# Lease contract for my mare



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm leaving for college this month and after a long consideration I decided to lease my mare out during the time I'm in college, including summer months, until I'm in a position to be able to pay for her care again. 

I've filtered through a couple dozen offers and narrowed it down to two people I feel comfortable with. They both seem very trustworthy; one is an old acquaintance (borderline friend, just never knew them very well) and the other, although I've only recently met her, has agreed to provide monthly updates and visitation, etc., and follows the same disciplines and training methods that I use. 


Even so, I still want to have legal backing and wrote out a full lease contract fill-in-the-blank style so I can work it out specifically with the person leasing. 



I'm hoping some of you who have had experience leasing could read over the contract and let me know if there's anything important missing or anything a little too overbearing (I don't want to scare these people of with excessive legal jargon ) 

I had to change the formatting to upload, so it might seem oddly formatted but it won't be in the printed form.

Thanks!


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

I have a few questions/concerns.
Where will he be kept? Can they move him without you approving of the new place?
Who is allowed to ride him? Can he be used for lessons? 

Does the person pay all board/ cares plus pay you a fee? That's OK if they agree. Two months behind on payments seems excessive. If they are late the chances of getting a bigger lump sum diminishes.

Five day grace period for payment... or what happens?

If he gets a debilitating disease they have to keep & treat until the end of the lease? If he's not usable how can you be sure they are treating & what if no treatment can make him ridable, for example, idiopathic seizures?

If he injures someone who is responsible?


----------



## kewpalace (Jul 17, 2013)

You don't need to use "legalease" language. Just use plain old English - it is good for everyone & for the general ease of understanding the contract terms.


----------



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

natisha said:


> I have a few questions/concerns.
> Where will he be kept? Can they move him without you approving of the new place?
> Who is allowed to ride him? Can he be used for lessons?
> 
> ...



I realized I was missing location as soon as a posted it  I am being very relaxed on payment, yes; money is my least concern. The payments are only going to be $15-$25/month or so, especially because she is responsible for board; I will specify that also. It does state that should the grace period expire without all due payments made the owner can seize the horse. 

The lease states that if she gets a debilitating disease that they, as the people responsible for vet care, must maintain care until the lease ends, even if she can no longer be used. That way, if she suddenly goes lame or gets arthritis, etc (won't happen because she's only 6, but still) they can't decide to randomly cancel the lease. The lease mentions that they must update her progress/condition at least every two months. If they aren't keeping up on vet care it will be noticeable and is grounds for seizing the horse. 

I will make sure to include who can ride her as well as if she hurts someone. 

Thank you! This is the kind of input I needed


----------



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

kewpalace said:


> You don't need to use "legalease" language.  Just use plain old English - it is good for everyone & for the general ease of understanding the contract terms.



Don't worry, I'm going over every part of the contract with the lessee before anything gets signed, so I can interpret  I do like to use legal language, at least to some degree, because it actually helps to seal loopholes through connotation, implied meaning, specific definition and "close-ended" words. Common words that are used regularly in speech accrue various connotations and implied definitions allowing for a higher risk of loopholes should the contract ever come to court. 

Also, if I ever did have to take the agreement to court (not very likely to happen, I hope) the more professional the contract sounds, the more likely it is to be upheld and taken seriously by a judge. 

But still, thank you for your feedback  I'll try to tone it down at least a little so it doesn't sound like a senate bill.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

Spellcheck said:


> Don't worry, I'm going over every part of the contract with the lessee before anything gets signed, so I can interpret  I do like to use legal language, at least to some degree, because it actually helps to seal loopholes through connotation, implied meaning, specific definition and "close-ended" words. Common words that are used regularly in speech accrue various connotations and implied definitions allowing for a higher risk of loopholes should the contract ever come to court.
> 
> Also, if I ever did have to take the agreement to court (not very likely to happen, I hope) the more professional the contract sounds, the more likely it is to be upheld and taken seriously by a judge.
> 
> But still, thank you for your feedback  I'll try to tone it down at least a little so it doesn't sound like a senate bill.


If it were a Senate Bill it would be 30,000 pages long & no one would read it.:wink:

If you have a trusted horse friend you may want to name that person as your proxy to occasionally have eyes on your horse. I have a boarder who lives out of State & her Mom stops in every so often to check the horse.


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

Spellcheck said:


> The lease states that if she gets a debilitating disease that they, as the people responsible for vet care, must maintain care until the lease ends, even if she can no longer be used. That way, if she suddenly goes lame or gets arthritis, etc (won't happen because she's only 6, but still) they can't decide to randomly cancel the lease. The lease mentions that they must update her progress/condition at least every two months. If they aren't keeping up on vet care it will be noticeable and is grounds for seizing the horse.


Personally, I wouldn't sign a lease with that kind of clause, and I'd be willing to bet that no one who has had to pay vet bills for a horse before would, either. One of the big advantages of leasing is that you don't potentially get stuck paying for a horse you can't ride. When I still leased (before I bought my own horse), the contract I signed had an out for me if the horse was unrideable for more than 30 days. The owner also had an insurance policy on the horse and I was responsible for only the deductible should anything have happened.

What if the horse is diagnosed with ulcers shortly after the lease starts? The way the contract is written, the leasee would be expected to pay for the treatment even though it's very possible it was a pre-existing condition that just hadn't been diagnosed yet. Then there's the complication of what is proper treatment... in the ulcer example, the gold standard is a month on UlcerGard at $30/day. But what if the leasee decides that feeding a cup of aloe juice each day is an acceptable treatment? Most vets would say that it's not as effective, but you'd have a hard time finding one saying that it was neglect. This is, of course, just an example; you could find many other injuries or conditions that would be just as gray. 

By having the leasee responsible for (potentially) long term vet care, you lose the ability to dictate exactly what care your horse gets- the leasee will take the least expensive option that fulfills her obligations, which may not be best for the horse in the long run.

You could spell out that you get to choose the treatment the horse gets, but few people would be willing to sign something like that, since it is essentially signing a blank check.


----------



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

verona1016 said:


> Personally, I wouldn't sign a lease with that kind of clause, and I'd be willing to bet that no one who has had to pay vet bills for a horse before would, either. One of the big advantages of leasing is that you don't potentially get stuck paying for a horse you can't ride. When I still leased (before I bought my own horse), the contract I signed had an out for me if the horse was unrideable for more than 30 days. The owner also had an insurance policy on the horse and I was responsible for only the deductible should anything have happened.
> 
> What if the horse is diagnosed with ulcers shortly after the lease starts? The way the contract is written, the leasee would be expected to pay for the treatment even though it's very possible it was a pre-existing condition that just hadn't been diagnosed yet. Then there's the complication of what is proper treatment... in the ulcer example, the gold standard is a month on UlcerGard at $30/day. But what if the leasee decides that feeding a cup of aloe juice each day is an acceptable treatment? Most vets would say that it's not as effective, but you'd have a hard time finding one saying that it was neglect. This is, of course, just an example; you could find many other injuries or conditions that would be just as gray.
> 
> ...



The main idea of this lease is that she will be essentially their horse for the duration of the lease--hence why it's a "care" lease with a very small fee added. With that cost, I would expect them to pay vet bills as though she were their horse. If they couldn't accept possible vet bills on a practically free horse, I wouldn't trust them with my horse. I picked these people out of a long list because I felt comfortable with their horsemanship, care setup and above all personality. 

I've refined a few things since the posted version. For one, it already says that the lessee will be responsible for all "necessary" vet care for medical conditions, so if it can be managed or treated without a vet bill, I'm okay with that. I'm not as vet-crazed as some people; I've always felt that if it can be treated safely at home that the vet isn't really necessary, but I won't hesitate to flip a vet bill if it does come down to it, same with people and doctors. I'm giving the lessee the same discretion. 

I have, however, added since then that with the exception of emergencies, all major or long-term procedures must be run past me. 

I was a little worried about the pre-existing conditions part, but I don't want to risk a law suit, etc. if there is something that the vet check misses. To be completely protected against any possible conditions I would have to do blood work, extensive radio graphs, ultrasounds and who knows what else which, even if I could afford that many unnecessary vet bills, is probably more than board for a year. 


Like I said, I'm not leasing her out for much, and the listed value I'm think of putting at around 2,500 which isn't really worth insurance. Most of her real value is personal to me through training and personality; she is grade with no show record since I'm not competitive. If she were to show, she would be great but I can't prove that. 


I don't mean to pick apart your advice or anything, in fact it's nice to have a feel for what problems they might have with the contract and what I should be prepared to explain. I really like these people and don't want them to think I'm preparing to rain legal hellfire on them, but I also want myself protected if they turn out to be less than I expected. I'll try to word it a little less severely


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

Spellcheck said:


> The main idea of this lease is that she will be essentially their horse for the duration of the lease--hence why it's a "care" lease with a very small fee added. With that cost, I would expect them to pay vet bills as though she were their horse. If they couldn't accept possible vet bills on a practically free horse, I wouldn't trust them with my horse. I picked these people out of a long list because I felt comfortable with their horsemanship, care setup and above all personality.


IME, a "full" or "care" lease for a horse without show experience, value as a broodmare, etc. would lease out for no additional fee. I realize your lease fee is very small, but is still a fee nonetheless. (Perhaps it's more common to charge in your area) The last lease I did before buying was a full care lease- I moved the horse to my barn, paid everything for his care directly to the service providers, and paid nothing at all to the owner (who was more than happy to have someone caring for and riding her horse while she was away at college). Ultimately, the horse still belonged to the owner, and the owner "profited" from the lease in that she didn't have to sell her horse for the couple of years she wasn't able to have him near her.

It's great that you've found a couple of people who are willing to risk the potential of huge vet bills for a horse that will never be theirs. I guess if they're OK with that clause then you don't have any need to change it. But it would be a huge red flag for me and for many others. Someone who has never owned a horse and/or had to pay large vet bills may be less wary of it, but I bet they'd be caught off guard if the clause actually did have to come into effect.



Spellcheck said:


> Like I said, I'm not leasing her out for much, and the listed value I'm think of putting at around 2,500 which isn't really worth insurance. Most of her real value is personal to me through training and personality; she is grade with no show record since I'm not competitive. If she were to show, she would be great but I can't prove that.


The insurance I mentioned was for major medical- regardless of horse value. What would happen if your horse needed emergency colic surgery? Many vet hospitals won't do an expensive procedure like this without guarantee of payment, and in an emergency there's no time to find more money if you don't already have it (and the lessee may not even be able to get in touch with you before a decision has to be made). Are you requiring your lessee to have an emergency fund set aside to cover such a case? Would you be OK if the horse had to be PTS instead because the lessee couldn't afford the life saving surgery?


----------



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

verona1016 said:


> IME, a "full" or "care" lease for a horse without show experience, value as a broodmare, etc. would lease out for no additional fee. I realize your lease fee is very small, but is still a fee nonetheless. (Perhaps it's more common to charge in your area) The last lease I did before buying was a full care lease- I moved the horse to my barn, paid everything for his care directly to the service providers, and paid nothing at all to the owner (who was more than happy to have someone caring for and riding her horse while she was away at college). Ultimately, the horse still belonged to the owner, and the owner "profited" from the lease in that she didn't have to sell her horse for the couple of years she wasn't able to have him near her.
> 
> It's great that you've found a couple of people who are willing to risk the potential of huge vet bills for a horse that will never be theirs. I guess if they're OK with that clause then you don't have any need to change it. But it would be a huge red flag for me and for many others. Someone who has never owned a horse and/or had to pay large vet bills may be less wary of it, but I bet they'd be caught off guard if the clause actually did have to come into effect.
> 
> ...



For one, many insurances (I looked into it a couple times) won't cover vet bills above the listed value of the horse unless the medical insurance is separate. 

I also mentioned that in the case of an emergency, the lessee makes the final decision if there isn't time to wait for a response from me. If it did come down to euthanasia, that's just something I have to accept; the situation would be the same if the horse was is my care at the time of the incident. The only time they would be responsible for her death is if it is a direct result of abuse or neglect. 

Likewise, I don't want to be responsible for vet bills that are their fault, even if it isn't a result of substantial neglect/abuse. She will be checked by a vet before she leaves, so there shouldn't be anything preexisting when they take her. 


I am requiring the fee less as a way of making money (since it really isn't much money at all) and more of a way of keeping tabs on her financially, if that makes sense. Not to mention, if she were to show for a season and prove to the rest of the world she can do what I already know she can, her value would sky rocket. She schools at 3'6" with this as her second year training over fences. She clears 4' easily and will show at 3'6" in no time, I just haven't gotten there myself. She jumps anything and everything over any terrain. She knows basic dressage; rides on the bit, complete control of all gaits, flying lead changes, complete yield of hindquarters and forehand at all gaits, excellent coordination of seat, rein & leg aids. She rides western, bareback and has control of all gaits in liberty (no tack whatsoever) in the open. She also drives, and stands to let you do just abut anything from the ground or in the saddle. Hardly anything spooks her. 

Her only major flaws are 1) she is a bit mareish and needs a firm rider 2) she is hopelessly short at 14.2 hands . Also, she is the kind of horse that is smarter than most people and has a knack for opening gates and untying knots, which is a PIA. 

....Sorry if I get a bit carried away. I love talking about her. 


But back to the lease, I'm sticking with the vet clause as it is for now. I'm going over the whole thing with the lessee soon, and if they do have a problem with it I'll see what we can work out. It all comes down to technicalities and specific cases in the end, really.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

If you are willing to allow an "off-farm" lease then you may as well kiss the horse good-bye. Too many times these deals go sideways and horses wind up in other states or provinces. Once that happens it's nigh unto impossible to get it back, if you locate it. You will face considerable expense trying to track it down. The police will tell you it's a civil case and the court will tell you it's a police matter. Often times these horses get sold almost as soon as they are out of sight. And these are often the nicest people who do this.


----------



## Spellcheck (Sep 13, 2012)

Saddlebag said:


> If you are willing to allow an "off-farm" lease then you may as well kiss the horse good-bye. Too many times these deals go sideways and horses wind up in other states or provinces. Once that happens it's nigh unto impossible to get it back, if you locate it. You will face considerable expense trying to track it down. The police will tell you it's a civil case and the court will tell you it's a police matter. Often times these horses get sold almost as soon as they are out of sight. And these are often the nicest people who do this.



That's exactly what I have the contract to avoid. I have in the contract unlimited visitation as well as required regular updates from the lessee. The contract also has provisions for if the horse is not returned or the "wrong" horse is returned. In both causes, the lessee is responsible for full replacement value within three months or they are in violation of the contract. 

In understand it's still risky, which is why I was trying to avoid leasing, but I don't have much choice and this is much safer than selling.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I actually agree with a lot of what verona has said--your choice to dictate that the leasee be responsible for all vet fees and that you charge anything for a "free lease" (at least, that's what this would otherwise be classified as) on an unproven mare are pretty unorthodox.

But I guess if you've already found leasors that isn't an issue? Were there any other things that you were on the fence about?


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

I've free leased several horses over the years and I would never accept your terms...

Your horse could have arthritis started and should he go lame, I would not want to pay for an unusable horse. 

I've always covered feed costs, the owner always pays farrier/vet. In return the owner gets free board, and care, and unlimited access.

I have two horses with lameness issues. One has navicular. Too open ended as you could just Bute and ride anyway, vs doing injections, x rays etc.

Joint injections are $600 and up.


----------



## kewpalace (Jul 17, 2013)

Spellcheck said:


> I do like to use legal language, at least to some degree, because it actually helps to seal loopholes through connotation, implied meaning, specific definition and "close-ended" words. Common words that are used regularly in speech accrue various connotations and implied definitions allowing for a higher risk of loopholes should the contract ever come to court.
> 
> Also, if I ever did have to take the agreement to court (not very likely to happen, I hope) the more professional the contract sounds, the more likely it is to be upheld and taken seriously by a judge.


Actually none of that is true. But if you are happy with it, go for it.
As written, I certainly wouldn't sign it.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

The horse my daughter first leased had a value of maybe $2,500. 

We did have to get insurance for him, I feel the main point of that was for liability though as opposed to the medical part of the policy.

There was a clause about our responsibility for veterinary well-care. Then a cap of $500 for other vet care, with owner involvement. Almost anything could have resulted in vet bills exceeding the value of the horse, and it would be up to the discretion of the owner whether to put the horse down or enter such a treatment.

I find verona to be a very sensible HF member and level headed poster. Agree with most anything she writes.


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

I would never sign a lease that stated i had to keep a lame horse. If that horse suddenly developed lameness that was debilitating , then it has been developing for a while. 
Thats a good way to pawn off a lame horse.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

You can't afford to keep the horse yet you expect someone else to cover everything. Unless this horse has a proven show record, no one will sign a long term lease unless it is to advance someone's skills in that particular discipline.


----------

