If you have about half an hour you can read the entire ruling posted below for yourself, but if not, I’ll try and give you a synopsis.
Peter Atkins and Linda Martin were both involved in a legal battle to decide the ownership of HJ Hampton,(Henny) the horse that Peter famously rode around Rolex and the WEG clear last year with his helmet cam. Both parties agree that Linda bought the horse for her niece to ride originally in 2006, but he proved unsuitable.
Peter took over Henny’s training after a clinic in July of 2007, and then it becomes contentious. Linda alleges that after a few months of paying Peter, they verbally entered into a “free lease agreement” in the fall of 2007 whereby Peter would continue to train the horse and take over all the expenses with no prospect of financial gain but for his enjoyment and would eventually return the horse to her niece. Peter contends that he, or indeed no other trainer would agree to such an arrangement, and expert testimony by Denny Emerson and Jim Wofford backed him up in court. Peter alleges that around the time of December 2007/January 2008 he and Linda verbally agreed that Peter would assume all of HJ Hampton’s expenses, manage him solely and recoup his investment upon his sale. The judge decided that the parties did NOT enter into a free lease agreement.
This was when the financial market was still robust, and both parties imagined a healthy return. Peter continued to train, compete and pay for all of Henny’s expenses, until the spring of 2010 found them running advanced, and preparing for Rolex. Although Linda Martin had attended the prestigious Myopia Horse Show the year before, where Henny was competing, and Peter produced an audio/video recording of them competing at the show at at the trial with the loudspeaker clearly announcing himself as the owner of Henny, and although Linda attended several events, Linda maintains it wasn’t until Rolex 2010 when she tried to get owner’s accreditation that she realised she wasn’t listed as an owner. Peter explained that because Linda didn’t ride, she had never seen the point in paying USEF, USEA, and FEI member fees to have her name on the forms and passports, which is why Peter’s name was down as owner, and he made every effort to get her owner’s accreditation at the WEG because the Australian Federation has different rules. In this, and other instances, the judge found that Peter did not breach the general partnership agreement or violate his fiduciary duty.
After the WEG, Linda took Henny from Peter’s barn without his knowledge or permission and refused to return him. Peter had to go to court to get Henny back. The judge ruled that the parties had entered into a general partnership, but “the Court finds that the partnership was dissolved on November 2nd, 2010, when Martin, without the authorization of the only other partner, took the horse, refused to disclose the horse’s whereabouts, and rendered impossible the continuation of the partnership business.”
Now, obviously the partnership must be dissolved, and to try and figure out the best way to award compensation, Henny will be sold as per the judge’s orders, as soon as possible, to the highest bidder. Peter thinks this will probably be at a public auction within a month.
Having just got off the phone to Peter, he is pleased and relieved to some extent, and feels vindicated by the ruling, but obviously nervous about the sale. He is overwhelmed by the generosity of the EN community, and asked that I pass on his thanks. Peter is in the process of trying to set up a syndicate, if you’re interested you can email him [email protected] with syndicate in the subject line and a dollar amount. He was equally touched by all the pledges of donations and is trying to figure out ways to make it all work. Thank you as always for reading, and for you involvement, thank you for Peter for keeping EN in the loop – Run Henny Run, and Go eventing!
