rodeomom3 - 2014-03-17 3:31 PM

Christy Loflin is incorrect.  Her post is no more fact than any other on here.  Yes, she is close to Mary, her hauling partner so I take her version with a grain of salt just as you would those close to Cheri.   There are posts on here from those just as close to Cheri as Christy is to Mary and they say it is a simple case of non payment by the Walkers.  Also there are post from those close to the situation that say the $$ will go into a trust till Cheri is paid.

3rdtimesacharm - 2014-03-17 3:55 PM

Ksjackofalltrades....can you ride my horse for me?

ksjackofalltrades - 2014-03-17 3:58 PM Umm, no. I don't ride.

ana - 2014-03-17 3:52 PM My understanding is that a check was issued and cashed for buyint the remaining 10% prior to the 2012 NFR but now that person wants the 10% of the winnings too.

quickdraw - 2014-03-17 4:16 PM I agree with KSJackofalltrades. First of all the equistat earnings being referred to don't even come close to what Mary won on that horse. I personally watched her run and win rodeo after rodeo on him at CPRA/UPRA rodeos in TX and I was there and entered and saw the horse. So the equistat #'s are far misleading and deceiving. They know what a horse is worth and would never have paid $120,000 for one that wasn't worth it in every way. There are several morals to this story. Business is business and a contract is enforceable so don't enter into an agreement and then not abide by it. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm saying be careful what you ever agree to. This is a perfect example of why a written bill of sale should be signed by both parties anytime a horse is sold, especially an expensive horse. It needs to be thorough and well written to cover any "expressed or implied warranties or future obligations", etc... If the remarks another poster made are correct and the Walkers will receive 90% of the proceeds from the sale of Latte, then this is a win-win situation for them. They will pay only 10% of his worth to own him free and clear and be rid of any "partnership". I know at least 3 potential buyers for that horse that are capable of paying up to $1 million or more for him and I doubt he goes anywhere near 100,000. But if he sells much higher to a new buyer, look at the $$ they will be receiving. Either way, they can't lose! I hate what is happening for Mary's sake. She has done a fabulous job riding and training him and she is a sweetheart to talk to. I'm convinced no matter who ends up with him, he will be very well taken care of and treated like a prince.

loflin06 - 2014-03-16 11:25 PM For the record here let's get a few facts straight: Latte was purchased by the Walkers from the Cogburns for $120,000 and they own 90% of Lattle. Cogburns retained 10% interest in him. He was paid IN FULL at the time of the sale. He is going up for auction to determine his value not because there is money owed by the Walkers. At this time there are two separate cases pending to determine if Walkers owe Cogburns or Cogburns owe Walkers. This is a very complicated situation and sadly as a result of the high profile of this amazing team rumors and lies have been spread like wild fire. When Latte was purchased for Mary to help ease the pain of the unimaginable loss of her son he simply had less the $1,500 in equistat earnings to he resume. Mary and Latte have a bond and an amazing partnership! As anyone on here knows, the bond between a horse and rider runs deep. Loosing Latte would be devastating to say the least. Let's all be respectful of her situation and stick to the facts.

Runninformoney - 2014-03-16 11:49 PM 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.

SKM - 2014-03-17 6:06 PM

  I seriously doubt if someone with funds like what Jud Little or the Schiller's have that Walkers will be able to retain ownership of Latte, JMHO.