Stablekeeper’s Leins And Training Fees Explained
Part II- What Charges May Be Properly Included In A Lein?
Part I appears in the September/October 2019 issue.
Read it complimentary on our web site,
www.EliteEquestrianMagazine.com
State laws, such as F.S. § 713.65, are clear and unambigious in that
they do not specifically enumerate “training” or “trainers” as being a lienable
charge and a party entitled to impress a lien for training services.
“Feeding or caring for” and “feeding and taking care of” are not the same
words and do not have the same meaning as “training” and the statute
does not ever mention “trainers” as a professional service provider entitled
to a impress a lien for “training” services. Accordingly, the amount of a
proper stablekeeper’s lien on horses in Florida is therefore limited to the
care and feeding costs and no more. *
Courts resist entreaties to interpret statutes beyond specific language
and common meaning of the statutory words. For example, the Florida
Supreme Court has explained, in Van Pelt v. Hilliard, that to do so invites
unauthorized law-making by a court:
Even where a court is convinced that the Legislature really meant and
intended something not expressed in the phraseology of the act, it will not
deem itself authorized to depart from the plain meaning of the language
which is free from ambiguity.
75 Fla. at 798, 78 So. at 694 (quoting Sutherland’s Statutory Construction,
supra); see also Tropical Coach Line, Inc. v. Carter, 121 So.2d 779,
782 (Fla. 1960) (‘If the language of the statute is clear and unequivocal,
then the legislative intent must be derived from the words used without
involving incidental rules of construction or engaging in speculation as to
what the judges might think that the legislators intended or should have
intended.’).” Forsythe, supra, 604 So.2d at 456.
Should a stablekeeper impress a fraudulent lien and the owner finds out
about the claim, the owner can seek a temporary or preliminary injunction
to prevent the foreclosure against the improper lien. Remember, the issue
of the wrongfulness of a stablekeeper’s conduct does not dissipate just
because they foreclose upon a lien.
“A party exercising self-help under Section 85.031(2) does so at his peril.
While the sale passes ownership of the property, it does not establish
the legitimacy of the underlying debt or of the lienor’s conduct.” Boyd
v. Panama City Boat Yard, Inc., 522 So.2d 1058, 1060 (1st DCA 1988)
(reversing and remanding a directed verdict against a boat owner claiming
conversion, breach of contract and breach of bailees’ duty because the
statute does not extinguish a property owner’s rights under Florida lien law)
emphasis added. In other words, if a trainer imposes a lien for charges
that are not properly included under F.S. § 713.65 and then forecloses the
lien by selling the horse or horses under F.S. § 85.031 (non-judicial, public
sale), the sale does not legitimize the actions of the trainer and the trainer
is not immune to an action by the horse owner for foreclosing on a lien
itself based on an inflated amount that should not have included training
charges.
The basic premise is that a trainer can only lien and sell a horse for
unpaid care and feeding charges, nothing more. If a trainer includes more
than care in feeding in the lien amount, then the entire process is faulty,
illegal and the trainer is exposed for wrongfully selling the horse or horses.
Because most states follow the same or similar principals when deciding
whether to grant an injunction, we will again use Florida as an example,
and owners and trainers are cautioned to review the law on the subject in
the jurisdiction where the issue has arisen.
A court will address wrongful conduct only when it is brought to the
attention of the court. Generally, to avoid the needless expenditure of the
parties’ and the court’s resources litigating the damages caused by an improper
lien foreclosure and sale under F.S. § 85.031, the court will find that
judicial economy supports enjoining the lien foreclosure, public sale or third
party transfer of the horse or horses while the parties litigate their dispute.
If the owner has legitimate reasons why the owner will prevail in the underlying
dispute, then there may be a substantial likelihood that the owner
ultimately will prevail on the merits. The owner may also say that there is
a substantial threat that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction
issues. For example, if an owner is in the business of purchasing and
selling horses, then the owner may be able to argue that the business of
the owner would be destroyed by a sale of the owner’s horse or horses.
Destruction of a business is sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support
a claim for injunctive relief. Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc.,
647 So.2d 976, 978 (1994) (Plaintiff made an adequate showing for relief
contending “the irreparable injury would be the destruction of its business.
Even though plaintiff did not make an extremely strong case regarding
why there is no adequate remedy at law, the record is sufficient to sustain
the trial court’s decision to issue an injunction.”)
To obtain an injunction to prevent sale of horses under Florida’s equine
lien statute, an owner must show: 1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2)
the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) the substantial likelihood
of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.
Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So.2d 594, 595 (3d DCA 2000); Oxford Int’l Bank
and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, 374 So.2d 54, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Irreparable harm can mean a lot of things. In the equine world, the liquidation
of unique horses with individualized skills, or the destruction of an
equine business though the forced sale of its equine assets, is considered
irreparable harm. See, e.g.: Destruction of a party’s business constitutes
irreparable harm. See, e.g.: XIP Technologies, LLC v. Ascend Global
Services, LLC, Case No. 2D17-3718 (2d DCA, August 15, 2018):
44 www.EliteEquestrianMagazine.com EQUINE Lifestyle
It is also not necessary that an owner establish the amount of financial
harm in ordered to be entitled to such relief because “evidence of the
potential destruction of a business, without a track record from which to
calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in
some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary
injunctive relief.” U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc.,
655 So.2d 209, 210 (3d DCA 1995.
2. The Court will enjoin stablekeepers imposing a fraudulent
lien from foreclosing upon the lien and selling the horses.
a. The right to a lien does not mean claiming the lien is
always right.
b. An owner facing a wrongful lien can satisfy the elements
for injunctive relief.
3. The required elements for a Preliminary Injunction.
a. Irreparable harm.
Continued...
on page 84
/www.EliteEquestrianMagazine.com
/www.EliteEquestrianMagazine.com