Palm Beach County
No. 50-2012-CA-001450XXXX
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, ANDRONICKI SHAH, (Hereinafter “SHAH”) by and through his undersigned attorney sues the Defendants, VALERIE RENIHAN (Hereinafter “RENIHAN”) and MELINDA (MINDY) DARST, (Hereinafter “DARST”) for damages and state as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) and is therefore, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
VENUE
2. At all times material, Plaintiff, ANDRONICKI MICHELLE SHAH, was and is a resident of Lexington, Massachusetts.
3. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida as Defendants have significant contact with this county; pursuant to Florida Statute sections 48.071 and 48.181 have done and are currently doing business in the State of Florida, specifically Palm Beach County.
4. At all times material to the allegations in this Complaint Defendants VALERIE RENIHAN and MELINDA (MINDY) DARST have ongoing and consistent business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
5. Defendant VALERIE RENIHAN owns property in Wellington, Florida, Palm Beach County. She is registered to vote in Florida, maintains a Florida driver’s license and has multiple vehicles registered in Florida.
6. Defendant VALERIE RENIHAN resides in Florida from approximately December through April each year and further conducts significant business as a horse trainer and agent in the sales of show horses and ponies. She conducts business at the Winter Equestrian Festival located in Wellington, Florida.
7. Defendant MELINDA (MINDY) DARST owns property in Wellington, Florida, Palm Beach County.
8. Defendant MELINDA (MINDY) DARST resides in Florida from approximately December through April each year and further conducts significant business as a horse trainer
and agent in the sales of show horses and ponies. She conducts her business at the Winter Equestrian Festival located in Wellington, Florida.
and agent in the sales of show horses and ponies. She conducts her business at the Winter Equestrian Festival located in Wellington, Florida.
9. Defendant MELINDA (MINDY) DARST was subject to jurisdiction in this court in the case of Mattie Fein v. Darst, Case No. 502007CA018921MB filed in 2007.
10. As a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, the Plaintiff had to engage counsel knowledgeable in equine law and as such, has incurred attorney fees and costs.
FACTS
11. The business of the Hunter/Jumper equine industry is a transient business and the parties conduct their business all through the United States. The business is competitively showing hunters and jumpers for clients; training students, and buying and selling horses.
12. On or about August 2011, Plaintiff traveled with her minor daughter from Massachusetts to Lexington, Kentucky to search for ponies for sale at the USEF 2011 Pony Finals.
13. The USEF Pony Finals is the ultimate invite only event for pony hunters nationwide. Trainers, owners and riders come from all over the country, for one week, to compete for top pony honors.
14. The USEF Pony Finals also hosts a Pony Auction for sellers and buyers of top quality ponies. More ponies are bought and sold during the USEF Pony Finals.
15. Plaintiff SHAH was introduced to pony trainer and agent Sarah Doyle as it relates to looking for ponies to try for sale for her minor daughter.
16. Ms. Doyle represented herself not only a:s the mother of a top pony rider named Ava Stearns, but also a trainer and agent for quality show ponies. Ms. Doyle immediately advised SHAH that the pony named. Raggedy Ann was for sale. Ms. Doyle advised SHAH that the pony was owned by VALERIE RENIHAN a well-known trainer and clinician in the hunter/jumper and equitation disciplines. Doyle also mentioned in passing that DARST had some ownership interest in the pony. Doyle never mentioned What that ownership interest consisted of. Doyle advised SHAH that she would look out for SHAH’s best interest because as a mom, and someone who frequented the same competitions as SHAH’s minor daughter, she wanted to be sure SHAH got the best equine for the price.
17. SHAH did not speak with RENIHAN regarding the pony Raggedy Ann because RENIHAN’s agent Doyle handled the entire course of dealings. SHAH believed that Doyle was
also looking out for SHAH in the transaction.
18. Doyle advised SHAH that the pony was stabled with Defendant MELINDA (MINDY) DARST and was the trainer and representative for the pony as DARST was assisting
RENIHAN in selling the pony.
19. SHAH tried the pony for the minor daughter of SHAH. At the time of the trials, SHAH was concerned that the pony would not do consistent lead changes. Lead changes are necessary for competition because if the equine does not demonstrate clean changes they will not be awarded ribbons in the competition ring.
20. Despite SHAH’s repeated comments of such concern, Doyle, agent for RENIHAN and DARST, noted that the pony always did her changes with her daughter and other riders and this was simply SHAH’s daughter’s inability to know the pony and the changes were present. Doyle also noted the pony had been tried by others and shown thus may have been tired which would cause the lead changes to be missed.
21. The equine was priced to SHAH at $100,000.00 by Doyle. Doyle advised that she would try and get the price down for SHAH.
22. The equine was represented as 8 years old, a material fact for SHAH who did not want to purchase an equine for her daughter that would be devalued as it got older.
23. SHAH believed buying an 8-year-old pony for $100,000.00 would be a better decision than buying an older pony for the same value. Resale value was of utmost importance given children grow rapidly and her child would outgrow the pony. SHAH was cognizant that the pony would need to be resold when outgrown and must retain much of its value.
24. SHAH was advised that many riders of similar riding capability as SHAH’s daughter had ridden the pony over the prior years with great success and with no issue with the lead changes.
25. Doyle represented that the pony was perfectly child safe and had the ability to win anywhere in the country in the show ring. Doyle went so far as telling SHAH that Doyle’s daughter was upset they would buy the pony and then beat her daughter in the show ring.
26. SHAH questioned ·Doyle about the coloring of the pony. and whether or not the coloring would be prejudicial to competition judges. Doyle stated that the pony had received top ribbons at the Winter Equestrian Festival just a few months prior which was evidence that the judges did not exhibit prejudice to the color of the pony.
27. Taking that one step further, Doyle suggested SHAH meet MELINDA (MINDY) DARST at Pony Finals to further discuss the quality of the pony.
28. SHAH was in awe of meeting MELINDA DARST as she knew that DARST was considered the queen of the pony trainers and that she was the best of the best in evaluating the
quality of ponies. SHAH knew that an article had been written about DARST in a popular industry magazine about DARST’s involvement at the pony ring in training and selling ponies.
(Attached here as Exhibit “A”). Doyle, the agent for RENIHAN and DARST, was even quoted in that article. SHAH felt that she had been introduced and was working to buy a pony from the best trainers in the country and was comforted that Doyle was looking out for SHAH’s benefit.
29. SHAH believed with RENIHAN’s and DARST’s ownership of the pony, Doyle as the concerned mom, and DARST providing the endorsement of the pony, that she was in the best hands. She had total trust. SHAH was certain that these ladies would do right by her and her daughter.
30. Upon meeting DARST, DARST advised SHAH that she was lucky to be given the opportunity to buy Raggedy Ann; that the pony had been in her barn under her training and
care since February 2011; and that it was one of the Nation’s best ponies. That the pony was of such quality that it beat out the top pony in the country Enchanted Forest at competitions in Wellington. Based on the representations of DARST, as trainer of the pony, SHAH was sold on the idea it was a great pony for her minor daughter.
31. DARST simply bragged up the pony.
32. At no time in speaking with DARST did she personally advise that she had any ownership interest in the pony.
33. At Pony Finals, in front of SHAH and SHAH’s minor daughter, DARST pulled up a video on her phone claiming the pony on the video was Raggedy Ann’s round with Ava Stearns riding, that beat the famous pony, Enchanted Forest, while in Wellington. The quality of the video was poor but DARST continued bragging about the quality of the pony being stellar.
34. Even though Doyle stated that RENIHAN and DARST owned the pony, the USEF registry at all times pertinent to the trials and purchase discussions, showed a third party as the owner that was neither DARST nor RENIHAN.
35. Even though Doyle made such an effort for SHAH and her daughter to meet DARST, Doyle failed to introduce SHAH and her daughter to the alleged co-owner of the pony RENIHAN, who was apparently at Pony Finals assisting her clients.
36. RENIHAN never made herself known to SHAH when SHAH was trying the pony or anytime thereafter.
3 7. The following Monday, after leaving the USEF Pony Finals show grounds that Saturday, SHAH offered $75,000.00 to Doyle for the purchase of the pony. Doyle never advised nor did SHAH assume that Doyle was receiving a commission for her involvement. SHAH believed that Doyle was simply assisting the owners who were busy training their riders.
38. Doyle later advised SHAH that the offer was accepted by RENIHAN at $75,000.00.
39. Doyle contacted SHAH the following day and advised that other people tried and wanted the pony as arranged by DARST separate and aside of Doyle’s assistance or knowledge, and that unless SHAH would pay the full $100,000.00 DARST was revoking the $75,000.00 acceptance and selling the pony to someone else for the full price. Doyle stated she had no control over the DARST decision. SHAH relied on that information and agreed to pay the full price of $100,000.00 as her minor daughter wanted the pony.
40. SHAH wanted the pony to be examined by a licensed veterinarian to determine the health of the pony and to ensure it was sound from a physical standpoint.
41. Doyle arranged for Haynes Stevens, DVM to provide a pre-purchase examination of the pony conducted August 17, 2011. Unbeknownst to SHAH, Stevens was not licensed to
practice in Kentucky and was actually a veterinarian that worked extensively for RENIHAN and DARST in Wellington, Florida. He is licensed in Florida as a veterinarian. This conflict of interest was never disclosed by Doyle, DARST nor RENIHAN.
practice in Kentucky and was actually a veterinarian that worked extensively for RENIHAN and DARST in Wellington, Florida. He is licensed in Florida as a veterinarian. This conflict of interest was never disclosed by Doyle, DARST nor RENIHAN.
42. RENIHAN, a Florida resident, was allegedly present for said vetting on August 17, 2011, in Kentucky, as the owner and advised the Florida licensed vet that the pony was 8 years old. Consistent with what was advised by Doyle to SHAH. Moreover, RENIHAN supplied Stevens radiographs dated April 2011 for review and advised Stevens the buyer did not want new radiographs. This was never told to the buyer as she believed the radiographic report was for new radiographs.
43. Upon the completion of the vetting, and word from Doyle that all was in good order, Doyle advised a vet report would be forthcoming.
44. Doyle provided RENIHAN’S wiring information and advised a Bill of Sale would be forthcoming.
45. While SHAH sent $100,000.00 as agreed upon, no Bill of Sale nor vet report was provided.
46. SHAH was told the documents were forthcoming with the pony, however, when the pony arrived no such documents were present.
47. Upon receipt of the pony, SHAH recognized that the pony would not do lead changes. She questioned her trainer who indicated she would contact DARST, RENIHAN and Doyle to determine what needed to be done to secure the changes. Unbeknownst to SHAH, her trainer was very close friends and business associates of DARST, RENIHAN and Doyle.
48. Some weeks later, at a horse show, Doyle for the first time advised SHAH that other riders had difficulty securing lead changes and that there were various tricks and gimmicks that could be tried to manufacture a lead change.
49. None of which suggested would be acceptable in the show ring without major faults being applied by a judge.
50. SHAH repeatedly demanded the vet report and Bill of Sale. In the USEF registry a Bill of Sale must be presented before a transfer of ownership can occur and the competition
results count.
results count.
51. In late September 2011, well over 30 days past the purchase; SHAH received the Bill of Sale and vet report. The Bill of Sale presented by RENIHAN in no way reflected the equine SHAH purchased. Moreover, the vet report contained positive findings never advised by the vet or RENIHAN.
52. The Bill of Sale attached hereto as Exhibit “B” if for an equine named “Raggedy Ann” a gelding (boy), 8 years old, and USEF number 5065911. Moreover, the Bill of Sale included legal terms NEVER agreed upon by the Buyer such as “This sale is made without representation or warranty, except, the seller Valerie Renihan, hereby states that he is the owner
of said horse/pony and that said horse/pony is free and clear of any liens, judgments or encumbrances and is in good standing with the USEF Federation.”
of said horse/pony and that said horse/pony is free and clear of any liens, judgments or encumbrances and is in good standing with the USEF Federation.”
53. At no time did SHAH agree to this unilateral contractual language. Moreover, the equine she purchased was told to be 8 years old when in reality it was ten (10) years old. The equine she was buying was a mare (female) and had a different USEF number. Moreover, the color of the pony she was buying was a roan when this Bill of Sale was for a bay. Clearly, NOT a Bill of Sale for the equine she purchased. There was no ability for SHAH to provide such Bill of Sale to the USEF for any transfer of record because ( 1) it did not reflect the terms of her purchase, and (2) it in no way described the equine she purchased. Moreover, nowhere on the Bill of Sale was DARST, the co-owner, noted as a Seller. (See Exhibit B, Bill of Sale)
54. SHAH never accepted Exhibit “B” as the Bill of Sale as it was not properly presented. To date, SHAH has not received a Bill of Sale that reflected the purchase she made $100,000.00.
55. To that end, SHAH has now learned that when Raggedy Ann showed at Wellington, she was DYED the color bay, in an effort to throw off the judging and improve the pony’s show record. No one disclosed to SHAH that the pony’s show record had been bolstered through acts of fraud and in direct violation of USEF rules GR802(1)(2011).
56. SHAH learned that RENIHAN allegedly purchased the pony on or about April 30, 2011, for $35,000.00. (See Exhibit “C”, Renihan Bill of Sale). However, she failed to change
the USEF records in accordance with the USEF ownership rules. RENIHAN allowed people similarly situated to SHAH to believe the pony was still owned by a third party. Nowhere was
the name DARST noted as the purchaser of said pony from the third party or RENIHAN. (See Exhibit D, USEF records)
the USEF records in accordance with the USEF ownership rules. RENIHAN allowed people similarly situated to SHAH to believe the pony was still owned by a third party. Nowhere was
the name DARST noted as the purchaser of said pony from the third party or RENIHAN. (See Exhibit D, USEF records)
57. SHAH later learned that RENIHAN nor DARST were the registered owner of the pony pursuant to USEF as they failed to submit such change of ownership until August 22, 2011, when RENIHAN, only, walked into the USEF office in Kentucky, AFTER allegedly selling the pony to SHAH, and had the pony transferred to RENIHAN’s name. The DARST name was never noted. (See Exhibit “D”, USEF records noting “walk-in” and “August 22, 2011”)
58. It is believed RENIHAN failed to change the ownership in an attempt to hide her assets sought in another legal matter and for RENIHAN and DARST to also attempt to avoid discipline and repercussion if in fact, the USEF disciplined for the dying of the coat of the pony pursuant to GR802(1)(2011).
59. At no time did DARST register her ownership of the pony with the USEF pursuant to the USEF rules such that SHAH would have been aware of the detail of such ownership.
60. It is believed DARST failed to register her ownership of the pony with USEF to avoid the discipline repercussions for dying the pony during the WEF competitions where DARST was the trainer and farm of record.
61. Through investigation after the purchase of said pony, SHAH learned in January 2012 that the rider who leased Raggedy Ann for the Kentucky horse show and Pony Finals in August 2011, immediately before Plaintiff’s purchase, was trained by Doyle, DARST and RENIHAN, at the Kentucky horse show, including the pony being “tuned up” on how to secure lead changes on said pony. That rider had apparent difficulty initially with said changes that required special instructions but Doyle never admitted same to Plaintiff.
62. As a result of the acts and omissions of all Defendants and their agents, employees, and/or apparent agents, the Plaintiff was damaged.
63. As a result of the acts and omissions of all Defendants and their agents, employees, and/or apparent agents, Plaintiff had to engage a specialist in equine law to file suit against the Defendants.
COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST RENIHAN AND DARST
64. Plaintiff readopts by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 – 63 as fully set forth herein, and further alleges:
65. The Plaintiff agreed to purchase one roan pony for $100,000.00 as allegedly owned by RENIHAN and DARST.
66. As a condition of that purchase, the pony was to have a stellar show record and be of the quality to be valued at $100,000.00.
67. As a condition ofthat purchase, the pony was to do automatic lead changes with any type of rider.
68. As a condition of that purchase, the pony was to be a mare that was no more than eight (8) years old.
69. Defendants breached the contract because at the time they accepted the offer for purchase they were not the USEF listed owners of the pony, the the pony was not eight (8) but ten (10) years old, and its record was not stellar but was in fact wrought with fraud. Moreover, the pony was allegedly purchased for $35,000.00, a true value of the pony, after the Wellington Circuit where its records were allegedly stellar.
70. Defendants breached the contract by allowing their agent Sarah Doyle to misrepresent that qualifications and show record of the pony, in addition, to its age.
71. Defendants breached the contract by submitting a fraudulent bill of sale that did not accurately reflect the purchase terms, the equine’s identifying factors, or the true ownership of said pony.
72. Defendants further breached the contract when they failed to reduce the actual terms of the agreement in a valid Bill of Sale in order for the pony to be properly transferred into the Buyer’s name which is usual and customary in the pony purchase industry.
Wherefore, as a result of the Defendant’s various breaches the Plaintiff was damaged in excess of $100,000.00 and Plaintiff seeks recovery in excess of said amount from Defendants.
COUNT II – DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE AGAINST RENIHAN
73. The Plaintiff adopts by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-63 as fully set forth herein, and further allege:
74. At all times material hereto, Sarah Doyle acted as the agent for RENIHAN.
75. RENIHAN is responsible for the acts and omissions of her agent Doyle.
76. Doyle advised SHAH that RENIHAN was the owner of the pony when in fact the owners were RENIHAN and DARST.
77. Doyle advised SHAH the pony was eight years old when in fact it was actually 10 years old. SHAH was very clear she did not want to purchase a pony over 8 years old.
78. Doyle advised SHAH that the pony’s show record was stellar and that judges did not prejudice the pony because of its color when in fact Doyle knew that at the time the pony secured such stellar placing the pony had been altered with a complete dying of the pony’s coat.
79. Doyle advised SHAH that every rider that had sat on the pony was able to secure lead changes.
80. Doyle advised SHAH that the pony was valued at $100,000.00 when in fact it was valued at $35,000.00 or less, a value assigned to said pony in April 2011 AFTER its allegedly stellar performance.
81. SHAH detrimentally relied upon the statements by Doyle, acting as agent for RENIHAN, as she purchased the pony based on these statements which were knowingly false when made. Such fabrications by Doyle caused SHA to detrimentally rely on the information to justify why the pony was worth $100,000.00.
82. Had Doyle advised SHAH that the pony was 10 years old, or that Doyle’s own daughter could not do lead changes on the pony, or that the pony’s coat was dyed in an effort to fool the judges and get better placings or that the value of the pony was $35,000.00 or less, SHAH would not have even considered the purchase of the pony.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff seeks a judgment against the Defendant RENIHAN for the full value of the horse at $100,000.00 and all costs associated with the false sale such as commissions, expenses and replacement equine.
COUNT III – DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE AGAINST DARST
83. The Plaintiff adopts by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-63 as fully set forth herein, and further allege:
84. At all times material hereto, Sarah Doyle acted as the agent for DARST.
85. DARST is responsible for the acts and omissions of her agent Doyle.
86. Doyle advised SHAH that RENIHAN was the owner of the pony and that DARST had an interest in the pony.
87. The fact that DARST owned said pony gave security and comfort to SHAH knowing DARST would not own a pony that was not good quality.
88. Doyle introduced DARST to SHAH but in doing so controlled the conversation.
89. DARST met with SHAH for about five (5) minutes and bragged up the pony as top in the Nation. At no time did DARST disclose her ownership interest in the pony to SHAH.
90. DARST acted hurried in the conversation and deferred SHAH to Doyle, the agent, questions SHAH may have had.
91. DARST advised SHAH that the pony was valued at over $100,000.00 when in fact it was valued at $35,000.00 or less.
92. DARST advised SHAH that she knows ponies of quality and price because she was on the pony task force and knew every pony available for sale. That this pony was the best match for SHAH’s daughter.
93. DARST did pull out her phone and showed SHAH and SHAH’s daughter a video of the pony showing with Ava Stearns at Wellington where DARST claimed the round being watched was one that beat out Enchanted Forest, a pony known to be one of the best in the Nation.
94. SHAH detrimentally relied upon the statements by Doyle, acting as agent for DARST and detrimentally relied on the statements by DARST, as she purchased the pony based on these statements which were later deemed false.
95. Had Doyle or DARST advised SHAH that the pony was 10 years old, or that Doyle’s daughter and DARST riders could not do lead changes on the pony, or that the pony’s coat was dyed in an effort to fool the judges and get better placings or that the value of the pony was $35,000.00 or less, SHAH would not have even considered the purchase of the pony.
96. The comment by DARST that the pony beat Enchanted Forest, when stated by DARST was known to be a false comment as Enchanted Forest did not show at the same show where Raggedy Ann received top placings, while incidentally being dyed a different color in violation of USEF GR802(1)(2011).
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff seeks a judgment against the Defendant DARST for the full value of the horse at $100,000.00 and all costs associated with the false sale such as commissions, expenses, and replacement equine.
COUNT III – FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AGAINST RENIHAN AND DARST
97. The Plaintiff adopts by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-63 as fully set forth herein, and further allege:
98. The Defendants, DARST and RENIHAN, purposefully utilized their representative Sarah Doyle, to convey fraudulent information to Plaintiff, SHAH, in an effort to induce to purchase an equine worth $35,000.00 for $100,000.00.
99. The Defendants, DARST and RENIHAN, knew that Plaintiff would also be charged a 10% commission by the agent for SHAH, thus SHAH would be out a total of $110,000.00 for said purchase.
100. SHAH advised Doyle, the representative for DARST and RENIHAN, that she did not want to purchase any equines over the age of 8 years old.
101. Doyle, the representative for DARST and RENIHAN, advised SHAH that the pony was 8 years old and knew when she advanced that information that it was false.
102. Doyle knew that SHAH was not a sophisticated buyer of ponies and that SHAH would rely on the information provided by Doyle.
103. Doyle, the representative for DARST and RENIHAN, brought SHAH and her daughter to the stall of Raggedy Ann and advised them that the pony was the favorite of Doyle’s daughter to ride and show because they won everything and that Doyle’s daughter would be upset at the sale because SHAH’s daughter and the pony would beat Doyle’s.
104. Doyle, representative for DARST and RENIHAN, knew that her daughter had difficulty riding said pony and did not have much success with the pony, thus at the time she conveyed such information to SHAH and her minor daughter she knew it to be false.
105. Doyle, representative for DARST and RENIHAN, when questioned about the lead change ability of the pony being questionable, advised SHAH that the changes were no problem, when in fact when that information was conveyed Doyle knew it to be false.
106. Doyle, representative for DARST and RENIHAN, advised SHAH that the competition record of the equine was exceptional, however, when she advanced that information she knew it to be false. Doyle never admitted to SHAH that the pony was dyed with hair dye to camouflage the appaloosa color of the pony.
107. Doyle failed to advise SHAH that the successful competition records of the equine were as a result of fraud.
108. DARST advised SHAH and her minor daughter that Raggedy Ann had actually beat Enchanted Forest in the show ring In Wellington, Florida, a series of the top shows in the county, when in fact DARST knew when she conveyed that information to SHAH and her daughter that it was false. At no time did Raggedy Ann place over Enchanted Forest at the Wellington shows and in fact, at the show where that claimed to occur by DARST, Enchanted Forest was not even entered to compete.
109. DARST knew and appreciated SHAH was not a sophisticated buyer and she made knowingly false statements in an effort to induce a sale for the financial gain of DARST.
110. Doyle accepted the offer by SHAH of $75,000.00 for the purchase and then later advised SHAH that DARST had been working to sell the pony separate from Doyle’s assistance and had made a deal to sell the pony for $100,000.00 to someone else such that the $75,000.00 acceptance was revoked by Doyle. Doyle knew, as representative for DARST and RENIHAN, that there was no other buyer for $100,000.00 and that the information conveyed to SHAH was knowingly false and done in an effort to fraudulently induce SHAH to pay the full price of $100,000.00.
111. As a result of the fraudulent statements of DARST and RENIHAN, by and through their representative Doyle, as well as statements made by DARST, Plaintiff SHAH purchased said equine for $100,000.00 and suffered damages far exceeding that amount.
COUNT IV- VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE 535.16
112. The Plaintiff adopts by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs I-63 as fully set forth herein, and further allege:
113. Both Defendants, DARST and RENIHAN, have domiciles in Wellington, Florida, the county of Palm Beach.
114. Both Defendants, DARST and RENIHAN, conduct substantial business in Florida selling horses and ponies, and training.
115. RENIHAN registered Raggedy Ann as being from Wellington, Florida. (See Exhibit E).
116. The equine that is subject to this lawsuit competed in Florida with either DARST or RENIHAN, or both, as the trainers from February 2011 through May 2011.
117. RENIHAN allegedly purchased the pony from a third party on April 30, 2011, for $35,000.00 when RENIHAN and the equine were both located in Florida. The pony was vetted by Haynes Stevens, DVM, a Florida Licensed vet, at the request of RENIHAN.
118. The only reason said pony and trainers were in Kentucky was for the Pony Finals Competition by which the equine that is subject to this lawsuit qualified and was invited to attend.
119. DARST and RENIHAN, as owners of said equine, failed to follow Florida Statute section 535.16 (2011) when they failed to issue a bill of sale pursuant to Florida Administrative Code 5H-26.001-5H-26.004.
120. Pursuant to Florida law, DARST and RENIHAN were obligated to advise the buyer SHAH that each had an interest in said pony and that their agent was receiving a commission over $500.00 and that SHAH was provided written verification of the amount being paid and agreed to same.
121. DARST and RENIHAN, and their agent Doyle, all violated Florida law by failing to do so.
122. DARST and RENIHAN violated Florida law by initially failing to issue. a Bill of Sale; by RENIHAN issuing a Bill of Sale more than 30 days after the purchase and including a Bill of Sale that in no one reflected the equine purchased nor did the Bill of Sale accurately reflect the true owners of said equine.
123. To date, no Bill of Sale pursuant to Florida law has been provided to Plaintiff SHAH.
124. Had Plaintiff SHAH known that multiple persons would receive a commission from the sale of Raggedy Ann she would not have purchased same.
125. Had Plaintiff SHAH been provided a Bill of Sale pursuant to the Florida law, she would not have purchased said pony, because said Bill of Sale would have reflected the age of 10
years old, not 8 years old, and would have included warranties and guarantees as provided to SHAH that were provided to induce a sale.
years old, not 8 years old, and would have included warranties and guarantees as provided to SHAH that were provided to induce a sale.
Wherefore, the violation of Florida law by DARST and RENIHAN subject them to the provisions of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the inclusion of damages, attorney fees and treble damages.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues triable as a matter of right.
Dated: January 23, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiff
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Lawsuit Settled
This post was updated on
