BARRELHORSE USA - 2016-10-09 4:26 AM Get rid of your lawyers and file in small claims court in your state/county and let vet cover his butt how ever he wants to ... vet no show .. you win by default and then file a lien on his house and business ... lol ... it works ... Filing fees are less than $200 and limitations in different states are $5k to 15k .. if you win he has to pay your filing fees too ...

ThreeCorners - 2016-10-09 6:56 PM She has way more then that invested. She bought the embryo out of one of the top NFR calf roping horses in the world. Paid a breeding to a different stallion. Paid for the embryo transfere and paid for the recipient mare. Only to have the schmuck of a vet inseminate with the wrong semen. Of which obviously they didnt find out untill after the foal was born and all her time and money out the window.  

Gator Bug - 2016-10-10 9:42 AM


I have been following this thread for some time. I thought she purchased the babies after they were abou 10 days old or so. She didn't purchase them as embryos and breed them.  Am I wrong? Because I would think the person that bred them would be the one to sue and then make it right to her if that is the case. Added to say, I wouldn't be happy either purchasing a baby at 10 days old and then be embroiled in a DNA problem. 

FlyingJT - 2016-10-10 11:22 AM I remember it the same way. That's why the "who to sue" is a mess. She has to sue the owner of the colt she purchased from, who then has to sue the vet... I remember it being multiple parties involved. I think they paid for the colt at the price agreed upon with the original stud, not Can't Bully This Guy.

Gator Bug - 2016-10-11 12:08 PM I agree. If I read it all correctly, the OP bought two babies at 10 days old.  If she bought the babies at 10 days old, she needs to go back on that seller and then he needs to re-coop the breeding fees from the vet. It is a mess. However, if I have read all the threads correctly, I don't think the OP bred the babies as stated above, the OP bought them at a very early age. Plus, if I read everything correctly, Pearl (the NFR Champion Rope Horse) was bred to the correct stud when the OP purchased the two babies at 10 days old. The other mama was a full sister to Pearl and that was the breeding/baby that was screwed up.  Again, if that is the case, that seller of the two babies needs to make it right, and then go back and get their money out of the vet. It is a big mess and I would not be happy either.

IRunOnFaith - 2016-10-12 9:22 AM  Didn't the vet either own or partially own Can't Bully This Guy? 

Gator Bug - 2016-10-12 10:47 AM The way I remember the threads, it was the vet's girlfriend that owned the stud, CBTG. The vet actually had no ownership in the stud. So, unless your implying that the vet did it on purpose to promote his girlfriend's stud, why wouldn't he have done it on the actual 'Pearl' baby, but he did it on the full sister? To me that doesn't make sense. If you were intentionally doing so very wrong....then why wouldn't you do it on the mare with such an amazing record? There is no no big motive or pay off there to do it on the full sister. I truly think this was a bad mistake, and one I would not be remotely happy with. However....she still bought these colts at 10 days old. She is not the breeder of them. The seller needs to make right and then sue the vet. I am saying that in legal terms. Again, I would be really mad if I bought a colt that did not have the papers I was looking for. 

IRunOnFaith - 2016-10-12 10:56 AM I wasn't implying the vet did it on purpose.  But I knew that one of them owned the stud which is why the stud's cooled semen was easiliy accessible to the vet. 

The OP has already figured out who to sue and what to sue for per her Attorney's advice by now I'm sure. It's now just a waiting game for courts and legal action. 

To me, it doesn't matter who she sues as long as someone takes responsibility. I know the OP has stated in previous threads that she and her family have already bonded with the horse and the seller suggested just selling the horse back to them or something to that effect. 

I know we are all just curious how the horse is doing.  I'd love to see pictures. 

Gator Bug - 2016-10-12 11:10 AM  All I am saying  is that she is on trashing the vet and some people are posting (based on what she did/did not post and what other posters read into them) that she actually bred these babies. Again, all I am saying is that her actual legal beef or her social media beef is with the wrong person as she did not breed them. Her problem should be with the seller and then the seller (the one who actually bred them and had the contract with the vet) should go back on the vet. I just think it is wrong to carry out something on social media when you have a legal standing in another way. I hope everyone understands what I am saying.