Exam A
Test your knowledge of equine law. by Attorney Krysia Nelson
Billing Gone Awry
woman purchased a stallion in 1996 with the intent of competing the horse in the discipline of dressage and promoting the
horse as a breeding stallion. After competing for several years, the horse developed health issues that led him to be retired from competition. In 2006, the owner’s trainer arranged to have the stallion placed with another professional primar- ily for breeding, with the understanding that the professional could attempt to train and compete the horse again if she chose. A written lease agree- ment between the parties set forth that the profes- sional would not pay any lease fee to the owner, but would assume all expenses incurred by the horse for the duration of the lease. The lease term, however, was not specified. The owner’s trainer told the professional she could breed the stallion to her own mares. The owner and her trainer an-
ticipated only live breeding because the stallion’s frozen semen had been tested by two veterinary clinics and was found to be nonviable. The owner and the professional later agreed in writing that the lease term would end on August 18, 2011. The stallion’s health improved under the profes-
sional’s care and he began competing again. By 2009, he was having considerable success at high levels of dressage competition, and the profession- al lacked the financial resources to compete him to the extent he was capable. The owner wanted the professional to be able to continue competing the stallion, so she began making payments to the professional of about $13,000 per month. Over a period of about two years, the owner paid the pro- fessional $217,000. In the fall of 2011, after the expiration of the
lease term, the owner informed the professional that she wished to reclaim possession of the stal- lion. The professional was shocked. She claimed that the owner had made her an “oral promise” that the stallion would stay in her care for the rest of his life, and that the owner would continue to make payments to the professional for his care. As a result, the professional sent the owner an itemization of additional expenses that the pro- fessional claimed she had incurred for the stallion between 2006 and 2011, and refused to return the horse to the owner until her bill was paid. Liti- gation ensued.
☛ Turn the page for the outcome.
About the author: Krysia Carmel Nelson is an attorney from Virginia who is a nationally-recognized expert in equine law. Attor- ney Nelson represents horse owners, trainers, riders, breeders, equestrian facili- ties, farms, clubs and asso- ciations across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. As a life- long equestrian, she currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
44 May/June 2014
© The Book LLC 2011
Bar
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68