Exam C
Test your knowledge of equine law. by Attorney Krysia Nelson
Appropriate to Appeal?
arol owned two horses, Duke and Frankie. Carol was looking to sell Duke, but she
wanted to keep Frankie and have him trained. She went to talk to a local trainer, Timmy. Tim- my suggested that he would take Duke in exchange for training and boarding Frankie for six months. Carol agreed this was a fair swap, and she took both horses to Timmy on June first with plans to pick up Frankie on December first. On December first, Carol went to the facility
where she had left her two horses with Timmy. Timmy wasn’t there, and neither was Frankie. Carol got busy making calls and making in- quiries through social media, and managed to track down Frankie. He was with another trainer, Mike, in a neighboring state. Carol called Mike and told him that she was
coming to get Frankie. Mike said, “Not so fast. Timmy left that horse with me in August, and you owe me four months board and training. Timmy told me I’d get paid and I am not let- ting that horse out of my barn until the bill is paid in full.” Carol filed a lawsuit, seeking Frankie’s return. Mike counterclaimed for the value of the training and boarding services he had provided to the horse. At trial, the judge ruled in Mike’s favor and
awarded him judgment in the amount of four months training and board. Carol appealed. Will Carol get Frankie back without paying
Mike’s bill? Multi-state Mayhem K
ara, a resident of Ken- tucky, sent her two
horses (Frick and Frack) to Olga, a resident of Ohio, pursuant to an agree- ment by which Olga would pasture board Frick in return for using Frack. When Kara
52 September/October 2016
attempted to retrieve Frick, Olga refused to release him unless Kara gave her Frack or paid her $1200. Kara ultimately removed both her horses and sued Olga in Kentucky. Olga responded by filing a complaint against Kara in Ohio. Olga claimed that Kara had agreed to give her Frack in exchange for the pasture boarding of Frick for one year, and at a rate
Answer: Yes On appeal, the court reversed and ruled in
Carol’s favor. The court explained that while there was “no doubt” why Mike made a claim based on “quantum meruit” (a reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered) for the services he provided to the horse, to be entitled to payment under this theory, Mike had to prove Carol knew about Mike’s arrangement
with Timmy and accepted it. The appellate court noted that the trial court had specifically found that Carol “was never acquainted with nor communicated with” Mike, and was un- aware of where Timmy had taken Frankie for the purpose of training. The appellate court found that the trial court’s granting relief to the trainer appeared to be based on a bail- ment/assignment theory that Timmy assigned his contract rights to Mike. This was an error, the court explained, because Mike had never made a claim for payment under either a bail- ment or contract theory and “it was beyond the [trial] court’s power to grant him relief under theories not pled.” The case was sent back to the trial court with instructions that judgment be entered for Carol—meaning that she got her horse back without having to pay Mike anything.
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