Page 70 - 2306_full

68 SIDELINES JUNE 2011 FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE

Seaman’s testimony as to the value of his horses and 5. That the jury instructions did not meet Kentucky Law and were confusing.

Appeals Court affrmed the trial courts decision with the exception of the jury instruction for the claim of conversion (this does not mean that they felt there had been conversion but rather that the jury instruction had been improper and thus could have resulted in an improper decision) on that particular issue the Appeals Court reversed and remanded it back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court

Unhappy with the decision, Seaman appealed the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court, claiming that; 1. The lower court was proceeding, or was about to proceed, outside its jurisdiction (this was because of the court ordered the sale of the horses and that the proceeds of such a sale were to be put in escrow until the outcome of the legal proceedings); and 2. That the lower court was acting, or was about to act, erroneously and as a result of the action irreparable injury could result.

Jurisdiction

The State Supreme Court found that since Seaman had initially agreed to the trial court’s jurisdiction he could no longer complain of that jurisdiction merely because it no longer suited him.

Irreparable Injury

The State Supreme Court held that, even if the trial court was now misinterpreting the Appeals Court’s decision, it does not follow that Seaman would suffer irreparable injury as a result. The Supreme Court found that the trial court would have to retry the matter of Seaman’s conversion claim against the Farm, but the judgment of the counterclaim for the amount owed on the board was not to be part of the retrial. The State Supreme Court also found that the judgment was still valid and collectable by the farm. The decision however did fnd that the judgment in favor of Seaman on the conversion claim might reduce the dollar amount in the decision at the retrial. As a result the Supreme Court held that there was simply no irreparable harm to be claimed.

Conclusion

Agister’s liens, while a wonderful tool for those who have legitimately provided valuable services for horse owners, still come fraught with legal pitfalls. The most common pitfall is that the client who has failed to pay his or her board bill might then fle a claim of conversion. While I would never advise a client to not take advantage of the law, I would advise them to keep track of a client who is failing to pay their bills and decide on the course of action early on before the amount owed is astronomical. It would be far better to allow a bad client to leave with their horse after failing to pay a month’s worth of bills than it would be to have huge legal fees for litigation that could easily span over several years.

* The real party in interest was Ballinswood Farm, Inc. not Judge Isaacs, but Isaacs was listed as a defendant because he was the judge in the lower court decision.

E Q U I N E L A W

What Do

Agister’s Liens Mean to You?

By Lisa Hollister, Esq.

Every barn has faced the issue of a client who fails to pay their board bill. Almost all trainers and boarding facilities are aware that when this happens there are state laws that allow them to place an agister’s lien on their client’s horse or horses so that the barn can sell the horses and use the proceeds to pay for the goods and services that the barn has provided to their client’s horses. However, to take full advantage of these laws one needs to be in compliance with the state statute.

Seaman v. Isaacs, 2010-SC-000063-MR (KYSC) *

Facts

Cecil Seaman had horses at the Thoroughbred horse farm, Ballinswood Farm, Inc. Seaman and Ballinswood Farm had a disagreement regarding the care of Seaman’s horses and as a result the farm management told Seaman to leave with his horses. However, since Seaman had failed to pay his complete board bill, the farm fled an agister’s lien in accordance with Kentucky law. In response to the farm taking legal action, Seaman fled both an answer and a counter claim (a claim a defendant makes against a plaintiff) against the farm and its owners, William and Alison Murphy for conversion (conversion is when you take possession of someone else’s property without a legal right).

Appeal of Trial Court Decision

Next Seaman fled a motion for possession of the horses but failed to follow the procedure for the bond as mandated by Kentucky law. (Under Kentucky law if one has a lien placed on their property they have the right to fle a bond and have the property discharged until the matter can be legally settled). As a result of Seaman failing to fle the proper procedure to delay the sale of the horses which would result from the impending agister’s lien, the trial court ordered that the horses be sold and the proceeds of the sale escrowed pending the outcome of the issue regarding the payment for the boarding of the horses. Additionally the jury found that the farm had not converted the horses and awarded Ballinswood Farm $90,000 based on their claim for board of the horses.

Seaman appealed the decision alleging the following errors: 1. That the trial court’s refusal to admit a letter by Seaman demanding possession of the horses; 2. That the trial court erred by denying Seaman’s motion for possession, because it required him to post a bond; 3. That trial court erred in overruling Seaman’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict on the issues of conversion (summary judgment and directed verdict are legal proceedings which can be used to expedite a judgment or direct a verdict if a party fails to present a necessary case); 4.That the Court erred in disallowing

Lisa Hollister is an attorney practicing in Cincinnati, Ohio. Questions for Ms. Hollister’s column can be addressed to twinbridgefarm@aol.com