Friday, March 18, 2011

TNJ............. BG's Just in Case Sheet..........

Part One

I'm going to skip over the big issue of BG's accounting of the training done and go directly to the last page of that sheet. That page claims that BG is entitled to over $5000 more from me based on the items listed there. Since part of those items has direct bearing on the number of horses that BG claims to have worked, it's necessary to proceed in this order.

Before I progress I will reiterate BG was not entitled to credit for anything but training under the terms of our contract. There were no provisions for extra add ons of any kind. Because there were no provisions for extras, BG is not entitled to any of these claims unless they are about training. That isn't just me making this statement. It is in fact the law.

I don't know why BG's lawyer even let them submit that paperwork with those extra charges knowing what the terms of the contract were as stated in their own court documents. Maybe she just didn't understand that training and those other expenses are not interchangeable. Who knows what her problem was. I do know she was not being effective as his lawyer to submit documents that contradicted the terms of the contract.

I don't know what the purpose of this extra pages of charges was. According to BG's accounting he'd already established what he considered to be $32,453.60 worth of charges. With the price of the horse being $30,000 you would think that would be enough but for some reason BG felt the need to say he'd done so much more so he added that fourth page that he claimed was over $5000 more he could actually charge me. Maybe the purpose of that sheet was to intimidate me. Maybe it was to cover his bases just in case other things didn't hold up. For that reason, I'm referring to it as BG's Just in Case Charges........just in case I made a mistake, there's more here....

Clearly I could have just stated to the court that these issues were not covered within the terms of the contract quoting his own court documents. That should have been enough to get these charges thrown out. However, that's not how I saw this sheet of extra add ons. I saw it as 9 more ways to expose how pervasive manipulation and out and out fraud were the motivating factors for WF and BG in this case.

If I had actually owed BG and WF for any of these things, they would have already been paid. To deal with his accounting claims of over $5000 I am going to assign a dollar value to items that are appropriate. A couple of these things actually did happen and I had tried to pay BG for them at the time. I was again told not to worry, we were "friends just helping friends."

The first on the list identified as a) Set up over-nite 3 horses and feed - break down truck
This actually did happen. I did try to pay BG for my horses staying overnight at the time but he refused payment. It was one of those things he told me not to worry about because we're friends. For the sake of verifying his totals I have computed what that charge would be. $225 for a pen per month ÷ 30 for daily rate = $7.50 x 3 horses = $22.50

The second item identified as b) Haul in on days off that the facility was used ($12 - 15 a day).
BG and WF had never charged me any haul in fees in the past. I had specifically asked him before I ever went there to ride about haul in fees and was told I was their friend, they wouldn't think of charging me haul in fees. To be honest, I would have never ridden there in the first place had there been haul in fees. I have never ridden anywhere that haul in fees have been required.

In addition haul in fees rarely add up to more than board and at these rates $12 - $15 a day that would be $360 to $600 a month. That's pretty steep and sure nothing I would ever have agreed to pay. Expert testimony would be able to help with that and there were ways to prove that haul in fees are not charged at that facility.

Again strictly for the purpose of verifying his totals I computed haul in fees based on the number of days from his accounting sheet when horses were not worked so according to him I would have been charged haul in fees.

According to info on first pages, the only days BG didn’t work horses are: In Dec 2008 when BG applied a credit for not working horses. However, due to my surgery, I worked no horses in that month. My first day back riding was mid January so that means = O days in Dec 2008

In Dec 2009 BG's accounting states. "Sick Days $400 credit from $1500"
To compute the number of days affected $400 ÷ $1500 = 27% days not worked that month. Based on a five day work week = 22 working days per month so 27% x 22 days = 6 days possible haul in on days off for Dec 2009

In Jan 2010 BG's accounting states "Sick days $150 credit from $750"
To compute the number of days affect $150 ÷ $750 = 20% days not worked that month. Using the last day worked as Jan 16 (because that when our dispute began) makes 12 workdays available
20% x 12 days = 2 days possible haul in on days off

Total number of non working days possible that I could have worked horses at their facility 8 days x $15 = $120

The third item identified as c) Non working days at shows that training and assistance was provided.
The first major point about this charge is that BG and WF do not charge clients show fees. I had proof of that in the form of an email WF sent to another clients trying to encourage this client to send her horse to a show with them. WF clearly stated in that email, "We do not charge show fees." It would be important to note that WF charging shows fees to clients would be a violation of the USEF amateur rule.

Then, according to BG's own accounting sheet which states "*horse show does not affect" AND since that accounting shows no discounts were given for being gone to the horse show, technically that suggests there were NO "non working days at horse shows" according to BG's own records. Under those circumstances charging for training and assistance at the show will he was still collecting training fees for those days would be a double charge.

Another reason this charge is inappropriate is BG did no function as a trainer for me at these horses shows. I was only stabled with BG and WF at horse shows that year, just as I had been the previous year. We shared tack room, feed rooms etc and I paid for more than my portion of them but I took complete care of my horses at those horse shows. I even fed and watered their horses several times. Nothing changed in that relationship between 2008 show season and the 2009 show season.

If BG tried to claim he trained or did anything to care for my horses that warranted him charging me while we were at the show, I had posts about all the shows I had stabled with them .

Each post tells what had happened with any horse I took to the show. Anyone involved with my horses at a show was usually mentioned in some way. The lack of mention of BG's name doing anything specifically with my horses, training in particular, is because there was little involvement with BG in that manner. If BG was involved he was mentioned as well as the extent of that involvement.

As a means of verification I planned to use the fact that WF had not contradicted the information on any of those posts when clearly I had proof if she didn't like what I wrote she jabbed me on FB. Her silence through all those posts suggests their acceptance of the accuracy of them in terms of what BG did for me. Clearly had I slighted BG in some way when WF thought he should have gotten credit, I would have heard about it on FB.

I intended to use those posts and WF's lack of contradiction of their content, from before our contract and during for comparison, to show the court there was not a change in BG's behavior toward me and my horses that indicated he was entitled to reimbursement of any kind. He had never tried to charge me any kind of fees before. He sure wasn't entitled to them now. I also could get sworn statements to substantiate that BG had not acted in the capacity of a trainer at any of those horse shows. The expert would be used to verify what kind of services that show fees usually constitute as well.

There were a couple of things that had changed over the two years. BG now thought he could charge me for being stabled with them at horse shows. The number of horses I took changed for some shows that second year and how much I did to help BG went up that year. What he did on the reciprocal side of that did not change in any way. If anything, he did less........... not more.

There is one exception, if you want to call it that. That would be Louie and Louie has his own little story to be told. I wouldn't think how things were handled with Louie suggests reimbursements for training at horse shows would be appropriate........but I'll let you decide that for yourself.

To be continued....................

A Little about Louie.......the First Show........

In this picture is Lucy and her foal, Scandalous MizScarlet. This filly got her name from her prima donna attitude. If there ever was an equine verions of Scarlett O'Hara, this filly would be it.

Visit Blog Village and vote daily for this blog Here They are now measuring the rankings by votes out, so if you find my blog on the site, please click that link too to improve my rankings. TY


  1. umm, if he claims you owe him over and above the price of the horse, where's the bill he submited to you? Wouldn't someone owed $2,000 or more be trying to recoup that cost?

  2. Oh my good what a cute baby. I love when they are all wobbly.
    Boy now I can't wait to hear what happened with Louie!

  3. I also wanted to say I have gotten some great information in this series and it has helped me deal with a current issue I'm having. Thanks again!

  4. Adorable picture.

    I think they probably threw in the extra $5,000 to try and stick it to you and see if they could slide it past the judge as legitimate. If they could - great, if not no harm no foul. Maybe they thought they could buy the horse they were going to steal from you a brand new saddle! Who knows by now everyone knows they are garbage.

  5. Just nuts ! the more he tried to defend his stance with his accounting the deeper the hole he dug himself

  6. horsemom, you'd think so, wouldn't you. That was always one of the things that struck me as odd too. How did they plan to explain never billing me for any of this stuff if it was indeed legitimate.

    Nicole, that is Scarlet. I got sidetracked putting information in about the pic and had to add it in later. I love them when they are all wobbly too. For Scarlet that phase did not last long. She was a fast learner and very solid on her feet pretty quickly.

    I'm glad you've found this series useful.

    Arlene, I do think they thought they could push it through as legitimate, just like all those other things. I just think it was all very strange and quite sloppy.

    fern, yes, he definitely dug himself a pretty deep hole.

  7. The only refreshing thing about the legal process is how everything gets put on the table for what it is. When there's not a legal obligation to the truth, I'm always surprised at how people twist facts knowing they can just deny it later. I love the way you're going through and calling it for what it is--a just in case sheet--CLASSIC.

  8. BG just couldn't let his ego go could he? He just HAD to prove what a great guy he had been to you...LOL.

    Greed and ego do not mix...but they sure do go hand in hand don't they?