Exam T
OUTCOME: TROUBLE IN PARADISE
he wife’s lawsuit against the parents who bought her horse from her ex- for $400.00 is
dismissed. The parents claimed that they didn’t have any reason to believe that the husband didn’t own the horse at the time they bought it, and they believed the $400 purchase price to be fair because they had only ever seen the horse standing or limping around in a field eating. Plus, they knew that the ex- owned and lived on the property where they had always seen the horse, and they knew the wife was gone. The court agreed that the wife had not proven that she was entitled to get the horse back under any applicable legal theory and dismissed the lawsuit. So the kid got to keep the horse (which now, fully recovered from its injury, is worth much more than its $400 purchase price). The sheriff probably didn’t mean that the
wife should sue the people who had bought the horse, but was probably suggesting that she should go after her ex-. The court suggested the same thing. If the wife could prove that she owned the horse and that her ex- didn’t have any ownership stake in the horse, then she would be able to recover at least the sales price paid to the ex- for the horse. If she could prove how much the horse was worth, then she would be able to recover its full value. Depending on the ex-‘s explanation for why he sold the horse, she might even be able to recover additional monetary damages. But getting money from her ex-husband is a lot different than getting her horse back. What could the wife have done before leaving for Hawaii that might have made this case turn out differently? When a marriage or other personal relation- ship is going well, couples usually do not take steps to document ownership of animals. Main- taining records of ownership, as well as records of payments made in support of the animals, is important to prove or disprove claims of ownership after the relationship has gone sour. Animals commonly become pawns in the game of revenge that frequently accompanies the demise of a relationship. This case illustrates the most common scenario: the person who gives
70 November/December 2014
up possession of the animal (even temporarily) is unlikely to regain possession of it in the future. If you own an animal and find yourself in a position where you have to leave and can’t take it with you, best not to leave it behind with your soon-to-be-ex; better to leave the animal in the custody of a business (boarding stable, kennel, etc) or trusted friend AND get something in writ- ing that establishes the terms under which you are transferring custody (in other words, that you are NOT giving up ownership or permanent cus- tody of the animal). If you have to leave the ani- mal with your soon-to-be-ex, a similar document is also crucial so that if a problem arises, you have something in writing that proves your case. I suspect that if the wife in the case at hand had gotten something in writing from her ex- before she left town, it probably would have deterred him from selling her horse behind her back. A word of caution to any would-be purchas- ers of a horse that is being sold by a divorcing or recently divorced couple: make sure you get something in writing from the seller establish- ing they own the horse and have the necessary authority to sell it. For high dollar horses, I will often advise would-be purchasers to get some- thing in writing from the seller’s divorce attorney establishing whether or not the horse is a marital asset. If there is any doubt about whether or not the seller owns the horse free and clear of any restrictions created by a divorce decree or pend- ing divorce proceeding, then it is best to take a “pass” and avoid the messiness of injecting your- self into another couples’ unpleasantness.
About the author: Krysia Carmel Nelson is an at- torney from Virginia who is a nationally-recognized expert in equine law. Attorney Nelson represents horse owners, train- ers, riders, breeders, equestrian facilities, farms, clubs and associa-
tions across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. As a lifelong equestrian, she currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
Bar
© The Book LLC 2011
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100