Equine Law Matter - Closed - Get Information, Read Court Documents

CHARLES KRAMER et al vs. ERROL EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INC.

No. 2012-CA-011830-O

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Charles Kramer, Lori Kramer, and Sarah R. Kramer, LLC (hereinafter
“Plaintiffs”), hereby sue Defendant Errol Equestrian Center, Inc. (hereinafter,
“Defendant”) and allege as follows:
I .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for damages where the amount in controversy exceeds
FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($15,000.00).
2. Plaintiff CHARLES KRAMER is a resident of Orange County, Florida.
3. Plaintiff LORI KRAMER is a resident of Orange County, Florida.
4. Plaintiff SARAH R. KRAMER. LLC, is a Florida limited liability
company that maintains a principal place of business at 500 S. Magnolia Avenue,
Orlando, Orange County, Florida 32801.
5. Defendant ERROL EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INC. is a Florida
corporation that maintains a principal place of business at 457 April Lane, Apopka,
Orange County, Florida, 32712 and is otherwise sui juris.
6. This court has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Florida Statutes and
venue is appropriate.II.FACTS

7. Plaintiff Sarah R. Kramer, LLC is a Florida limited liability company
formed by Plaintiff Charles Kramer, its sole manager and member, to purchase horses for
Mr. Kramer’s daughter.
8. Specifically, Plaintiff Sarah R. Kramer, LLC owns two horses, Starbucks
and CHAI. In January 2012, Plaintiffs boarded Starbucks with Defendant.
Subsequently, in April 2012. Plaintiffs began boarding CHAI with Defendant.
9. In addition to boarding its horses, Plaintiffs expressed an interest in
attending various horse shows in Kentucky and Michigan in the summer of 2012 to the
extent Plaintiffs could afford the costs and expenses related to these shows.
10. To that end, Plaintiffs repeatedly requested from Defendant the estimated
costs and expenses of the proposed summer horse shows so they could make an informed
decision whether attendance at these shows was economically feasible. However,
Defendant merely provided limited information, with no specific cost information, and
empty assurances that the expected costs and expenses would be addressed.
11. Instead of providing Plaintiffs with the requested information or obtaining
their authorization to incur any costs and expenses related to these summer horse shows.
Defendant unilaterally decided to pay deposits and enter CHAI in the Kentucky and
Michigan summer horse shows prior to receiving any commitment from Plaintiffs.
12. In addition, Defendant even invoiced Plaintiff for these deposits which
Defendant unilaterally incurred without Plaintiffs’ prior approval. Plaintiffs’ bookkeeper
inadvertently paid these invoices prior to these commitments being confirmed.
13. Subsequently, Plaintiffs discovered the unauthorized show related
charges, as well as some incorrect training charges, and requested that their account be
credited. While Defendant ultimately reimbursed Plaintiffs for some of the improper
charges, Defendant refused to reimburse all show related deposits, in particular any
summer Colony Crown Barn and groom housing charges totaling $4,500.00 that were
never discussed or authorized by Plaintiffs. Further, audits of all of Defendant’s invoices
since January 2012 revealed a continual pattern of overcharges and unauthorized billings
totaling no less than $5,650.61, including the charge for $4,500.00 for stall and grooming
expenses at Crown Colony Barn.
14. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide all costs and requested
information concerning the summer shows, Plaintiffs advised Defendant on or about May
28, 2012 that they were exercising their right to terminate their boarding agreement with
Defendant and remove their horses from Defendant’s premises.
15. Plaintiffs agreed to pay Defendant any additional boarding fees for the
month of June in accordance with the Errol Equestrian boarding agreement, but disputed
the outstanding Crown Colony Barn and groom housing expenses charged for the entire
summer without their authorization.
16. However, despite this agreement, and in direct violation of Plaintiffs’
property rights in their horses, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not release
their horses until all outstanding invoices were paid in full, including many of the
amounts Plaintiffs disputed. Because Plaintiffs valued their horses, and desired to avoid
any more outrageous monetary demands, they paid no less than $6,566.60 to Defendant
per its ultimatum. As a result, Defendant represented and agreed to release the horses for
transport on June 4, 2012.
17. Despite Defendant representation and agreement to release the horses on
June 4, 2012, and despite Plaintiffs’ payment of Defendant’s extortion fee, Defendant
still refused to release Plaintiffs’ horses on June 4 and merely texted Plaintiffs’
transporter of this arbitrary decision, fabricating a new condition for their release:
Plaintiffs’ check must clear.
18. The inexcusable and atrocious conduct described above demonstrates
Defendant’s gross abuse of Plaintiffs’ trust and confidence as well as Defendant’s blatant
disregard of ethical and fair business practices and standards for which Plaintiffs now
sue.

View Full Complaint

View Errol Equestrian Center Motion to Dismiss (judge never ruled on motion)

Suit dismissed without prejudice by plaintiffs 

Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees, but the hearing was canceled