From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hickstead Farm, Inc. v. Dapple Stud, LLC

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Dec 1, 2023
No. 2022-CA-1284-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2023)

Opinion

2022-CA-1284-MR 2022-CA-1306-MR

12-01-2023

HICKSTEAD FARM, INC. APPELLANT v. DAPPLE STUD, LLC; DAPPLE SALES, LLC; MIKE AKERS, INC. D/B/A DAPPLE BLOODSTOCK; AND MIKE AKERS, INDIVIDUALLY APPELLEES AND KENNETH L. RAMSEY; RAMSEY FARM, INC.; AND SARAH K. RAMSEY APPELLANTS v. DAPPLE STUD, LLC; DAPPLE SALES, LLC; AND MIKE AKERS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND MIKE AKERS, INC. D/B/A DAPPLE BLOODSTOCK APPELLEES

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: Michael D. Meuser Elizabeth C. Woodford Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DAPPLE STUD, LLC; AND DAPPLE SALES, LLC: Thomas D. Bullock Rachele T. Yohe Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES MIKE AKERS, INC. D/B/A DAPPLE BLOODSTOCK; AND MIKE AKERS, INDIVIDUALLY: Nolan M. Jackson Lexington, Kentucky


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE ACTION NOS. 14-CI-01698, 14-CI-02669

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:

Michael D. Meuser

Elizabeth C. Woodford

Lexington, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DAPPLE STUD, LLC; AND DAPPLE SALES, LLC:

Thomas D. Bullock

Rachele T. Yohe

Lexington, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES MIKE AKERS, INC. D/B/A DAPPLE BLOODSTOCK; AND MIKE AKERS, INDIVIDUALLY:

Nolan M. Jackson

Lexington, Kentucky

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

Judge Donna Dixon concurred in the Opinion prior to her retirement effective November 20, 2023. Release of this Opinion was delayed by administrative handling.

OPINION

MCNEILL, JUDGE:

This consolidated case involves a dispute arising from the sale of horses. A panel of this Court previously summarized the facts as follows:

Dapple Stud[] is a Kentucky limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lexington, Kentucky. Dapple Stud deals almost exclusively in Thoroughbred horses.
Hickstead Farm, Inc., ("Hickstead Farm") is the Appellee . . . . Hickstead Farm is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of breeding, raising, and selling Thoroughbred horses. According to Hickstead, Dapple agreed to act as a consignor of two of Hickstead's Thoroughbred yearlings, a colt and a filly, at the September 2013 Keeneland sale. The colt sold for a gross sales price of $250,000.00 and the filly sold for a gross sales price of $290,000.00. Following the sale, Keeneland issued a check to Dapple Stud for the proceeds of the sale of the horses in the amount of $513,500.00.00, representing the combined sales price of the horses minus Keeneland's commissions and fees. Hickstead Farm asserts that Dapple Stud still owes it at least $175,000.00 from the sale of its horses.
Kenneth L. Ramsey, Sarah K. Ramsey, and Ramsey Farm (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ramsey Farm") are the Appellees in Appeal No. 2015-CA-000385-MR. Ramsey Farm alleges that it engaged Dapple Stud to serve as its agent for the purpose of selling two of its yearlings, a filly and a colt, at the 2013 Fasig-Tipton October Fall Yearling Sale, and four of its older broodmares at the 2013 Fasig-Tipton Midlantic December Mixed Sale. Thereafter, a total of $158,565.50 in sales proceeds was remitted to Dapple Stud for the account of Ramsey Farm from the 2013 Fasig-Tipton October Sale and an additional $8,018.85 in sales proceeds was remitted to Dapple Stud for the account of Ramsey Farm from the 2013 Fasig-Tipton December Sale. Ramsey Farm asserts that despite its repeated demands, Dapple Stud has failed to pay it the sales proceeds and interest due to it from the sale of the horses by Dapple Stud.
Hickstead Farm was the first to file a complaint against Dapple Stud. Its May 5, 2014, complaint against Dapple Stud seeks damages (compensatory and punitive) based on claims of: (1) theft by failure to make required disposition of property; (2) conversion; (3) fraud; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) breach of contract. Approximately two months later, Ramsey Farm filed a nearly identical complaint against Dapple Stud. The only substantive difference between the two complaints is the amount of damages sought. Dapple Stud answered both complaints. In its answers, Dapple Stud denied that it entered into any relationship or agreement with the plaintiffs for the sale of their horses.
Dapple Stud, LLC v. Ramsey, No. 2015-CA-000385-MR, 2016 WL 4575647, at *1-6 (Ky. App. Sep. 2, 2016), as modified (Mar. 17, 2017) (emphasis added). The Court ultimately concluded:
While the Appellees might eventually be able to prevail on breach of contract or some other theory, the factual record as it currently exists does not support the circuit court's ultimate conclusion that either an oral or written contract with definite and certain [terms] existed between the parties.
Id. at *7. As a result, the Court vacated the Fayette Circuit Court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The circuit court entered summary judgment in Appellees' favor, and ordered restitution.

A different judge presided over the case on remand.

In the present case, Appellees are Dapple Stud, LLC, Dapple Bloodstock, Mike Akers, Inc., and Mike Akers individually. Appellants are Hickstead Farms (Hickstead), and Kenneth L. Ramsey, Sarah K. Ramsey, and Ramsey Farm (Ramsey). And while the focus here appears to be the issue of summary judgment and restitution, Appellants appeal from a dozen orders, including one order denying Appellants' motions to file a third-party complaint against Third-Party Defendants, Mike Akers, Inc., and Mike Akers individually, "as time-barred by their applicable statutes of limitations[.]" However, Appellants did not initially file suit against Akers. The motion to file a third-party complaint against Akers occurred years after Appellants' initial Complaints.

Both Dapple entities will be referred to as "Dapple." Mike Akers, Inc., and Mike Akers individually will be referred to as "Akers." All Appellees will be collectively referred to "Appellees." All Appellants will be collectively referred to as "Appellants."

It appears that Mike Akers was once employed by Dapple and had a prior relationship with Appellants, in which he would assist in the sale of their horses. However, Dapple contends that Akers was no longer acting as its lawful agent at the time of the underlying sales. It also appears that Akers deposited the sales proceeds in a Dapple account, and then absconded with a significant portion of those funds. However, we want to be clear that we are neither making nor adopting these as facts. Rather, we are simply attempting to shed some light on an extremely convoluted case with little to no findings for us to review. Dapple cites the following oral statement by the circuit court that is instructive of the underlying proceedings: there was no "indication that Dapple Sales . . . had anything to do with conspiring with Mr. Akers to take these folks' money" and that Dapple Sales had not done "anything wrong" because "Akers stole the money."

Again, we do not adopt this as a fact of the present case.

Furthermore, Appellants' arguments concerning summary judgment do not contend that there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in Appellees' favor. Rather, they argue that the circuit court erred in failing to enter summary judgment in their favor. To reach that result, we must first reverse summary judgment in Appellees' favor, and remand for entry of summary judgment in Appellants' favor. Such a remedy is extreme, and unsupported by the record presented. Moreover, nearly all of the dispositive orders from which Appellants appeal appear to be summary orders with no explanation or analysis concerning the underlying issues. Critically, Appellants have not indicated that they requested additional findings or any other form of post-judgment relief, the product of which may have aided in our review. In any event, we have not been presented with any issue of law or fact that requires reversal of any order or judgment on appeal. Therefore, we affirm.

On page ten of its brief, Appellants cite that it asked the court to amend a judgment, which the court did. However, Appellants also note that this motion does not appear in the record. In any event, there is no indication that the motion, or any other motion, requested findings for the various orders and judgments from which Appellants now appeal.

ALL CONCUR.


Summaries of

Hickstead Farm, Inc. v. Dapple Stud, LLC

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Dec 1, 2023
No. 2022-CA-1284-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2023)
Case details for

Hickstead Farm, Inc. v. Dapple Stud, LLC

Case Details

Full title:HICKSTEAD FARM, INC. APPELLANT v. DAPPLE STUD, LLC; DAPPLE SALES, LLC…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Dec 1, 2023

Citations

No. 2022-CA-1284-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2023)