n
Bar
Exam
Just How Bad Is It?
The Free Lease That Wasn’t Betty has a lovely horse “Poncho” that she keeps at the farm where Poncho was bred. Poncho’s breeder, Fran, has gotten older and while she still enjoys seeing the horses in her backyard, she is past the age where she can assist in their care. Betty has worked out a great deal with Fran where she doesn’t pay any board for Poncho, in exchange for feeding two of Fran’s retirees (including Poncho’s dam). Fran pays for all the hay and feed, and since the three horses basically “live out,” there isn’t much work involved. But Betty has just been given a great work opportu-
nity to spend a year abroad. What to do about Poncho? She decides to try to find someone to “free lease” him and take over her duties at Fran’s farm. She even of- fers to continue to pay all of Poncho’s vet and farrier expenses. Nancy has just moved into the area for her job. Cur-
rently horseless, she is itching to ride. She sees Betty’s notice at the local tack shop and meets up with Betty and Fran and Poncho. Fran is charming, Betty seems like a kindred spirit, and Poncho is sweet and super fun to ride. Betty promises to stay in close contact and tells Nancy that she will leave a credit card on file with the vet and pay the farrier in advance for the year. Nancy decides that this deal is a perfect opportunity
for her. After all, what could go wrong? My response: Everything. But Nancy is undeterred. I suggest that at the very
least, she make sure that as a condition of going for- ward, Betty and Fran both sign off on a basic contract, agreeing that Nancy isn’t financially responsible for any of the horses, that she doesn’t have to pay Fran any “board,” or Betty any “lease fee,” and giving her a “veteri- nary power of attorney” over all three horses. It is spring when Betty heads abroad, and within a
week of her departure Poncho’s dam founders. Then Poncho founders. Then the other retiree founders. The vet is coming out daily, but all three horses re- quire intensive care and must be stall bound. Nancy is at the farm daily trying to care for all three foundering horses, but she has to work until 5pm and has been forced to take “personal” time off from her new job to meet with the vet. Fran refuses to put the retirees down, but she also refuses to send the horses to the vet clinic or to buy the bedding necessary to keep them stall bound in a reasonable way. Poncho, mean-
92 March/April 2018
while, is the least affected but after a week the vet takes x-rays and pronounces that he is unlikely to be ever be rideable again, and possibly not even pasture sound. Betty is unreachable. Then the vet informs Nancy
that the credit card Betty left on file has been declined. As a result, the vet is unwilling to provide more care to Poncho unless Nancy agrees to foot the bill. As it turns out, Fran seems to suffer from dementia and is unable to make reasonable decisions of any kind. When Nancy leaves the farm in the evening, Fran wanders out to the barn and turns all the horses out. Nancy is heartbroken when she returns to the farm to find the three horses barely able to hobble around their field. What started out seeming like a pretty sweet deal
has turned into a horse-lover’s nightmare. How can Nancy get herself out of this mess? While this was in many ways a very hard case, the
starkness of the situation made it ultimately easier than most. The veterinarian easily agreed that all three horses should be put down and that keeping them alive was inhumane. Fortunately for Nancy, the “free lease” agreement she signed clearly gave her the authority to make such decisions not only for Poncho, but also for the two retirees. The veterinarian was willing to rely on the document to let Nancy authorize the horses to be put down. But to add insult to injury, Nancy had to pay the final
bill to put Poncho down. Nancy was worried that Fran or Betty would sue
her. Sue her for what? The “basic” power of attorney language in the contract gave Nancy the authority she needed to make the necessary decisions. But even if there hadn’t been a contract, if Nancy was sued for having authorized the destruction of the animals, she would have at most been liable for the fair market value of the horses at the time they were put down—a value of zero, given their condition.
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
