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

KANDIS WRIGLEY, Plaintiff, v. LAURA TREPTE, Defendant.

No. 11 L 1015

 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW
NOW COMES Plaintiff, Kandis Wrigley, by and through her attorneys, Howard &
Howard Attorneys PLLC, and for her Second Amended Complaint at Law against Defendant
Laura Trepte, states as follows:


FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Lake County, Illinois. Defendant conducts business in
Lake County, Illinois. At all relevant time, Defendant conducted business under the name “Prairie Star, LLC.”
2. Defendant is a horse trainer and provides lessons and other services to horse

owners. As part of her services, Defendant arranges for participation of her clients’ horses in
shows, including training and lessons, and arranging transportation, entries and veterinary
services related to horse shows (“Services”), to be paid for by her clients.
3. After Defendant contracted for Services for her clients, she would allocate the
costs due from each client. Services, with the exception of horse show fees, were billed to each
client on a monthly basis. Each client would pay their horse show fees directly to the horse show
office sat the conclusion of the show.

4. During the period from 1997 until August 2011, Plaintiff was a client of
Defendant. Defendant provided Services for Plaintiff for various horse shows.
5. By 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant had become personal friends. They came to
know each other’s families and vacationed together. Defendant occupied a position of trust with
Plaintiff.
6. In or about 2006, Defendant and Plaintiff agreed that Defendant would act as
Plaintiffs agent with respect to payment of Services provided to Plaintiff and other of Plaintiffs
expenses related to horse shows and Plaintiffs horses. As Plaintiffs agent, Defendant was given
pre-signed checks to pay transportation companies, horse show offices and other show related
vendors for Services related to Plaintiff’s horses. Sometimes Defendant would be given an
entire check book with pre-signed checks. Other times she would be give up to six pre-signed
checks at a time.
7. At the time that the checks were first given to Defendant, Defendant represented
to Plaintiff that she would only use the pre-signed checks for Services and expenses related to
Plaintiff’s horses. Furthermore, after using the pre-signed check and when requesting additional
checks, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the pre-signed checks had been used for Services
for Plaintiffs horses. Without these representations, Plaintiff would not have designated
Defendant as Plaintiffs agent or given the pre-signed checks to Defendant. At no time did
Defendant ever tell Plaintiff that any checks were used for purposes other than Services or
expenses related to Plaintiffs horses.

The Fraudulent Checks

8. Defendant paid for personal expenses and purchased goods and Services that were
wrrelated to Plaintiffs horses using Plaintiffs pre-signed checks (the “Fraudulent Check
Payments”). All of the Fraudulent Check Payments have not yet been determined.
9. The Fraudulent Check Payments include, but are not limited to, payments to the
following payees in the amounts shown, totaling $30,510.53:

(a) Frankie Stark – Check ##7795, dated June 7, 2007,$932. Of that amount, $457
are Fraudulent Check Payments for a hors~ named Blackberry related to the County Heir
I show in Lexington, KY in June 2007. Blackberry is not owned by Plaintiff. On
infonnation and belief, Blackberry is owned by Defendant or her daughter.

(b) Sporting Horses- Check #15366, dated February 1, 2009, $1,629.50. Of that
amount, $677.25 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Lavacapo related to
the Ledgers Winter Series Show held in January 2009. Lavacapo is not owned by
Plaintiff.

(c) Showplace Productions- Check #15381, dated May 16, 2009, $2,024. Ofthat
amount, $983 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago related to the
Showplace Spring Spectacular in May 2009. Asiago is not owned by Plaintiff.

(d) Sporting Horses- Check #15384, dated May 24, 2009, $2,945. Of that amount,
$805 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago related to the Ledgers
Spring Classic in May 2009.

(e) Lamplight- Check #15390, dated July 26, 2009, $4,669. Of that amount, $715
are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago related to the Equifest I

Show in July 2009.

(f) Sporting Horses – Check #15604, dated August 16, 2009, $1,564.50. Of that
amount, $545 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago related to the
Ledgers Fall Classic Show in August 2009.

(g) Julie Vincent – Check # 15324, dated February 14, 2010, $1,023 .80. On
information and belief, this payment was not for Plaintiffs account or her benefit.

(h) Lamplight – check# 15322, dated May 12, 20 I 0, $3,400.05. Of that amount, $702
are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carerra Z related to the Equifest I
Show held in July 2010. Carerra Z is not owned by Plaintiff. Carerra Z is owned by
either Plaintiff or her daughter.

(i) Frankie Stark – Check# 15326, dated May 12, 2010, $4,054.32. Of that amount,
$537 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carerra Z related to the County
Heir I show in Lexington, KY in June 2010.

G) MLEC. LLC- Check #15315, dated May 18,2010, $4,011.95. Of that amount,
$445 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago related to the Maffitt
Lake Spring Gathering I held in or about May 2010.

(k) Dever. Inc.- Check #7784, dated June 20, 2010, $1,449.59. On information and
belief, this payment was not for Plaintiff’s account or her benefit.

(l) Frankie Stark- Check ##7785, dated June 30,2010, $5,170.36. Of that amount,
$3,586.74 are Fraudulent Check Payments related to the County Heir II show in
Lexington, KY in June 2010, consisting of:

(i) $799.81 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse not owned by Plaintiff.
(ii) $1,124.31 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carerra Z.
(iii) $893.31 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse owned by Defendant.
(iv) $769.31 for a horse not owned by Plaintiff.

(m) Lamplight Equestrian Center- Check# 7790, dated August 8, 2010,$5,539.24.
Of that amount, $1,356.19 are Fraudulent Check Payments related to the Equifest II
Show held in August 2010, consisting of:

(i) $578.19 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Metropolitan.
Metropolitan is owned by either Plaintiff or her daughter.
(ii) $778.34 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Joe Horse. Joe Horse
is owned by either Plaintiff or her daughter.

(n) Showplace Productions- Check #15329, dated September 19,2010, $3,207. Of

that amount, $965 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Rafiiki related to
the Showplace Fall Classic in September 2010. Rafiiki is not owned by Plaintiff.

(o) Queenie Productions- Check #6847, dated January 15,2011, $2,947.41. Ofthat
amount, $1369.01 are Fraudulent Check Payments related to the Lake St. Louis Show
held in January 2011, consisting of:

(i) $487.01 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carrera Z.
(ii) $882 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Micro burst. Microburst
is not owned. by Plaintiff.

(p) Queenie Productions- Check #15728, dated February 13, 2011, $2,131. Of that
amount, $582 are Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carerra Z related to the
Lake St. Louis Show held in February 2011.

(q) Horse Shows by the Bay (“HSBB”Y- Check #15743, dated June 1, 2011,$5,500.
On information and belief, this payment was to reserve stalls for 13 horses, of which only
3 were Plaintiff’s. On information and belief, this payment was not for Plaintiff’s
account or her benefit.

(r) Showplace Productions- Check #15351, dated June 12, 2011, $5,229.50. Of that
amount, $2,095 are Fraudulent Check Payments related to the Showplace Spring
Spectacular Show in June 2011, consisting of:

(i) $729.50 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Famous. Famous is
not owned by Plaintiff. Famous is owned by either Plaintiff or her daughter.
(ii) $732 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carrera Z. Carrera is not
owned by Plaintiff.
(iii) $633.50 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Alejandro. Alejandro
is not owned by Plaintiff. In information and belief, Alejandro is owned by
Defendant or her daughter.

(s) Showplace Productions- Check #15354, dated June 18, 2011, $7,702. Of that
amount, $3,631.5 are Fraudulent Check Payments related to the Showplace Spring
Spectacular II Show in June 2011, consisting of: ·

(i) $859.50 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Famous.
(ii) $1,204.50 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Carrera Z.
(iii) $509 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Alejandro.
(iv) $1,058.50 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Romeo. Romeo is
not owned by Plaintiff.

(t) HSBB -Check #15283, dated July 17, 2011, $5,869.30. Of that amount,
$2,033.95 are Fraudulent Check Payments, consisting of:

(i) $444 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Asiago.
(ii) $558 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Famous.
(iii) $1,031.95 Fraudulent Check Payments for a horse named Tony Danza. Tony
Danza is not owned by Plaintiff

(u) Lamplight Equestrian- Check #15290, dated July 31,2011,$4,444. Of that
amount, $1051 .50 are Fraudulent Check Payments for show charges for a horse named
Nala related toEquifest 2011. Nala is not owned by Plaintiff.

The Fraudulent Credit Card Charges

10. Beginning in· 2006, Plaintiff began providing Plaintiffs credit card numbers to
Defendant to pay for Services or other expenses related to Plaintiff’s horses. On numerous
occasions, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that monies were owed for Services or needed for
expenses related to Plaintiff’s horses where Defendant requested that Plaintiff provide Defendant
with a personal credit card number to pay for those Services or expenses. Plaintiff provided the
credit card number to Defendant and authorized Defendant to use Plaintiff’s credit card in
reliance on Defendant’s statement that the credit card would be used for Services or expenses for
Plaintiff’s horses.
11. Defendant used Plaintiff’s credit card to pay for personal expenses and to
purchase goods and Services that were unrelated to Plaintiff’s horses (the “Fraudulent Charges”).
All of the Fraudulent Charges have not yet been determined.
12. The Fraudulent Charges include, but are not limited to, payments to the following
persons in the amounts shown, totaling $18,316.91:

a. HSH, LLC for Amino clothing

i. 6/ 11/11-$1,757.10
ii. 6/12/11 – $639.43

b. Brownland Farm/ Asiago 4/25/10- $722.68

c. Germantown/ Carrerra show charges 5/11/2011- $297

d. Carrera show charges 5/4/11 – $522

e. Famous show charges- $418.01

f. Elva Jess 8/27/10 shoeing for 2 horses not owned by Plaintiff- $495

g. Gamboa Veterinary 2/4/2010 Carrera Z- $550

h. Gamboa Veterinary 2/4/201 0 Carrera Z – $440

I. Judy’s Tack Shop 1/29/10-$125.08

J. Judy’s Tack Shop 2/13/11 – $658.05

k. Judy’s Tack Shop 5/23/10- $866.75

l. Judy’s Tack Shop 5/16/10-$617.39

rn. Judy’s Tack Shop 1117/10- $350.90

n. The Custom Fox 2118/10-$628.45

o. The Custom Fox 7/15/11 – $1,177.81
p. The Tack Shelter

i. 2/14/10- $348.66
ii. 2114/10-$531.47
iii. 2/28/10- $147.33

q. Choice of Champions 5/11/10-$1,264

r. Equiventures Tack 8/23/10-$513.01

s. Farm vet 2/12/10 – $785.67

t. Farmvet 6/11110 – $105.03

u. Farmvet

i. 7/24/11 – $112.58
ii. 7/25/11 – $1,376.39

v. Collierville Saddlery 5/06/10-$1,349.85

w. Choice of Champions- July 21, 2010 – $288

x. The Farm House, Inc.

i. 1/15/10- $327.42
ii. 1/27/10- $266.65
iii. 1/28/10-$176.87
iv. 1/30/10- $116.63
v. 2/6/10- $152.90
vi. 1/28/10- $188.80

COUNT I
Fraud

13. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 12 as paragraph 13.
14. Defendanl knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff that the Fraudulent Check
Payments and Fraudulent Charges were related to Services or expenses for Plaintiff’s horses.
15. Defendant’s representations to Plaintiff regarding the Fraudulent Check Payments
and Fraudulent Charges were made with the intent that Plaintiff rely upon them. Defendant
knew at the time she made the misrepresentations that the checks and credit cards would be used
for Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges. Defendant intended to deceive and
defraud Plaintiff and to obtain monies to which she was not entitled.
16. Plaintiffbelieved the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges were
properly charged to her. Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s misrepresentations and did not
question the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges paid by Defendant with
Plaintiff’s checks or credit card. In or about July or August 2011, Plaintiff discovered the
Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges, and demanded that Defendant account

for and return the funds
17. Plaintiff has been damaged by paying the amount of the Fraudulent Check
Payments and Fraudulent Charges.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kandis Wrigley prays that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Defendant Laura Trepte for Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges in the

amount of $48,827.44, plus such additional amounts that may be found to constitute Fraudulent
Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges, punitive damages, prejudgment interest and her costs.

COUNT II
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 as paragraph 18.
19. Defendant acted as Plaintiffs agent with respect to paying for Services and
expenses related to Plaintiff’s horses.
20. A fiduciary duty existed between Plaintiff and Defendant.
21. The fiduciary duty was breached by Defendant.
22. Defendant’s breach of her fiduciary duty proximately caused the injury of which
Plaintiff complains.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kandis Wrigley prays that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Defendant Laura Trepte for Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges in the
amount of $48,827.44, plus such additional amounts that may be foWid to constitute Fraudulent
Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges punitive damages, prejudgment interest and her costs.

COUNT III
Conversion

23. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs I through 17 as paragraph 23.
24. Defendant was not authorized to use the funds in Plaintiffs checking account for
anything other than Services and expenses related to Plaintiffs horses. Defendant wrongfully
assumed control, dominion and ownership over funds in Plaintiffs checking account.
25. Plaintiff has a right to immediate possession of the funds wrongfully taken by
Defendant.

26. Defendant has converted at least $30,510.53 from Plaintiffs checking account.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kandis Wrigley prays that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Defendant Lama Trepte in the amount of $30,510.53, plus such additional amounts that·
may be found to constitute Fraudulent Check Payments, punitive damages, prejudgment interest
and her costs.

COUNT IV
Breach of Contract (In the alternative)

27. In the alternative, Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 12 as
paragraph 27.
28. Plaintiff only agreed to pay for Services related to her horses. She did not agree
to pay for Services related to other horses or for Defendant’s personal expenses.
29. Defendant breached her contract with Plaintiff by charging to her and paying
Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges from Plaintiff’s checking account and on
Plaintiff’s credit card.
30. Plaintiff has done all that she was required to do under her agreement with Defendant.
31 . Plaintiff has demanded payment of the Fraudulent Check Payments and
Fraudulent Charges from Defendant, but Defendant has refused, and continues to refuse, to repay
the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kandis Wrigley prays that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Defendant Laura Trepte for the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges in
the amount of $48,827.44, plus such additional amounts that may be found to constitute
Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges, plus prejudgment interest and her costs.

COUNT IV
Unjust Enrichment (In the alternative)

32. In the alternative, Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 18 through 26 as
paragraph 26.
33. Defendant’s payment of the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges
with Plaintiffs funds was under circumstances which provided Defendant a benefit that,
according to the dictates of equity and good conscience, she ought not to retain.
34. In charging the Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges to Plaintiff
and paying them with Plaintiff’s pre-signed checks and using her credit card, Defendant has been
unjustly enriched in that she has taken funds that rightfully belong to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kandis Wrigley prays that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Defendant Laura Trepte for Fraudulent Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges in the
amount of $48,827.44, plus such additional amounts that may be found to constitute Fraudulent
Check Payments and Fraudulent Charges, plus prejudgment interest and her costs.
Scott M. Levin- ARDC #6185743
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
200 S. Michigan A venue, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60604-2402
(312) 456-3418

 

View Second Amended Complaint 

Settlement Agreement Reached In Case