In suits, is it the plantiff that sets the amount or is it the attorney?
Unless I’ve missed it, CR isn’t denying she did anything wrong.
The plaintiff and their attorney will get a monetary value from an actuary. (That is what I was told when I worked for an appelate firm.) There is a whole science behind how much things like emotional suffering, time lost, etc. costs.
1 Like
Maybe call this a vague denial… or simply zero affirmative defense other than calling the lawsuit frivolous and saying the plaintiff is guilty of “misstating facts.” looks like the legal strategy is to hide behind the LLC, and secondarily demonstrate a history of AT doing prior business with Lionshare Dressage, and prior agreements all being between AT and Lionshare Dressage…
I wonder if they can request a copy of the contract BP/Everglades Dressage signed with Lionshare Dresssge to purchase the horse? If it says purchase price was $900,000, and AT demonstrates only $300,000 was ever wired to her account from Lionshare’s accounts… how does Lionshare Dressage explain the $600,000 delta? Call me crazy, but I think AT would have grounds to sue with just those two pieces of evidence for unjust enrichment and violations of the deceptive trade and business practices law… even if she has zero contract with CR or Lionshare with respect to this transaction.
This is definitely an interesting case in terms of precedence.
4 Likes
AT has sued for 500K on each count. That does not mean she is suing for $4M. There is no guarantee that she will prevail on any or all counts, it is the prudent thing to do.
3 Likes
For the attorneys here, how likely would it be that Alice Tarjan would get $4M if the courts were to find in her favor on all counts? What guidelines do judges have if any, when determining the amount of the final award given what one side originally sued for?
I still don’t feel 100% sorry for Tarjan because plenty of people on this board have mentioned there are numerous things people can do to protect themselves in a sale. Thus far, the documentation available online does not appear to show that some basic things were done to create transparency. If random people on COTH, who may or may not be attorneys can figure this out, then it’s harder to feel sorry for an attorney who themselves gets duped.
1 Like
^ I don’t think that’s fair. We don’t have anywhere close to all the information… who knows what AT did or didn’t do to protect herself.
As someone who has recently gotten royally screwed on a horse deal, I have a lot of sympathy for AT, if what she alleges is true. Not because of the money involved, or who is or isn’t rich, or who can or can’t afford to get screwed out of $600,000. I have sympathy Because hindsight is 20 20, and given that she is an attorney in regular life, I would imagine she has spent A LOT of time going back over details and documents … or lack there of … and conversations related to this transaction, and probably beaten herself up for any number of mistakes made along the way. That’s how these things go… it’s NOT fun to be duped. Shakes you to your core about your own judgement. Especially if you’re a smart analytical professional type… you feel extra stupid then…
11 Likes
Piercing the Corporate Veil is not as hard as it is made out to be. Especially when it is obvious that the majority owner, president, etc. of the corporation is a named defendant, and has intermingled assets and liabilities. I will be very interested to see what the judge does in this case.
Paying 2.5 times the real asking price of a horse was what sent me to law school. This was back in 1979. Now people are much more aware of the possibility of being taken to the cleaners and, hopefully, are protecting themselves. Florida, Ky and Cal (the 3 biggest states for horse racing) now have laws which specifically address the sale of horses. These laws make it easier for the plaintiff to prove her case.
7 Likes
Guys…this isn’t our circus…not our monkey…but we can learn from this…no point in speculation.
If anyone is interested, you can google and read Florida Statute CHAPTER 5H-26: SALES AND PURCHASES OF HORSES
5H-26.001 Purpose.
The purpose of this rule chapter is to address unfair and deceptive trade practices surrounding the sale and purchase of horses in Florida. …
5H-26.003 General Requirements Relating To the Sale or Purchase of Horses.
…
(2) A person shall not act as a dual agent in a transaction involving the sale or purchase of an interest in a horse without:
(a) The prior knowledge of both the Purchaser and the Owner; and
(b) Written consent of both the Purchaser and the Owner.
…
(4) Any person acting as an agent for a Purchaser or an Owner or acting as a dual agent in a transaction involving the sale or purchase of a horse or any interest therein shall, upon request by his or her principal or principals, furnish copies of all financial records and financial documents in the possession or control of the agent pertaining to the transaction to the principal or principals. For purposes of this section, financial records shall not include the agent’s or Owner’s work product used to internally evaluate the horse.
…
Publication from USHJA
https://www.ushja.org/programs/bestPractices/documents/ETL_Booklet_Full_withInStride.pdf
1 Like
How could she have protected herself against fraud (misrepresentation of who the actual buyer was and the amount they paid)? When this case gets into the discovery phase it will start showing a lot more. I hope AT’s investigators interview ALL of CR’s working students, there are things that have been seen behind the scenes that I am sure CR would not want made public.
4 Likes
I doubt the first buyer will provide a signed contract that he purchased the mare for 300K and then sold her to final buyer for 900K. If he made10K in the deal, what will he say he received payment for? It is curiouser and curiouser. If 4 mil is realized, how much will the attorneys receive?
2 Likes
AT has some significant tools at her disposal given the FL law governing horse sales, and the agent’s obligation to produce documents upon request. Discovery could be productive.
What has happened with Ots and Peslar? Perhaps she just wants to wait and let this whole thing play out before weighing in. It seems pretty obvious she was a victim too though…
I think some of the details posted up-thread, in the first few pages, are being lost in this discussion. But I don’t have time to look 'em up and repeat them … 
I am recalling clearly that there was a contract between AT and CR for CR to sell Faberge. Don’t recall all the details, but recalling that CR’s commission/financial interest was spelled out, and it was all conventional. If I recall correctly, the commission was 10% of the sales price. It was not 200% of what the seller received.
The article link posted above
http://dressage-news.com/2017/11/15/caroline-roffman-asks-court-to-dismiss-lawsuit-over-horse-sale-on-grounds-no-written-signed-contract/
… is shocking if this is accurate … “primarily because there was no written and signed contract with Caroline personally but with but an agreement with Lionshare Dressage, a corporation.”
That reads as if CR is saying ‘yeah it happened, but it was my evil twin Lionshare Dressage, not me’. As if CR does not intend to cry innocence, but rather hide behind the LLC instead.
And yet, just from what is being shared in this thread, sounds like it may be possible to easily pierce the LLC because of the sloppy way CR has handled the transaction. And that CR seems to be making one big mistake after another from the beginning of the transaction until now. To the point of being self-destructive.
Unless significant facts have yet to be revealed that will change everything, ‘it was Lionshare not me’ seems like a rather desperate argument to make, intended more to delay or defer the consequences while not even trying to claim innocence. One wonders what facts are known to CR’s attorneys. Those facts must be pretty unforgiving.
My guess is that CR’s attorneys will try to make this as worky and unpleasant and drawn out as possible for AT, in hopes AT will run out of enthusiasm to go the distance.
Why do people think this may go to a jury trial? That seems rather unlikely, unless I am missing something. They will probably settle out of court, eventually. If there is a trial, my guess is that neither side wants a jury to hear a case of two fabulously wealthy ladies fighting over a fancy horse (fabulously wealthy compared with the average juror). Both parties would prefer go with just a judge instead - that’s my guess.
The next chapters should be interesting. If only these things didn’t drag out so slowly …
1 Like
Ms. Tarjan is asking for a jury trial.
1 Like
I think the request for a jury trial is more about IF it doesn’t get settled, the plaintiff is requesting a jury render a decision instead of having a single judge do it. I believe in civil matters, it is standard for it to default to a single judge ruling on a case, unless you specifically request a jury, which AT did.
I might be wrong on this and if so, one of the actual lawyers following this thread can weigh in
IF it doesn’t get settled and actually goes to court, I would imagine AT is much better off with a jury than a judge.
Curiously, the link to “about us” on the Lionshare website brings up a cannot be found page…
I think many of us hope it does.
Because a settlement between the two parties is a private matter we likely won’t see anything about. A jury trial, however, makes all evidence and testimony public.
8 Likes
So, a question or three, in bold, about the process.
Roffman and Lionshare LLC, by way of the attorney representing them, have filed “Defendant’s First Request For Production of Documents To A. T.”
(See: https://applications.mypalmbeachcler…ew/search.aspx )
The list of documents requested is extensive, and includes 26 items that are NOT necessarily limited to the transaction in dispute, the sale of Faberge.
In fact, the request for documents includes all Purchase and Sales agreements for ALL horses that A.T. has purchased or sold (items 15. and 16.) As well, all Bill of Sales that show A.T.'s purchase of any horse (item 5).
((That seems onerous—does the court allow those requests, and must A.T. provide those documents? Must the Defendant justify to the court why certain documents, or any, are requested? ))
Earlier in the list is quite interesting:
Item 2. “All documents sent to Peslar and/or Peslar’s agent, representative and/or attorney.”
((So does CR think, or know, that AT and Peslar and/or Ots discussed the transaction? Or is this a “fishing for info” request?))
Then Items 7 to 10 cover the requests for all documents that allegedly support A.T.'s allegations that
“the Defendants llegally obtained $600K as alleged” in A.T.'s complaint;
“Fabrege was sold by the Defendants to Peslar as alleged” in A.T.'s complaint; and
Documents that support A.T.'s allegations of the money trail (my own summary, not verbatim from the filing).
((Does A.T. then have reciprocal rights to request documents?))
Thanks for any input, I have no idea how the legal system works in such a case.
1 Like
You realy have to watch out for these crooked trainers, even with less expensive horses. I purchased a hunter horse from a trainer at a h/j barn and paid the asking price because I fell in love with the horse. The horse’s legal owner had sent him to that h/j barn to be sold because her own barn was out in the boonies. The trainer who represented the horse told me the price was firm. Later, I needed a receipt when I realized the trainer who sold him to me did not give me a receipt for what I paid for him. The original owner asked me how much I paid for her horse and she would email me a receipt. I told her I had paid the trainers asking price. The original owner was shocked. The trainer who sold me the horse had told the original owner that I paid less than half the asking price. The trainer pocketed the difference.How crooked is that???
3 Likes
Although I wonder if I got screwed over on a horse I bought a couple of years ago through an agent I didn’t know, at least at my last horse purchase, even though he was at a sales barn, the owner came to watch me ride him and I wrote the check directly to her. And when I sold the horse I may have been dealt dirty on, the new owner and I communicated directly on the final details, not through the trainer I had placed him with (the trainer’s idea, which showed she wasn’t trying to pull anything).
What made me question the first purchase was the first agent told my agent that the horse (who I had bought through her) wasn’t worth what I had paid for him! But I did sell him for more than I had paid, obviously not to the first agent’s client!
You really have to know who you are dealing with, or at least pay attention!
Would the plaintiff’s legal team also interview other people who bought horses through CR ?
3 Likes
