Owning half a horse?

[Clodagh]

This is long, sorry.
The yard I work at has recently stopped being Riding School and has gone on to only livery.

The yard owner sold half a horse about 5 years ago to a client. Odd arrangement but it worked as the school used him 3 days a week, owner had sole use other 3 (Monday day off) and only paid half livery and bills.
Now the horse is old and stiff and no longer needed in the school. Yard owner no longer wants to have him for nothing, infact it costs her as half livery covers his basic needs (if you exclude time), but then there are shoes, worming etc and last week the vet.
BUT as they own half each it suits the owner for this situation to continue. YO has offered her the other half FOC (owner would then have to pay all livery and costs) but owner - not surprisingly - likes the staus quo as it is.
YO at wits end! He can't be turned out as has liver damage and gets photosensitivity, mud fever and all sorts of skin complaints so he stands in a stable on an expensive shavings bed eating special foods and supplements.

Any ideas?

 

[mandwhy]

Hmm that is a tough one, did they have anything written down? I suppose there's not much YO can do... What do you think YO would do if they owned it fully? If they would keep it/retire it anyway then at least they've got someone paying half the cost! Plus it suited them fine when the horse was working for them...

 

[Clodagh]

Nothing in writing, YO was greedy for a bit of cash at the time I suspect!
If YO owned him fully she would PTS. He is lame (not hopping, but very stiff and stumbles a lot when ridden) even on daily bute, and with not going out in the field is not much of a life.
It is difficult as obs everyone was happy when he was earning money! Poor old boy. Hes a nice old thing and no trouble.

 

[Littlelegs]

As Mandwhy said, suited yo when he was useful to her. So in theory yo should still be paying half, for a horse that sounds like he deserves retiring. But, I'd pts any horse who could never be turned out again, regardless of its age, ridden career, finances etc.

 

[Clodagh]

Legally can you see any way of push becoming shove? YO can hardly PTS her half! He could live for years yet, realisitically.
I work there and am flummoxed as to thinking of a solution.

 

[FfionWinnie]

Sounds like the YO had it good for a while and now the horse is old she doesn't want to hold up her end of the bargain, this should have been sorted at the time and I think it's tough luck now.

YO has had half the value of the horse paid plus half his livery paid for what was effectively a share!

If the horse is done and needs pts for its own good, then that is a different thing entirely.

 

[Clodagh]

I think you have a point there! He doesn't really need to be PTS he would be happy retired...but in a stable!

 

[putasocinit]

Sad he has to enjoy life in a stable, cant be good for him surely esp as he is getting old and already has issues, cant he go out in a sand ring or something.

 

[FfionWinnie]

How long has he had to live in a stable?

Tbh if he is happy in that situation and the other owner is happy to keep him going I don't see what the yo can do except kick them out or something which seems wrong.

 

[Star_Chaser]

How long has he had to live in a stable?

Tbh if he is happy in that situation and the other owner is happy to keep him going I don't see what the yo can do except kick them out or something which seems wrong.

Could she do that though if half owner? Never like shared ownership of anything always leads to problems sooner or later.

Couldn't the YO come to some sort of financial arrangement with the other owner ie maintain the price of the livery for a year or something to help with the costs? At least then wouldn't have to pay full price. or find another loaner whose prepared to take on the other half?

 

[Honey08]

Yo only has themselves to blame really. They should have sold the horse on the condition that it went on working livery or something. It sounds like the yard owner has had all the benefit throughout the horse's working life (use of it in RS with half the costs paid for) and now wants to ditch it now its not making any money. Funny how this didn't get sorted until the horse wasn't useful anymore. A very dodgy arrangement in general. At least half the ownership seems to care about it..

 

[mandwhy]

Poor old chap. I don't think I would keep a horse permanently stabled either but its up to the individual really, if the other half thinks the horse is happy enough and wants to keep him that way then I think the YO will have to keep paying really.

I would worry what is going to happen if and when the health situation gets more critical. I expect the YO doesn't want to pay for half of expensive treatments, but what if the other person wants to give it a try?

I think this situation could get very messy easily...

 

[Clodagh]

Thank you for all your replies, I went AWOL.
It is sad for the horse, he can go out for maybe half an hour which he does most days. I think he is happy enough, he has been kept this way for years although was being ridden more in the past. He is bright eyed and bushy tailed and I have no idea how they will address the situation when he really deteriorates.

 

[Grinchmass]

Could she do that though if half owner? Never like shared ownership of anything always leads to problems sooner or later.

Couldn't the YO come to some sort of financial arrangement with the other owner ie maintain the price of the livery for a year or something to help with the costs? At least then wouldn't have to pay full price. or find another loaner whose prepared to take on the other half?

Although this might be preferable for yo I don't think that any sharer would share a horse who has a multitude of health problems and will cost a fortune in treatments to keep, who is also coming to the end of their ridden career. plus for yo to get rid of vet bill obligations then she would have to sell the other half. Which is very unlikely for a multitude of reasons.

By the way OP should this horse be being ridden if he's stumbling all the time and lame?

I think the YO is stuck, and to be fair after having served YO for many years as a riding school horse IMO she owes him a retirement anyway, I hate this throw away attitude with horses, the must get rid straight away. This is one of the reasons there are so many horses at auctions, or abandoned. She should have either sold the whole horse while it was younger, had better health etc and sound. Or she should have kept sole ownership and set up a share deal. Then she should have the decency to do right by the horse.

Selling half a horse is one of the daftest and most blind sighted ideas I have ever come across. Especially doing so with no contract, and not sorting the details first! Other owner is well within her rights, and YO should learn from their mistake and take it as a lesson learnt not to be so greedy originally!

Sorry for the rant, but this has annoyed me a bit.

 

[Queenbee]

Nothing in writing, YO was greedy for a bit of cash at the time I suspect!
If YO owned him fully she would PTS. He is lame (not hopping, but very stiff and stumbles a lot when ridden) even on daily bute, and with not going out in the field is not much of a life.
It is difficult as obs everyone was happy when he was earning money! Poor old boy. Hes a nice old thing and no trouble.

It a tricky one... but I will say this, if the horse is stiff and stumbles a lot and is on bute and has liver damage, well for starters the shoes should not be needed as the horse should not be ridden and furthermore the horse is going have a further compromised liver due to being on bute... what an unfortunate set of circumstances for all. As my personal view, in an ideal world the horse should be retired and if I were YO I would honour this but insist the horse is not ridden, shoes off and allowed to enjoy what life it has left, he is not a meal ticket and by the sounds of it should not have been used as one due to the above issues anyway

edited to say that under the circumstances of shoes off and retirement, both parties would have to make compromises and in some way would benefit. YO would save on shoeing costs, but would have to accept the horse is still part hers and is staying alive. Owner would have to accept that riding is a no no and not good for the horse, but would still get the enjoyment of having a horse and the financial support. It may well be that with this method the part owner would realise that with no turnout and such a compromised quality of life that pts may be a more approachable option. Personally the current stance of both parties seem to be detrimental to the horse in question

 

[Queenbee]

I think you have a point there! He doesn't really need to be PTS he would be happy retired...but in a stable!

not ideal but I am assuming that as it is a riding school there is a sandschool, furthermore, there are fantastic products... masks, the best of which are made in New zealand is there any reason why horsey cant have turnout in a school with the proper protection?

 

[Clodagh]

Thanks Queenbee a very well thought out reply. He does go out in the field with rugs and full face masks on for a short time, and can go in the school naked for a roll if it is overcast.
Actually his owner only ever walks him around the school anyway when she rides him so no shoes would probably be fine. A good idea, perhaps everyone needs to compromise.
Will pass on all your thoughts and ideas everyone, thank you.

 

[Clodagh]

Although this might be preferable for yo I don't think that any sharer would share a horse who has a multitude of health problems and will cost a fortune in treatments to keep, who is also coming to the end of their ridden career. plus for yo to get rid of vet bill obligations then she would have to sell the other half. Which is very unlikely for a multitude of reasons.

By the way OP should this horse be being ridden if he's stumbling all the time and lame?

I think the YO is stuck, and to be fair after having served YO for many years as a riding school horse IMO she owes him a retirement anyway, I hate this throw away attitude with horses, the must get rid straight away. This is one of the reasons there are so many horses at auctions, or abandoned. She should have either sold the whole horse while it was younger, had better health etc and sound. Or she should have kept sole ownership and set up a share deal. Then she should have the decency to do right by the horse.

Selling half a horse is one of the daftest and most blind sighted ideas I have ever come across. Especially doing so with no contract, and not sorting the details first! Other owner is well within her rights, and YO should learn from their mistake and take it as a lesson learnt not to be so greedy originally!

Sorry for the rant, but this has annoyed me a bit.

GG - you are absolutely right. YO is a friend as well as an employer but doesn't always think things through in advance. If he could be turned out, even overnight, retirement would be better thought of.

Personally I don't think he should be ridden, IMO it is unsafe for him and his rider. I'm only the **** shoveller though, although I have said as much.

 

[Grinchmass]

GG - you are absolutely right. YO is a friend as well as an employer but doesn't always think things through in advance. If he could be turned out, even overnight, retirement would be better thought of.

Personally I don't think he should be ridden, IMO it is unsafe for him and his rider. I'm only the **** shoveller though, although I have said as much.

Hmm well if I were YO I would definately be taking this as a lesson well learnt.

However in relation to the issue of him being ridden if I were YO I would be insisting he is retired as she has an interest in the horses well being. If other owner refused to stop riding him I would be making it clear that she was responsible for all future vets bills in relation to lameness because she is riding him lame and could be exaggerating his condition, until he is properly retired atleast.

However in this case the only person I feel for is the poor horse, I may be wrong but one party seems to see him as an expensive inconvenience and the other although claiming to care obviously doesn't care enough to stop putting themselves before their horse...

Either way there isn't anything you can do, as you say your only the person who shovels the ****...

 

[Wagtail]

Hmm well if I were YO I would definately be taking this as a lesson well learnt.

However in relation to the issue of him being ridden if I were YO I would be insisting he is retired as she has an interest in the horses well being. If other owner refused to stop riding him I would be making it clear that she was responsible for all future vets bills in relation to lameness because she is riding him lame and could be exaggerating his condition, until he is properly retired atleast.

However in this case the only person I feel for is the poor horse, I may be wrong but one party seems to see him as an expensive inconvenience and the other although claiming to care obviously doesn't care enough to stop putting themselves before their horse...

Either way there isn't anything you can do, as you say your only the person who shovels the ****...

My thoughts exactly. Poor horse!

Legally, the only way to resolve it would be to sell the horse and split the proceeds. However, the horse is unsellable I would think. A contract should have been drawn up stipulating what would happen should one of the owners nolonger wish to own the horse.