|
|
10D Crack Champion
    
| And it's back. |
|
| |
|
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | Wow this is like a Yo-Yo, lol  |
|
| |
|
 Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | rodeomom3 - 2014-03-17 9:17 AM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-03-17 9:12 AM The whole thing is SAD SAD SAD. Lesson learned - I will never buy a horse from someone who insists on retaining a percentage of "interest". We don't know if she insisted on retaining an interest in the horse or retained an intetest till the horse was paid in full.
Either way, it still drives home to NEVER, buy, or sell a horse with strings attached. If your going to sell something, SELL IT in full and move on. If your going to buy something, buy it, pay for it in full and go on with your new horse.
Selling or buying a horse with strings attached almost always goes south and lets be honest, a horse is not a inanimate object like a car. It is a living, breathing being and does bring emotion into the equation. This whole thing is very sad and could have, and should have been avoided IF THERE WERE NO STRINGS ATTACHED. |
|
| |
|
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| ThreeCorners - 2014-03-17 10:12 AM
rodeomom3 - 2014-03-17 9:17 AM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-03-17 9:12 AM The whole thing is SAD SAD SAD. Lesson learned - I will never buy a horse from someone who insists on retaining a percentage of "interest". We don't know if she insisted on retaining an interest in the horse or retained an intetest till the horse was paid in full.
Selling or buying a horse with strings attached almost always goes south and lets be honest, a horse is not a inanimate object like a car. It is a living, breathing being and does bring emotion into the equation. This whole thing is very sad and could have, and should have been avoided IF THERE WERE NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
I agree, just goes to show no matter how big or small the playing field the same rules apply. |
|
| |
|
10D Crack Champion
| What about situations where horses are leased? I know there are a few NFR horses who have been leased for a few years by the same person in other events & it seems to work. Do these leases usually have a detailed contract? I understand lease was not part of the equation here. I'm just curious how an extended lease works in the case of high dollar competitve horses. |
|
| |
|
 Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | its not uncommon in high dollar warmbloods.. to have partners, corporations etc.. but you have to follow the rules and do as agreed upon. |
|
| |
|
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | i'm kind of surprised that no one has brought up the implications of what the future income may be if this horse is eventually cloned, whether by Walker's, Cogburn or someone else.......could be quite lucrative..... |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 2276
Location: ohio-in my own little world with pretty ponies :) | This is a very messed up situation. I really love watching Mary and Latte run but it seems as though someone wasn't paid or the deal went south like many others. I feel sorry for both parties involved in this mess. None of us are Mary, Byron, or the 10% owner or the judge so none of us know the whole story and shouldn't judge. I just hope it all ends up the best way for Latte. |
|
| |
|
 BHW Tour Guide & Concierge
Location: Cyberspace | No slandering will be allowed.
This thread is on thin ice. If it gets ugly again it goes.
|
|
| |
|
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | it would definitely be an interesting contract to study and an issue that should be thought of for future contracts.....like, did anyone specify rights to genetic material, or rights to future income from offspring......???? with this caliber of horse and technology, there are a lot of legal issues that could arise......that's the problem with contracts and why pretty soon they end up being 500,000,000 pages long and no one understands them anyway....lol |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 629
Location: Roping pen | To me you need to take the horse out of it and look at it like the company that is. Every state is different, but in my 20 professional years of dealing with LLCs and partnerships, numerous issues can come up.
Is suit based on the nonperformance of the contractual arrangements that the LLC entered into? Or is it for ownership/valuation of the LLC?
My guess is that is stared out as the first and, one offered to buy out the other, and ended up the latter.
Any good attorney that draws up LLC docs instills an exit clause, a buy out clause, termination clause, performance requirements, etc., etc. Appears these are either in question as to the validities, or were not addressed as is typical in many of these LLCs that end up in court.
If a member of the LLC sues (assuming to force the other party out), the courts must decide what the orginal LLC bylaws stipulated. If no exit/buyout clause, liquidation can be the only option.
If settlement/damages/valuation can't be proven to the court's satisfaction, court can rule to liquidate the LLC. Hence the sheriff's sale. The court typically will not value something like this. If they did, appeals would be filed the day the ruling was public. I am sure both parties are way apart on this value.
So, the auction is true price discovery. Each party has the option to purchase the asset. BUT one must realize, if one buys the assets, they could be stuck with any and all the judgements, secured liens, taxes due and payable due to liquidation, etc of that asset and/or LLC. It is not as easy as just buying the horse. If there is money borrowed, liens in place, etc of the LLC, they must be satisfied. Taxes could be a deal breaker--ex. if bases (cost) of the asset (horse) is 150,000 and the asset is sold for $1m, a tax responsibility of over $200,000 could be enforced to the LLC and/or its new owner.
Live animals complicate this even further due to the carrying costs (care) of the assets while determinations are being discovered.
As usual, the only winners in this deal are the attorneys and uncle sam....
This is just my opinon only.
|
|
| |
|
 Texas Lone Star
Posts: 5318
Location: where ever my L/Q trl is parked | Glittergirl - 2014-03-16 11:58 PM phillyincal - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-17 8:56 PM That is correct, the highest bidder will go home with the horse. If Latte sells for $100,000 Walkers will receive $90,000 as they own 90% and the other party will receive $10,000. I can assure you that the Walkers have every intention and the funds to purchase Latte from this auction. Unfortunately this means they will have bought him twice. This is what I was going to ask...what would stop the Walkers from bidding on him and buying him back? Sounds like that is the plan. I sure hope it all works out, they are such an amazing team! They are a team who belong together. Anyone buying him out from under her in these circumstances would be considered a horse theif in my eyes!
JMO but anyone who would raise their hand and bid against Mary Walker to take that horse away from her would have to be pretty cold hearted and ashamed of themselves
I don't have a horse in this race either,but.....
Hasn't this happened once or twice in the past with other named horses/owners?
I can't remember who/what/where at this time.
|
|
| |
|
 Guys Just Wanna Have Fun
Posts: 5530
Location: OH | I am just curious at to why they did not do an appraissal on the horse and go off of that figure and come to an aggreement, maybe that was brought up and could not be agreed upon. Sad situation for all involved. |
|
| |
|
 I keep my butt inside
Posts: 3281
Location: Weatherford, Texas | Here is a little of the law behind this:
In an LLC it is protection from personal liability.
An order for a partition suit is used for a split the baby type thing but it is mainly when a partnership etc is no longer possible.
I HATE to see Mary and Latte split because I don't know what I would have done if someone had tried to take my Tiger- BUT the lawyer in me says that someone has some property rights that were not honored in some way. A deal gone bad usually has wrongdoing on both sides. Someone not bidding over Mary would be wrong to the other person that has a property right. I know it is hard to compare- but in your minds please think of it as an eminent domain suit- even though the county needs your land doesn't mean that they should pay less (theoretically) than what it is worth or what you are owed.
In a lawsuit there are always losers- but the way to avoid one is to do right and watch your Ps and Qs. |
|
| |
|
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | dhdqhllc - 2014-03-17 11:41 AM it would definitely be an interesting contract to study and an issue that should be thought of for future contracts.....like, did anyone specify rights to genetic material, or rights to future income from offspring......???? with this caliber of horse and technology, there are a lot of legal issues that could arise......that's the problem with contracts and why pretty soon they end up being 500,000,000 pages long and no one understands them anyway....lol
and there are always words, phrases ,sentences ,terms misworded and it can lead to a big mess.. Make sure you have a good attorney draw them up and all the stipulations and terms and your T's crossed and I's dotted.. read between the lines and make sure its all correct. |
|
| |
|
I Really Love Jeans
Posts: 3173
Location: North Dakota | I think the 10% owner likely wants to cash out her 10% and they could not agree on an amount that both parties feels is fair. But nobody knows the facts for sure except those involved. I feel bad for everyone and hope the issue is resolved. I hope this doesn't catch the attention of someone with deep pockets or the horse may be under new ownership in another counrty really fast!!!! |
|
| |
|
Grammar Expert
| fatchance - 2014-03-16 10:17 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 9:14 PM Mary had Latte 6 months prior to the purchase and the owner kept increasing the price as Mary and Latte began winning at WPRA and other events. Anything above $1,500 in equistat earrings prior to Mary getting on him was all won with Mary as the rider. This made purchasing him difficult therefore the retainer of the 10% by Cogburns. Mary was also hurt by Latte, Mary should sue Cogburns.
It's just this kind of thinking that likely got them both into this mess in the first place. Greed. |
|
| |
|
A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | I'm hoping that who ever gets Latte, will keep Mary as his Jockey, these two were meant to be a team. Are better yet gift him to her  |
|
| |
|
 Pork Fat is my Favorite
Posts: 3791
Location: The Oklahoma plains. | bennie1 - 2014-03-17 7:33 AM wyoming barrel racer - 2014-03-17 7:23 AM So I am going to throw something out there. Won't the Brazillians be all over him or will he lack any value to them because he is a gelding? It's my understanding they can't import geldings.
I think this is true but I also think they dont mind owning a piece of the best property in the world and have the money to do so- even if they have to keep it here in the USA?
I feel bad for a horse deal to come to this. How sad for all involved. Especially the horse- he may have a new home and new rider......
And there is no bigger fan of Mary than I but I can see where maybe the other party knew they had a GREAT horse that had HUGE potential and did not want to sell him. Im guessing that it was the only deal they could agree to and it seems the agreement was not fullfilled. |
|
| |
|
BHW's Simon Cowell
Location: The Saudia Arabia of Wind Energy, Western Oklahoma | Well I know one person that would more than likely buy him and definelty has the funds to do it. Throw in the money that could be generated from cloning, he will bring big bucks. But the 90% owner will get 90% of the proceeds and will probably have to pay taxes on that.
The 10% owner should have been getting a share of the winnings. If Latte wins 300k in a year then they would be required to pay 30k to the 10% owner I am assuming. I'm sure if the 10% owner would have probably been happy to get that, but I'm just guessing that.
So do we really think that the 10% has been getting paid her share of the winnings and is just being greedy? If I were the 10% owner and was getting paid 10% I think I would have been happy to just collect my royalties. It kinda looks like maybe the 10% owner hasn't been getting her 10% of the winnings. |
|
| |
Folks on-line