10, 2010)

I am not going to get into this majorly, but surely if someone was riding your horse without you being there, and you were aware of the fact it had arthritis to the degree it was unsuitable to jump, I for one would make this VERY clear before they rode the horse.


----------



## vittoria della miniera (Oct 1, 2010)

*Lame*

I think that is unfair, the horse shouldn't have been put back into the stable straight away, me being myself I have only ever leased a horse once and will never do so again because it gets confusing unless you write up a contract.


----------



## starlinestables (Nov 24, 2008)

There was obvious over-sites by both barns but to answer your main question. In order to pursue any suit against the OP, the Lessors would have to prove it was negligence by the OP's. Let's say that you forgot to lock the stall door and the horse got out and got hurt... the OP would be liable. If the OP was jumping the horse on Monday evening and then Tuesday morning and the horse was dead lame they still don't really have a case unless they can prove it via witnesses. Plantiff always has the burden of proof!

To the OP, you didn't get screwed (yet). I would try to patch things up and just learn from your mistakes.. Best of luck!


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

Lottii said:


> I am not going to get into this majorly, but surely if someone was riding your horse without you being there, and you were aware of the fact it had arthritis to the degree it was unsuitable to jump, I for one would make this VERY clear before they rode the horse.


Yes, it should have been in the leasing contract.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

To the last several posters, you might want to check the dates on the thread. The original and only post by the OP was well over a month ago.

And the last pertinent activity in this thread was exactly a month ago.


----------

