108 SIDELINES NOVEMBER 2012
FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE
e
Equine Law
How One Court Determined The Value of a Horse
By Lisa Hollister, Esq.
What is the true value of a horse?” is a common central question
in all sectors of the various horse industries. Any horse’s value,
depending upon its intended use, can be enhanced or reduced by
the following factors: how fast it runs, whether it jumps well, does
fying lead changes or is easy to ride. Disgruntled buyers often
claim that they got cheated when the horse does not live up to
the new owner’s expectations, unfortunately this sometimes can
result in costly litigation in which the horse’s true value becomes
the central issue. In these instances the Court is faced with the
diffculty of determining the horse’s value which can range from
being a worthless animal, as is often claimed by the disgruntled
new owner, to very valuable, as claimed by the former owner. This
was the question which the Ohio court in the case of Calderon v.
Reinig faced.
Calderon v. Reinig, No 11AP-347 (2011)
Facts
In this case, plaintiff Enrique Calderon trained horses for Wayne
Reinig. During the period of time when Caldron was training
Reinig’s horses, Reinig fell behind in his payments to Calderon.
As partial payment for what was due Calderon, Reinig gave him
a horse named 36 Hours. However, the value of the horse did not
result in full payment for all of the funds owed to Calderon and the
parties were not in agreement as to the value of the transferred
horse and thus the exact amount of the remainder owed. The trial
court assigned a value of $3,500 for 36 Hours. Reinig claimed that
the horse was worth $5,000 whereas Calderon claimed that the
horse was essentially worthless.
Trial Court’s Evaluation of the Horse’s Value
The trial court determined that the horse could not be consid-
ered to have been worth $5,000 as claimed by Reinig based on
the fact that prior to the transfer the former owner entered the
horse in a $3,500 claiming race. The court also noted that since
no one had purchased the horse in the claiming race, the horse
was not viewed by potential buyers as being worth $3,500. How-
ever, contrary to Calderon’s claim that the horse was worthless,
the trial court noted that after the transfer to Calderon was made
he not only raced the horse but the horse even generated win-
nings for his new owner.
Appeals Court Decision
Even though the Appeals Court determined that the trial court
had assigned a value based on very little evidence, it found that
the value assigned was not in error under the circumstances. The
Appeals Court determined that since the trial court had relied on
valid evidence as to the worth of the horse it could not overturn
that decision. Finally, Calderon contended that Reinig should not
have been credited for the $592.51 which had been paid to him
from Reinig’s account at Beulah Park. The Appeals Court found in
Reinig’s favor on this issue because neither party had contended
this amount during the trial. As a result the Appeals Court felt that
the lower court’s decision should also stand as to this issue which
had been raised on appeal.
Conclusion
While disputes over the value of hunters, jumpers, eventers and
dressage horses cannot be determined using the exact same cri-
teria as race horses, there are various ways of convincing a court
as to the disputed value of a horse. Most show horses have USEF
show records as well as an established insurance value. One can
also rely on expert witnesses willing to testify as to the horse’s
value. Also, one can look at any available recent comparable
sales in the industry as well as other offers to purchase the horse
which the seller received prior to the sale. If the horse or pony has
been leased during the preceding year, that, too, can be used as
evidence of the equine’s value.
A word of caution: it is important to educate the court that horses
are not like inanimate property, the performance upon which they
are valued can go up or down depending upon who is training,
riding and showing them. As a result one rider may produce great
horse show results while another may not be capable of fnding
their fences or getting their lead changes causing the horse to be
wrongly devalued by an uneducated court. This can be particu-
larly true in disputes when a new
owner with a different training pro-
gram and inferior riders is making
a claim regarding the value of the
horse which they purchased.
Lisa Hollister is an attorney practicing
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Questions for Ms.
Hollister’s column can be addressed
to twinbridgefarm@aol.com.