Home
 

The Legal Horse
Equestrian Question Forum Archive
An informative column presented by Lisa Lerch Esq. of Legal Equestrian

Lisa L. Lerch, Esq.
17476 Yorba Linda Blvd.
Suite 212
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Office 714-993-3590
Facsimile 714-993-9257
lisalerch@legalequestrian.com
www.legalequestrian.com

April 2008

Q: I live in an equestrian community governed by a homeowner’s association. Local zoning allows for 4 horses, but my homeowner’s association says I can only have 2 horses. I do not want to get rid of 2 of my horses. Can I legally keep 4 horses on my property?

A: I think every horse owner longs for a nice 100 acre spread which would allow us the freedom to do as we wish. Unfortunately, the reality is most of us find ourselves on small patches of land that are often subject to rules and regulations.

For the longest time the only rules one encountered regarding the number of horses one could have came from local city government in the form of zoning compliance. Today, with the onset of Common-Interest-Developments, most of us now have to deal with the city and a homeowner’s association.

Being the member of a homeowner’s association has its pros and cons. On the one hand, if the development is established as an equestrian community, a homeowner might benefit from well-maintained trails. On the down-side, the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) often restrict the number of horses you can keep, as well as how you can keep them.

A common misconception is that if local zoning permits something and the CC&Rs are different then the CC&Rs are wrong and do not need to be followed. That misconception can cause a lot of headaches for the homeowner. CC&Rs are the governing documents for the development and mandate how the homeowners association functions, as well as the rules that owners, tenants and guests must follow. The documents are legally enforceable by the homeowner association.

CC&Rs differ from local zoning in that they are private land use restrictions put in place by the original land owner and not by government legislation. CC&Rs have the ability to further restrict the actions of a homeowner that would otherwise be legally permissible under local zoning laws. For example, if local zoning allows for 4 horses on your property and your CC&Rs only allow for 2 horses then, despite zoning, you can only have 2 horses on your property.

When you purchased your home in a Common-Interest-Development, you agreed to abide by the terms set forth in the CC&Rs, whether you read them or not. Every homeowner should carefully read the CC&Rs prior to purchase to ensure they allow you to have the lifestyle you want on your property. It is even more important to do so when animals are involved because misunderstandings and violations of CC&Rs usually result in costly legal battles and the eventual loss of your animals.

If you have further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact our office for further information.

 

This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2008. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.

Lisa Lerch will be teaching a 3 hour seminar at Rancho Santiago College on Monday, June 16th from 6:30pm - 9:30pm.
The topic is Equine Law for the horse owner. Contact Lisa for more info.


March 2008

Q: My boarder left his horse on my property and has not paid his bill. What are my responsibilities to the animal and how can I get it off my property?

A: This is a great question. Once you accept an animal into your facility, you become responsible for the care and well-being of the animal regardless of whether your board bill is paid.

California CC §1834 establishes that a boarding facility, (large or small, professional or hobby) has a legal duty to provide the animal with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition and shelter and treat them kindly. Any boarding facility failing to do these things may be liable for civil damages. Unfortunately, this means it costs the boarding facility money if the horse owner fails to uphold his/her end of the agreement.

A boarding facility has a few options to help reduce the financial strain. The first and easiest way to handle the problem is to have the horse owner waive their ownership rights and release the horse to the facility. Always do this in writing to avoid further issues down the road. Once the facility owner actually owns the horse he/she can either sell it or find it a new owner (hopefully one that will pay for it). If this option is not feasible, for example, due to the owner’s failure to be reached, then the boarding facility can seek to enforce its livestock lien. As this is a possessory lien the facility must continue to “hold” and care for the animal until such time as a court order can be obtained to sell the animal. The process for this is more thoroughly discussed in my previous article “My boarder left the horse and a huge bill!!!! How do I get paid?”. If the horse is of little value, the lien option may be unappealing as the expense in maintaining the horse and costs involved are often greater than the money realized from selling the horse.

If the horse has little monetary value, the boarding facility may finally choose to relinquish their lien rights and deem the horse abandoned. This will not get the board bill paid, but sometimes getting the horse off the property is the most cost effective solution.

In order to comply with California’s abandonment law, the boarding facility must first post California CC §1834.5 in a conspicuous place warning each border of the provisions of this code section.

California CC §1834.5 states in pertinent part that if the owner of an animal does not pick the animal up within fourteen (14) calendar days after the day the animal was due to be picked up the animal shall be deemed abandoned. To protect itself from further legal problems, the boarding facility should send written notice by certified letter to horse owner at his/her last known address demanding the horse be removed from the property by a clearly stated date.
The notice should further advise that failure to remove the horse will result in the horse being deemed abandoned and euthanized.

The owner then has fourteen (14) calendar days to reclaim his/her horse. If, within these fourteen (14) days, the horse owner cannot be reached and/or does not respond, the horse is then deemed abandoned. Once the horse can legally be determined abandoned, the boarding facility must try for a period of at least ten (10) days to find a new owner for the animal. If the animal cannot be placed with a new owner during this time period, the boarding facility may have the horse humanely destroyed.

Prior to proceeding under the abandonment statute, boarding facilities should also notify their local animal control to ensure they are in compliance with all local ordinances. Remember, animal abandonment can also result in criminal charges against the horse owner and the local animal control would help make those determinations.

As a form of notice, boarding facilities may opt to include a provision in the boarding agreement reciting California CC §1834.5 and have the boarder initial by the paragraph. This done in connection with the posting on the premises ensures the boarding facility has adequately notified horse owners of this potential outcome animal abandonment.

If you have further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact our office for further information.

 

This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2008. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.


February 2008

Q: I often need to ride my horse on the street to access trails. What are the rules of the road for horseback riders?

A: This is a great question. The California Vehicle Code provides three code sections that specifically address equestrian issues.

CVC § 21759 states “ The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear necessary or as may be signaled or otherwise requested by any person driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in charge of the livestock.”

If you are on horseback and indicate to a car that you need it to slow down or stop to avoid a problem then the driver needs to respond appropriately. If the driver fails to respond and an injury occurs, the driver may be found liable for any and all damages that flow from the accident.

CVC § 21050 states “ Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division and Division 10 (commencing with §20000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.”

While horseback riding, you are for all intents and purposes considered a driver on the road and need to follow all applicable traffic laws. Some things riders can do to keep themselves safe and be in compliance with the law are signal appropriately, yield when necessary and stop at traffic lights. When an automobile driver doesn’t have to guess what your next move will be chances are everyone will stay safe.

CVC § 21805 states “(a) The Department of Transportation, and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may designate any intersection of a highway as a bridle path or equestrian crossing by erecting appropriate signs. The signs shall be erected on the highway at or near the approach to the intersection, and shall be of a type approved by the Department of Transportation. The signs shall indicate the crossing and any cross marks, safety devices, or signals the authorities deem necessary to safeguard vehicular and equestrian traffic at the intersection.
(b) The driver of any vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any horseback rider who is crossing the highway at any designated equestrian crossing, which is marked by signs as prescribed in subdivision (a).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not relieve any horseback rider from the duty of using due care for his or her own safety. No horseback rider shall leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed suddenly into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.”

Riding in Southern California we should all be familiar with the yellow equestrian crossing signs. These are for our use and safety and provide us with the right-of-way. However, common sense still needs to prevail. If you see a car is not slowing, do not proceed. The horseback rider is required to wait until they are able to cross safely. A horseback rider who proceeds in an unsafe manner and causes an accident may be liable for the damages that result from that accident. Know your rights and responsibilities and ride safe.

If you would like more information on this or other topics, please feel free to visit my website or contact my office.

 

This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2008. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.


January 2008

Q: I have just suffered the loss of my horse due to my neighbor’s inability to control his dogs. How do I pursue compensation for the loss of my animal?

A: There are a variety of ways to pursue this matter. You may choose to allow the local prosecutor to pursue criminal charges or you may choose to sue in civil court.

California law states the dog owner may be both strictly liable for injury, harm or loss caused by his animal as well as general negligence. Injury, harm or loss could be to an individual or an individual’s property, in this case your horse. These claims would be brought in civil court.

Typically, when an animal is injured or killed, the owner is entitled to compensation in the form of the “market value” of the animal, vet bills and possibly punitive and emotional distress damages. Emotional distress awards are generally not large and these issues can be very difficult to prove. However, California law specifically provides that owner of any livestock (horse) which is injured or killed by any dog may recover in civil court as liquidated damages from the owner of the dog twice the actual value of the animal killed or twice the value of the damages sustained because of the injuries, as the case may be. Civil litigation can be quite expensive but if your horse was of substantial value, you may want to pursue this option.

Local authorities may also have in place dog statutes that may subject the owner to various criminal penalties.

The local District Attorney’s office may choose to file criminal charges against the dog owner. During criminal proceedings, the District Attorney would be able to seek monetary compensation for your loss and could choose to seek punitive damages if the dog owner’s actions could be proven willful and egregious.

If you would like more information on this or other topics, please feel free to visit my website or contact my office.

 

This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2008. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.


December 2007

Q: My boarder left the horse and a huge bill!!!! How do I get paid?

A: California law provides protection for service providers in the form of a Livestock Service Lien. A livestock servicer (in this instance a boarding facility) has a general lien upon livestock (horse) in its possession to ensure all contractual obligations are met.

The boarding facility may choose to do one of the following to recoup their costs:

1. Retain possession of the horse and charge the owner for the reasonable value of services to the horse until such time all charges have been satisfied; or
2. Sell all or any portion of the livestock so long as the lienholder obtains a favorable judgment from a court of law.

A note of caution! A lienholder may not proceed to sale without first going to court or obtaining a release from the horse owner. Any lienholder that sells a horse without applying to a court of law first is risking exposure to theft charges.

Remember, you can’t sell what isn’t yours!

Unfortunately, court hearings take time and the horse keeps eating. There is help. In circumstances where the horse’s value will not meet the outstanding debt, as well as the cost of continuing care, a lienholder may appeal to the court on an “emergency” basis to allow the lienholder to proceed to sale without the required notice to the horse owner.

One way to avoid the necessity of litigation altogether is to have the horse owner execute a “release of interest document”, which can be executed at any time after the lien has arisen, thereby erasing the necessity of a court order. The language in this release is determined by statute and lienholders should consult with an attorney to ensure it is drafted properly.

Once the boarding facility is able to proceed to sale, the proceeds of the sale must be applied in the following order:

1. The charges for livestock services from the date the lien arose to the date of sale.
2. The costs incurred for transporting and preparing the livestock for sale and of conducting the sale.
3. The reasonable attorney’s fees and legal costs and expenses incurred by the lienholder.
4. For satisfaction of the contractual indebtedness secured by the lien.
5. For satisfaction of indebtedness of subordinate liens.

Depending upon the market value of the livestock, the boarding facility may be able to recoup all outstanding debt plus attorney’s fees and costs, so it is certainly worth pursuing if you’ve been left with the feed bill.

If you have further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact our office for further information

 

This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2007. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.


November 2007

Q: Is horse tack covered by my liability release?

A: Generally, no.

California being one of the few states without specific Equestrian Activity Legislation must rely on good old-fashioned assumption of the risk doctrine. Many equine professionals rely too heavily on the “protection” afforded them under this doctrine, to their detriment. The assumption of the risk does not provide protection from any and all injuries that may arise during a participant’s involvement with an equestrian activity.

Many commercial providers of horseback riding, training or renting will often have patrons sign a liability release believing that they are then wholly protected from potential litigation should any injury occur.

That is not the case.

A general liability release, when properly signed, typically insulates the professional from claims arising from injuries that flow from the inherent risks associated with horseback riding.

In sports-related activities, the courts have determined that three basic ideas need to be addressed when deciding what duty was owed to a patron. ¹

1. What is the fundamental nature of the sport (horseback riding) and what inherent risks might be associated with said the sport?

Inherent risks can generally be categorized as falling from a horse, being bitten, kicked or thrown from a horse just to mention a few. An inherent risk is a risk that might naturally occur due to the nature of the sport. Horseback riding always carries an inherent risk that the animal may not behave in a safe and calm manner, thereby resulting in an injury.

2. What is your duty (to your customer) within the context of the sport? ²

The court has held that commercial operators of sports and recreational facilities owe a duty of care to their patrons. In broad terms, this means you as the commercial provider have a duty to ensure the facilities and related services, which are provided, do not increase the risk of injury beyond the inherent risks associated with the sport.

3. What is your duty to protect your customer from the particular risk of harm?

You certainly have a duty to make sure the sport does not become more dangerous by providing faulty equipment. A whole list of duties can be attached to professionals within the equestrian community, ie, not to provide faulty saddles, bridles and other equipment. ³
Arguably, being on the receiving end of a broken saddle is not a risk a rider would choose to assume.

A few ways to prevent litigation is to make sure your clientele is receiving safe equipment.

1. Establish a protocol for checking saddles, cinches, bridles, helmets and all the other goodies that you provide to your clientele for horseback riding. Make sure the protocol is followed by everyone who handles your tack.

2. Replace all helmets according to the guidelines of the AMEA/SRF. It is recommended that a helmet that has sustained any impact should be replaced immediately even if there is no visible damage.

3. Immediately prior to riding, check the tack to make sure it has been placed and fitted on the horse correctly. Make sure all staff (trainers, volunteers, anyone working for you in any capacity) know how to check tack on a fully saddled horse and spot potential problems. *Remember your client probably does not have a clue.

Equine professionals should include a carefully worded paragraph in their release that expressly warns about the potential injuries or problems that could occur if the horse equipment fails during your client’s ride. An express disclosure of potential injuries that may arise from faulty tack may protect you from potential liability. Let’s face it, most people in the general public who hire horse professionals have little experience with horse equipment and how it should operate. Most people do recognize that they may fall from the horse during their ride. However, people do not expect to hit the ground with their saddle still under them. Protect yourself to the best of your ability with excellent paperwork.

References:
1. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296
2. Harrold v. Rolling “J” Ranch (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 578
3. Harrold v. Rolling “J” Ranch (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 578

 
This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2007. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.

October 2007

Q: Should I use a contract in a horse transaction?

A: Absolutely! A contract establishes the rules for the transaction. A equine-related activity that is entered into without a written agreement has the potential to unravel very quickly, often leading to the loss of a beneficial relationship. Most lawsuits happen because of a misunderstanding between the parties. A written contract sets forth the various rights, responsibilities, and possible liabilities between the parties, and is the best way to avoid problems and stay out of court. Equestrians love the simplicity and tradition of the handshake deal. However, it is the ambiguity of this type of deal that is often the source of misunderstandings. Oral contracts are valid and enforceable in California, but they rarely discuss the details of the transaction. Ultimately, litigating an oral contract turns into a war of words and is reduced to an assessment of which party is more believable.

One of the most common excuses I hear for not using a contract is, “It takes too much time and costs too much money.” As horse owners, we happily spend hours of our time researching the “perfect” saddle and spend ridiculous amounts of money for our fourlegged family member, so there is really no excuse for purchasing a horse on a handshake. It is much more cost effective to proactively determine how to deal with a potential problem that it is to litigate after the fact. One of the best options available parties is to determine whether the parties would like to mediate or arbitrate the matter should a disagreement arise. These avenues are often much less expensive and less time consuming than traditional court proceedings. Parties also find it is easier to agree to conflict resolution before a problem has occurred. There are many standardized contracts available to the equestrian community. However, just because they have been made available to the mass market doesn’t mean they will meet the specific needs of the parties involved. At the very least, an attorney should always review any paperwork to ensure all aspects of the transaction are adequately addressed.

At a minimum, a basic contract should contain the following: 1. Name the parties to the transaction. 2. A detailed description of the horse. 3. Detailed terms of the transaction. 4. A provision on how a default or disagreement will be handled. 5. The county or city the parties wish to litigate if there is a disagreement. 6. A determination of attorney fees and costs if there is a lawsuit. An important note for all horse purchasers is that a “Bill of Sale” is typically only a receipt of a sales transaction and is not a contract capable of addressing the information set forth above. A “Bill of Sale” is often an “AS IS” sale and the purchaser is left with little protection if the horse doesn’t work out. If the transaction amount is greater than $7,500.00 (the maximum amount you can sue for in small claims court in California) it may be worth investing a small amount of money to have an attorney prepare your paperwork. Every horse transaction is unique to the parties involved; make sure your paperwork is
unique as well.

 
This article is meant to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information in this article is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship between attorney and reader. The contents of this article are not a substitute for seeking the advice of legal counsel. Copyright 2007. Legal Equestrian, a Professional Law Corporation All rights reserved.