|
|
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
  
| loflin06 - 2014-03-16 11:14 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.
Sad deal to me. Mary made that horse worth what he is but I suppose unless you negotiate before getting on him ... you are kinda up a creek without a paddle.
I know it happens, just not right in my eyes. Then again, probably why i wouldnt make a good business woman. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1409
| It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me  and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up! |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM
It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up!
From what I gather.....
1.) Mary rode Latte before anything was formed or in writing which is why is purchase price could increase. From past articles, Mary was riding Latte to season him for Cheri.
2.) Christy states he was paid in full but Cheri retainined 10% of ownership (this part I dont understand).
3.) They formed an LLC at that point in the sale. But the value of his was maybe never set in stone. Could be why the judge couldnt make an easier ruling.
Contracts are really really tricky. I took business law and litigation and there are Sooo many loopholes and pieces to the puzzle. If you miss one by accident, it can throw a whole wrench into everything.
ETA - no dog in this fight. Just learning a lot from a unfortuante situation.
Edited by stayceem 2014-03-16 11:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM
It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up!
It sounds like they did a value on him when they bought him the question is how much is he worth know. |
|
| |
|
Blessed 
Location: Here | TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM
It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up!
Price did not change It was the % of winnings that were not complied with that is the root of this |
|
| |
|
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| SG. - 2014-03-16 11:33 PM
TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM
It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up!
Price did not change It was the % of winnings that were not complied with that is the root of this
Yes, it really is not complicated. Buying him at auction, getting 90% of the proceeds refunded to you is cheaper than remaining in the partnership and sharing future earnings. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
| SG. - 2014-03-16 11:33 PM TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up! Price did not change It was the % of winnings that were not complied with that is the root of this
Well that makes sense!
I was just going by what Loflin had posted about the "owner kept increasing the price, which made the purchasing difficult." |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
| stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:30 PM TyE - 2014-03-16 11:26 PM It is hard to believe that negotiating a purchase of that amount there would be nothing in writing and the seller would be able to change the price? Why would one go to the trouble to form an LLC with all that paperwork, but fail to have the purchase price in a contract , so that the price could not change if the horse was not paid in full at time of first competition?
This is all really strange to me and I have no dog in the fight I guess my organizational tendencies like everything to add up! From what I gather..... 1. ) Mary rode Latte before anything was formed or in writing which is why is purchase price could increase. From past articles, Mary was riding Latte to season him for Cheri. 2. ) Christy states he was paid in full but Cheri retainined 10% of ownership (this part I dont understand ). 3. ) They formed an LLC at that point in the sale. But the value of his was maybe never set in stone. Could be why the judge couldnt make an easier ruling. Contracts are really really tricky. I took business law and litigation and there are Sooo many loopholes and pieces to the puzzle. If you miss one by accident, it can throw a whole wrench into everything. ETA - no dog in this fight. Just learning a lot from a unfortuante situation.
Thanks! |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 61
| So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more..... |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 183
Location: Wyoming | Money the root of evil!! This makes me so sad the biggest loss is probably a friendship worth more than money. I hope Mary keeps Latte and Cogburn gets her money. |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| fatchance - 2014-03-16 11:17 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.
I guess she would have to sue herself too since she was part owner. Why do you see it as so wrong that the Cogburns want paid to they feel what was agreed upon? Christy has verified they were 10% owners and must owners get a share of the winnings. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
| TxBronc - 2014-03-16 11:48 PM So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more.....
Yes, but someone said earlier that the full purchase price would have to be paid before they could get the horse, so that means to me that they would have to put up all the money and then get refunded their percent, but I could be wrong.............. |
|
| |
|
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | This all sounds like a really screwed up mess and someone really screwed up  |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| TyE - 2014-03-16 11:53 PM
TxBronc - 2014-03-16 11:48 PM So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more.....
Yes, but someone said earlier that the full purchase price would have to be paid before they could get the horse, so that means to me that they would have to put up all the money and then get refunded their percent, but I could be wrong..............
Yeah but I feel like they know enough people and for those who understand the situation would help them get the money upfront and then reimburse. Again risky, but possibility. Thats assuming loans and such are not an option. |
|
| |
|
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TyE - 2014-03-16 11:53 PM
TxBronc - 2014-03-16 11:48 PM So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more.....
Yes, but someone said earlier that the full purchase price would have to be paid before they could get the horse, so that means to me that they would have to put up all the money and then get refunded their percent, but I could be wrong..............
Correct plus court costs. And some courts take 30 to 45 days to distribute the funds. |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:56 PM
TyE - 2014-03-16 11:53 PM
TxBronc - 2014-03-16 11:48 PM So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more.....
Yes, but someone said earlier that the full purchase price would have to be paid before they could get the horse, so that means to me that they would have to put up all the money and then get refunded their percent, but I could be wrong..............
Yeah but I feel like they know enough people and for those who understand the situation would help them get the money upfront and then reimburse. Again risky, but possibility. Thats assuming loans and such are not an option.
I think there definitely some strategy to this. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 165
| 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!
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. 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! |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 61
| TyE - 2014-03-16 11:53 PM
TxBronc - 2014-03-16 11:48 PM So basically the Walkers could bid a million dollars and would "only" put another 100k in him? This doesn't sound like a wise decision on the judges part. He should have just made a decision on the value. Because no one will out bid them I'm sure, because they are only paying 10 percent of what anyone else would. So either they won't get any bidders or the other party will either run the bid up or have someone else do it. I would assume the walkers would go up to at least one million if not a little more.....
Yes, but someone said earlier that the full purchase price would have to be paid before they could get the horse, so that means to me that they would have to put up all the money and then get refunded their percent, but I could be wrong..............
I doubt that would be a issue? If they don't have it I'm sure someone that does will loan them use of it for a day or two. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 61
| 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!
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. 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!
I don't think that is fair to say. They other party may have legitimate case. |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| 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!
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. 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!
Dont get me wrong because I love Mary & Latte but this in essense is a bad business deal/transaction. I dont know who dropped the ball or who's fault but this horse is going to a public auction. I for one wouldnt bid against her even if I had the funds but I wouldnt crucify someone who did because they wanted to take part in something incredible (the chance to own and run a horse like latte). |
|
| |
Folks on-line