|
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 733
  
| stayceem - 2014-03-17 8:57 PM
loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:56 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.
Thats what i was trying to wrap my head around so I just deleted it. So they can and hoep to buy him but you mean they will have paid $120,000 PLUS whatever crazy amount he sells for on the 27th? I would imagine a horse like that would go for $500,000+?
Such a sad deal all the way around. If they buy him won't 90% of what they pay go back to them? It seems these "partnerships" on high dollar horses are becoming more common, I hope we don't see to many more of these situations. |
|
| |
|
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| SG. - 2014-03-16 11:01 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:56 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. But they will get their 9o% of the sales proceeds back to counter balance the purchase to really purchasing him twice
Edited by rodeomom3 2014-03-16 11:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
 Movin's Momma
Posts: 1426
| Correct. |
|
| |
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 1062
Location: Probably On the Road to the Next Barrel Race! | loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:25 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.
I don't know what Latte had done or not done before he was purchased, but must have been SOmEthing to have been bought for $120,000!!!! (WITH a retention of 10%)...yet you say he had less than $1500 in Equistat earnings...that doesn't even make sense...was he blowing everybody away at events that were non-equistat? I'm just curious. |
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TyE - 2014-03-16 10:24 PM
As much as I love watching Marry and Latte, IF the Walkers did not fulfill the contract obligations of the purchase and did not hold true to their word then they should not have the right to keep the horse and no one should give him back to them with no strings attached. What about the other party?? Why no sympathy for the other partner that was apparantly wronged if the judge ruled against the Walkers.
With out knowing what was said in court none of us know the truth. To me it sounds like the Judge couldn't figure it out completely ether. His ruling is more of lets split the baby kind of thing. Normally in a case for money the one that looses gets a judgement placed on them and it is up to the other party to collect. In this case the judge ordered the partnership to sell it's only asset (Latte) strange to say the least. |
|
| |
|
Blessed 
Location: Here | stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:00 PM
loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM
It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved.
Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000???
Correct |
|
| |
|
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| CrossCreek - 2014-03-16 11:03 PM
loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:25 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.
I don't know what Latte had done or not done before he was purchased, but must have been SOmEthing to have been bought for $120,000!!!! (WITH a retention of 10%)...yet you say he had less than $1500 in Equistat earnings...that doesn't even make sense...was he blowing everybody away at events that were non-equistat? I'm just curious.
Good question? Was he gelded? Was DFP alive still? Could be a number of things? |
|
| |
|
  The Original Cyber Bartender
Location: Washington | loflin06 - 2014-03-16 8:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved.
Not feeling protected now are they.
As a fan I am seriously ****ed off.
|
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| SG. - 2014-03-16 11:04 PM
stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:00 PM
loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM
It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved.
Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000???
Correct
Thank you. I wonder if there will be a big turnout at the sale. |
|
| |
|
 Total Germophobe
Posts: 6443
Location: Montana | stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000???  Oops, see someone already answered!
Edited by mtcanchazer 2014-03-16 11:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| Sorry I am intrigued by this so... basically they technically (they as in Mary and Byron) are determining what the 10% value is since he is worth more now than when she bought him. So if he brings 500,000... Mary gets 450,000 and the other 10% is $50,000. Am I getting this right? So if mary makes the purchase, she will owe $50,000? |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1062
Location: Probably On the Road to the Next Barrel Race! | If I was at that auction, I would not bid higher than whatever Mary bid...I would think it a shame to attempt to take advantage of this situation and outbid just so you can get a great horse...there are plenty nice ones out there, go build your OWN champioship team, without having to break Mary's heart and use her back to step up on. |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| mtcanchazer - 2014-03-16 11:09 PM
stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000???
Yes this is the case... it was answered up a little bit in the thread |
|
| |
|
Blessed
Location: Here | mtcanchazer - 2014-03-16 11:09 PM
stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000???
Yes that is correct |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:10 PM mtcanchazer - 2014-03-16 11:09 PM stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000??? Yes this is the case... it was answered up a little bit in the thread
Cheaper than sharing future winnings on him plus the Walkers would have sole ownership. |
|
| |
|
Movin's Momma
Posts: 1426
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| rodeomom3 - 2014-03-16 11:13 PM
stayceem - 2014-03-16 11:10 PM mtcanchazer - 2014-03-16 11:09 PM stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000??? Yes this is the case... it was answered up a little bit in the thread
I just wonder why the owner got to keep 10%?? or why?? If he was paid in full? Maybe they just thought he would be something and wanted to be attached to him as an investment?
Sorry I have so many questions   |
|
| |
|
Blessed
Location: Here | It truly is a huge gamble for a
Dream to be taken away So sad On all levels |
|
| |
|
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | SG. - 2014-03-16 11:12 PM mtcanchazer - 2014-03-16 11:09 PM stayceem - 2014-03-16 10:00 PM loflin06 - 2014-03-16 10:59 PM It is Walker / Cogburn LLC 90% Walker 10% Cogburn. This was set up this way to protect both parties involved. Question... so say Mary buys him for 100,000 ... does she gets the 90,000 and then pays 10,000 to Cogburn? So really she only paid 10,000??? Yes that is correct
Wow all this really has my head a spining, not easy for me to follow all that is being said  |
|
| |
|
The Original Cyber Bartender
Location: Washington | 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.
|
|
| |
Folks on-line