Lawsuit in Florida - alleged fraud in sale of Fabrege - Case settled - post #340

[keysfins]

@suzy

Here is an interesting turn of events: http://dressage-news.com/2017/11/15/…gned-contract/

That was part of several documents filed with the court on 10 November 2017. Two other documents filed were lists of items CR is asking AT to produce.

There was a notice of hearing before the court, set for 10/27/17, then a request for extension by the defendants, which was granted by the court (ten days). I would have thought by now there would have been further court filings or another hearing date set by the court.

https://applications.mypalmbeachcler…ew/search.aspx

(enter Tarjan in the last name box and the case comes up, then navigate the tabs)

[sammy14]

That article lol. ‘‘Alice of Frenchtown ,Caroline of Wellington ,Zangen of Wellington.’’ Will Robin Hood need to be involved to sort this out ?

[COTH_ELF]

@sammy14

That article lol. ‘‘Alice of Frenchtown ,Caroline of Wellington ,Zangen of Wellington.’’ Will Robin Hood need to be involved to sort this out ?

Or maybe the lawyers will just take everything:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1665719&partId=1&searchText=Goose+game&page=1

[WildLittleWren]

@Equibrit

At some point, you must have agreed your selling price with her ?

I did, $2500. 6 months later I saw her at a show with her new owners, and somehow her sale got mentioned up and they were talking to the people beside them that they paid 15k. Anyways, long story short after talking with them they said they had a bill of sale from ME for 15k. I sure didn’t sign it, so the agent must have created a second FAKE bill of sale stating I was selling her to them for 15k. They wrote the check to their agent, who picked up the horse and paid me $2500 in cash. Not sure if they ever pressed charges.

[OverandOnward]

@WildLittleWren

I did, $2500. 6 months later I saw her at a show with her new owners, and somehow her sale got mentioned up and they were talking to the people beside them that they paid 15k. Anyways, long story short after talking with them they said they had a bill of sale from ME for 15k. I sure didn’t sign it, so the agent must have created a second FAKE bill of sale stating I was selling her to them for 15k. They wrote the check to their agent, who picked up the horse and paid me $2500 in cash. Not sure if they ever pressed charges.

This is where the misrepresentation crosses even more definite legal boundaries - the fraudulent paperwork.

I shouldn’t be so astonished at some of the people posting in this thread who don’t think this is a big deal. A few don’t even to think it is wrong. What a shameful perspective on the horse industry, that charlatans and scammers are to be accepted as just a part of life in horses. No wonder they flourish when integrity isn’t even a thing - to some people, anyway.

[OverandOnward]

(Once upon a time I used to trace titles through complex transaction chains … )

@suzy

Here is an interesting turn of events: http://dressage-news.com/2017/11/15/…gned-contract/

CR does not seem to be denying what happened. She seems to agree that Tarjan asked for and received $300k for the horse, while on the other end of one and the same transaction, Peslar paid $900k. And that the $600k difference stuck to CR’s own fingers.

CR does not seem to be disagreeing that Tarjan had a contract with Lionshare. Only that CR cleverly acted on her own and not as Lionshare. Otherwise, CR seems to acknowledge that all of this happened, more or less as Tarjan stated that it did.

So CR is creating a tangled thread of the transaction, with a technical legal excuse for this not being out & out fraud. Having split herself into two separate legal entities, Caroline Roffman and Lionshare, sometimes “Caroline Roffman” was the operative party, and sometimes “Lionshare”.

CR is claiming that neither “Caroline Roffman” or “Lionshare” speaks for the other. If Lionshare does or says something, it has nothing to do with Roffman, and if Roffman does or says something, it has nothing to do with Lionshare. Lionshare dealt with the Tarjan side, and Roffman dealt with the Peslar side.

"Further a copy of the sales and purchase agreement attached to the complaint… states that the commission was being paid to Lionshare, the purchase price was to be wired to Lionshare bank account and the bill of sale delivered to Lionshare to transfer title to the horse to buyer.

“Roffman was not a party to the agreement.”

Caroline Roffman is named as manager and registered agent of Lionshare Dressage, LLC, according to Florida state records.

So sometimes Roffman is speaking to people as an individual, and sometimes Roffman is speaking to people as Lionshare. I wonder if she has a lion hat she wears so everyone will know when she is Lionshare, and not Roffman. Maybe a tiara for when she is speaking as Roffman? Mean girl speculation.

And somehow the ownership of Faberge floated seamlessly through this trail of dealings, from Tarjan to Peslar. Tarjan owned Faberge, then Peslar owned Faberge, and that was a direct transfer of ownership with no other party in the middle.

What is missing is how the chain of the transaction went from Lionshare to Roffman in the middle step.Being that neither ever had ownership. But may or may not have handed the money from Peslar to Tarjan.

The Tale: Tarjan > Lionshare agreement > Roffman negotiation > Peslar

The Title: Tarjan > Peslar

So how was the jump made from Lionshare handling a $300k sale, to Roffman handling a $900k purchase?

According to Tarjan, CR (under the Lionshare hat? or not?) represented to Tarjan that Peter Eeckman wanted to buy the horse for $300k and he would pay the commission to Lionshare. Tarjan rec’d the $300k and believed it came from Eeckman. The Lionshare hat did all the dealings with Tarjan, and that bad Lionshare let poor Ms. Tarjan think Eeckman was the buyer.

But the money didn’t come from Eeckman at all, it came from Peslar. Through the bank account of Roffman? or Lionshare? Or Roffman’s account to Lionshare’s account to Tarjan’s account?

The Money: ???
Peslar > Roffman > Lionshare > Tarjan,
or Peslar > Roffman > Tarjan,
or Peslar > Lionshare > Tarjan

Had CR (or Lionshare) purchased the horse from Tarjan (and paid for it at that moment) for $300k, then sold it under the purchasing name to Peslar for $900k, even the next day, I have a feeling this would have all been legal. Maybe in violation of the contract for representation, though.

But because it all seems to have been wrapped in just one transaction with paperwork that looked like Tarjan selling directly to Peslar for $900k, it is a big problem. Because Tarjan was told by CR, as either “Lionshare” or as “Roffman”, that the price was $300k, and Tarjan never got her copy of the bill of sale showing the true price.

By her own description of the transaction, what a dodgy character is Caroline Roffman. Wow.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Hmmm. It’s sort of like she’s trying to use a dissociative identity disorder defense…

“It wasn’t me who told Tarjan the horse only sold for 300 - it was my corporate alter ego. Even though I am the sole managing partner of that corporation. But no matter - it wasn’t me.”

Ridiculous.

[netg]

@Virginia Horse Mom

Hmmm. It’s sort of like she’s trying to use a dissociative identity disorder defense…

“It wasn’t me who told Tarjan the horse only sold for 300 - it was my corporate alter ego. Even though I am the sole managing partner of that corporation. But no matter - it wasn’t me.”

Ridiculous.

She confuses Limited Liability Corporation with “Firewall which protects against intentional fraud.”

Also, if the buyer was supposed paying the seller the commission directly, I suspect Alice Tarjan either got a $270k or whatever % commission off check, not a $300k check.

[Equibrit]

@OverandOnward

(Once upon a time I used to trace titles through complex transaction chains … )

CR does not seem to be denying what happened. She seems to agree that Tarjan asked for and received $300k for the horse, while on the other end of one and the same transaction, Peslar paid $900k. And that the $600k difference stuck to CR’s own fingers.

CR does not seem to be disagreeing that Tarjan had a contract with Lionshare. Only that CR cleverly acted on her own and not as Lionshare. Otherwise, CR seems to acknowledge that all of this happened, more or less as Tarjan stated that it did.

So CR is creating a tangled thread of the transaction, with a technical legal excuse for this not being out & out fraud. Having split herself into two separate legal entities, Caroline Roffman and Lionshare, sometimes “Caroline Roffman” was the operative party, and sometimes “Lionshare”.

CR is claiming that neither “Caroline Roffman” or “Lionshare” speaks for the other. If Lionshare does or says something, it has nothing to do with Roffman, and if Roffman does or says something, it has nothing to do with Lionshare. Lionshare dealt with the Tarjan side, and Roffman dealt with the Peslar side.

So sometimes Roffman is speaking to people as an individual, and sometimes Roffman is speaking to people as Lionshare. I wonder if she has a lion hat she wears so everyone will know when she is Lionshare, and not Roffman. Maybe a tiara for when she is speaking as Roffman? Mean girl speculation.

And somehow the ownership of Faberge floated seamlessly through this trail of dealings, from Tarjan to Peslar. Tarjan owned Faberge, then Peslar owned Faberge, and that was a direct transfer of ownership with no other party in the middle.

What is missing is how the chain of the transaction went from Lionshare to Roffman in the middle step.Being that neither ever had ownership. But may or may not have handed the money from Peslar to Tarjan.

The Tale: Tarjan > Lionshare agreement > Roffman negotiation > Peslar

The Title: Tarjan > Peslar

So how was the jump made from Lionshare handling a $300k sale, to Roffman handling a $900k purchase?

According to Tarjan, CR (under the Lionshare hat? or not?) represented to Tarjan that Peter Eeckman wanted to buy the horse for $300k and he would pay the commission to Lionshare. Tarjan rec’d the $300k and believed it came from Eeckman. The Lionshare hat did all the dealings with Tarjan, and that bad Lionshare let poor Ms. Tarjan think Eeckman was the buyer.

But the money didn’t come from Eeckman at all, it came from Peslar. Through the bank account of Roffman? or Lionshare? Or Roffman’s account to Lionshare’s account to Tarjan’s account?

The Money: ???
Peslar > Roffman > Lionshare > Tarjan,
or Peslar > Roffman > Tarjan,
or Peslar > Lionshare > Tarjan

Had CR (or Lionshare) purchased the horse from Tarjan (and paid for it at that moment) for $300k, then sold it under the purchasing name to Peslar for $900k, even the next day, I have a feeling this would have all been legal. Maybe in violation of the contract for representation, though.

But because it all seems to have been wrapped in just one transaction with paperwork that looked like Tarjan selling directly to Peslar for $900k, it is a big problem. Because Tarjan was told by CR, as either “Lionshare” or as “Roffman”, that the price was $300k, and Tarjan never got her copy of the bill of sale showing the true price.

By her own description of the transaction, what a dodgy character is Caroline Roffman. Wow.

You would think she should have been smarter if she wanted to carry off a fraud like that.

[Mardi]

@sammy14

That article lol. ‘‘Alice of Frenchtown ,Caroline of Wellington ,Zangen of Wellington.’’ Will Robin Hood need to be involved to sort this out ?

Agree, it’s written in such a weird way, What journalist uses only first names in an article ? It’s as if we’re sitting around a diner and talking shop.

[hoopoe]

I see that the USEF is putting forth new rule change which would fraudulent transactions in horse sales part of the “behavior unbecoming” rules and a suspend-able violation just like the insurance fraud cases.

Though it is vaguely worded, it would likely need to be amended to “found by court of law” otherwise it would become witch hunting and tittle tattle.

https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/2017/Proposals/265-17.pdf

[keysfins]

@netg

She confuses Limited Liability Corporation with “Firewall which protects against intentional fraud.”

Also, if the buyer was supposed paying the seller the commission directly, I suspect Alice Tarjan either got a $270k or whatever % commission off check, not a $300k check.

I think I remember that the transaction indicated that the buyer would pay CR’s (10%) commission directly, not out of AT’s proceeds.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@hoopoe

I see that the USEF is putting forth new rule change which would fraudulent transactions in horse sales part of the “behavior unbecoming” rules and a suspend-able violation just like the insurance fraud cases.

Though it is vaguely worded, it would likely need to be amended to “found by court of law” otherwise it would become witch hunting and tittle tattle.

https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/2017/Proposals/265-17.pdf

This is interesting! I agree with your concern about the vague wording… At present though, I think the problem of charlatans and scammers and fraud in terms of horse sales outweighs problems related to witchhunting or tattling.

If​​​ Anything… continued Silence on the part of victims is a bigger concern. Because the silence allows the scammer to do it again and again and again. But it’s tough - if you name someone as a scammer, you need to be prepared to either sue them over it, or pay lawyers to defend you if they move first and sue you for defamation. If you’ve already been burned monetarily in terms of a particular horse deal, cutting your losses and actively avoiding spending more money and time on the issue (involving lawyers equals lots of money and time) is an understandable and common reaction.

[SnicklefritzG]

Yes, for most people it is easier to move on and not deal with the aftermath. Some of the high profile cases, such as this one, and Tom Selleck’s, the people suing have plenty of money to pursue this and aren’t out a whole lot if they don’t prevail.

[rjr]

@hoopoe

I see that the USEF is putting forth new rule change which would fraudulent transactions in horse sales part of the “behavior unbecoming” rules and a suspend-able violation just like the insurance fraud cases.

Though it is vaguely worded, it would likely need to be amended to “found by court of law” otherwise it would become witch hunting and tittle tattle.

https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/2017/Proposals/265-17.pdf

This was recently discussed in the rule-change forum at USDF convention and it sounds very unlikely to go through. Although many like the idea in principle; in practice it would be very hard for USEF to define, police or determine whether a transaction is “fraudulent.”

[meupatdoes]

I mean, not that I have much faith in USEF’s ability for good drafting, but I don’t see why the rule book would have to say fraudulent behavior as found by a court of law.

USEF enforces all sorts of sanctions without the matter having been decided in a court of law. They announce their rules in advance and it’s up to the populace if they want to pay money to play in that sandbox. They could decide that only bay horses are allowed to be sold for more than $10,000 if they wanted; nobody who disgrees needs to join.

[meupatdoes]

@Equibrit

You would think she should have been smarter if she wanted to carry off a fraud like that.

Also regardless of whether transferring ownership from her llc to herself personally was a thing, which it’s not, there is still a whole inconvenience otherwise known as AGENCY LAW which means that Lionshare as Tarjans agent has a fiduciary duty to disclose everything and act in Tarjan’s best interests.

[suzy]

OverandOnward, thanks for the detailed response. I am not currently trying to sell a horse, but this got me wondering what type of paperwork would be needed to protect a seller from predatory practices like this. If the selling agent can distance him/herself from the transaction by using an LLC, then does the seller have any recourse? Or, more importantly, is there anything the seller can do upfront to prevent this type of thing from happening?

[Equibrit]

@rjr

This was recently discussed in the rule-change forum at USDF convention and it sounds very unlikely to go through. Although many like the idea in principle; in practice it would be very hard for USEF to define, police or determine whether a transaction is “fraudulent.”

They would probably halve the membership too.

[SnicklefritzG]

Dirty deals in the horse industry have been around since the dawn of time.

I think people are always going to try pulling stunts like this, knowing that many people wouldn’t go as far as Tarjan in fighting it. For the majority of transactions, it is easier to take a loss and move on than it is to hire an attorney and pay them a retainer to go after someone else.

Look at everything that has been requested by each side thus far? How many people would want to pay an attorney an hourly rate to deal with that?

@suzy

OverandOnward, thanks for the detailed response. I am not currently trying to sell a horse, but this got me wondering what type of paperwork would be needed to protect a seller from predatory practices like this. If the selling agent can distance him/herself from the transaction by using an LLC, then does the seller have any recourse? Or, more importantly, is there anything the seller can do upfront to prevent this type of thing from happening?