No. 2014 CA 010024
Palm Beach County
2. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to Florida Statute§§ 48.071 and
48.181 because: (i) Defendants have significant contact with this County; (ii) have conducted
business and are currently conducting business in this County and State; (iii) the underlying
agreements and transactions between the parties were made and consummated in this County
and State; and (iv) Defendants have committed tortious acts within this County and State.
3. Plaintiff Maria Chungunco, at all material times hereto, was a resident of Fairfax,
Maryland, had significant contacts with Plaintiff and co-Defendant in Palm Beach County,
Florida and conducts extensive equine business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
5. Defendant Stewart each year travels to Florida in or about December of each year
through May, for the sole purposes of conducting equine-related business, including the sale
and lease of equines in Palm Beach County, Florida.
6. Defendant Hope Batchelor, DVM, at all material times hereto, is a Florida licensed large
animal veterinarian and practices veterinary medicine in Palm Beach County, Florida.
equine hunters and jumpers for clients, the training of students to do so, and the buying,
selling and leasing of horses and ponies that compete. The business is conducted throughout
the United States, but each year is centered in Palm Beach County, Florida, during the Winter
Equestrian Festival, running from December through April.
8. Maria Chungunco is the mother and guardian of Bernadette Chungunco, who is a minor.
Bernadette is 15 years old and competes show ponies and horses throughout the country and
spends considerable time competing in Palm Beach County, Florida.
9. In or about January 2014, Maria and Bernadette Chungunco, at the invitation of Stewart,
traveled to Palm Beach County for the purpose of Bernadette becoming a client of Stewart.
10. Stewart holds herself out as a professional trainer of riders and equines who commit to
competing at high-level competitions which are located each Winter in Wellington, Florida.
She solicited and recruited Bernadette Chungunco to ride with her at her training and sales
operation, which Stewart operates as “Glenwillow Farm.”
11. To induce the Chunguncos to join her in Florida, Kimberly Stewart told the Chunguncos
that Stewart would provide additional ponies and horses for Bernadette to ride to further her
Florida, to train the pony and rider in February 2014. Spellbound is a valuable pony, having
carried Bernadette to numerous victories. As the Chunguncos now have learned, Stewart
coveted Spellbound and wished to own Spellbound for herself.
13. Stewart charges a 15% commission on all sales and leases of horses that she conducts.
These commissions were billed to Chungunco.
14. Almost immediately upon arriving in Florida, Stewart advised Maria Chungunco that
another successful large pony, known as “Storyteller,” was available for a lease price in
excess of $75,000 plus insurance premiums, for a term February through November 30, 2014.
Stewart recommended the Chunguncos lease Storyteller. In reliance upon Stewart’s advice,
Maria agreed to lease Storyteller for Bernadette. Stewart charged a 15% commission to Maria
located another horse, named “Exclusive,” for sale that was a junior division horse. Maria
Chungunco advised Kimberly Stewart that she owned and/or was leasing enough equines and
was concerned about getting in too deep with horses and the costs associated with them.
17. Each time one of the foregoing ponies and horses was purchased or leased by Plaintiff, it
was stabled with Stewart.
18. Stewart’s scheme was to sell Chungunco as many equines as possible, board the
Chungunco’s equines at Stewart’s stable, and then use the board money paid by the
Chunguncos as operational cash flow to run her businesses and finance Stewart’s lavish
lifestyle, including her Maryland farm and Florida location. She also sold high-end,
expensive leases to Chungunco so that she could reap the commissions from those sales as
19. Therefore, each additional horse Plaintiff purchased or leased added extra cash flow to
Stewart created the fiction of, and advised Plaintiff that, Exclusive was available for a
“reduced” price from $400,000 to $100,000 because the horse suffered blindness in one eye.
21. When Chungunco questioned Stewart how the horse being blind would affect its
performance in the show ring. Stewart advised Chungunco that there would be no issue with
the equine’s performance and because of Stewart’s relationship with the trainer of Exclusive,
Chungunco was getting the “first opportunity” to look at the horse.
22. Chungunco relied upon Stewart’s response because Stewart was Bernadette’s trainer and
a professional horsewoman with training and expertise in this area.
23. Chungunco agreed to have the horse Exclusive undergo a pre-purchase examination
(“PPE”) in Florida and entrusted Stewart as her trainer and professional horsewoman to
handle such task. For her efforts in the evaluation of the horse and matching the equine to her
minor daughter’s riding abilities, Stewart was to receive a 15% commission.
24. Thereafter Stewart engaged Defendant Batchelor, a Florida-licensed veterinarian to
perform the evaluation. Maria Chungunco was not present for the examination nor was she
asked to be by Stewart, upon whom Chungunco relied. The PPE took place in Wellington,
25. Batchelor conducted the PPE on February 23, 2014. The PPE report, which was not
furnished to Chungunco by either Stewart or Bachelor until after the agreement for the
purchase transaction had been completed, stated:
suspensory body injury in August) [page 2 of PPE];
EVIDENCE OF OTHER PRIOR SURGERY: Evidence of ventral midline incision [p. 2],·
Right Front Foot: mild remodeling along the wings of P3, Navicular- 6 large irregular
lucent zones along distal border
Left Front Foot: mild remodeling along the wings of P3, Navicular- 7 lucent zones
The right front suspensory was noted as abnormal from 1 A – 2A in the right front. The
ligament is enlarged significantly and the fiber pattern is disorganized with areas that
are hypoerchoic. [p. 3];
The mild soreness in the right front in combination with the ultrasound abnormalities,
suggest that the future soundness of the horse may be in jeopardy. [p. 3]
A copy of the PPE is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
with Chungunco, other than to confirm what was already known, the horse was blind in one
27. At no time prior to the exchange of monies for Exclusive did Batchelor provide the
written PPE report directly to Chungunco outlining her findings. Plaintiff only uncovered the
PPE report after experiencing significant issues with Exclusive.
28. At no time did Stewart, as agent for Chungunco, discuss any of the significant findings of
the PPE with Chungunco, being the lameness, the right front suspensory injury, navicular
disease in both front fee and the prior colic surgery/ other than to confirm the blindness in
29. The existence of any one of these findings would have caused Chungunco to avoid
purchasing the horse, had they been disclosed to Chungunco at the time of the PPE by either
Batchelor or Stewart.
30. At some point thereafter, Defendant Batchelor made a comment to Stewart, overheard by
Maria Chungunco, stating, “not bad in the vetting in light of the recent surgery”. When
Maria Chungunco questioned Batchelor as to what she was referring, Batchelor quickly backpedaled,
and told Chungunco that Batchelor was referring to something unrelated to the horse
relying upon the training and experience of Stewart as well as Stewart’s duties as
Chungunco’s agent, Chungunco agreed to consummate the purchase transaction for Exclusive.
32. Chungunco agreed to pay $50,000 for Exclusive, plus insurance, and to make an
additional payment in one month’s time of $50,000 thereby totaling $100,000. Upon
information and belief, no written contract was executed between the owner and buyer.
33. On or about March 8, 2014, Maria Chungunco provided a check payable to the seller,
Jolli Farm, for $50,000.00. Exhibit B.
horse, Stewart advised Chungunco that Stewart used a specific insurance company to insure
equines and would handle securing insurance for both Exclusive and Spellbound.
35. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Batchelor had already completed an insurance
Veterinary Certificate of Examination for Mortality Insurance attesting to certain health and
surgical information about Exclusive on the same day of the February 23, 2014 PPE. A copy
of the application covering the Certificate and the Certificate are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
36. As Chungunco’s agent and having been present at the PPE, Stewart participated in the
completion and submission of the insurance application for Chungunco to sign, without
37. In fact, in the Application page, as filed out by Stewart, states:
any injury during the past 12 months. NO.
Has any listed animal ever had colic? NO.
38. The Certificate, as filed out and executed by Batchelor, states:
If any surgery has been performed, describe the type of surgery and date? Not to my ·
Is there any likelihood or future danger to life or limb as a result of such surgery? NA
Any lameness, faulty conformation, evidence of laminitis/founder or other abnormal
conditions? NA-the horse is in full work and showing.
39. Relying upon Stewart and Batchelor’s firsthand knowledge as well as their training,
experience, and duties as her agent and veterinarian, respectively, Chungunco executed the
application. Stewart submitted same for insurance along with the Batchelor insurance medical
certificate attesting to the good health of the equine. Insurance was secured for $100,000.
Chungunco never saw the medical certificate.
E. The Problems with Exclusive.
but each time proved harder than the next as the equine had a propensity of being difficult to
ride. It became clear that the equine had issues that made him unsuitable for a rider at the
level of Chungunco.
41. The difficult behavior of the horse, which proved dangerous, was caused by the inability
42. Despite being an accomplished junior rider, Bernadette Chungunco was able to
successfully show the equine at one show only. Because of the ongoing problems with
show the horse.
43. Chungunco had no reason to doubt their trusted trainer and professional Stewart and
continued trusting she was looking out for the best interest of her child. Stewart knew
Chungunco and her daughter were relying upon Stewart’s expertise and training.
44. In June 2014, after hearing comments from others in the industry that Exclusive had prior
behavior and lameness “issues,” Maria Chungunco, through her spouse Edwin Chungunco,
requested a copy of the PPE report of Exclusive from Batchelor’s employer. They were
provided the report and were shocked and stunned at its content.
45. The PPE report documented prior suspensory injury in August 2013 along with the
ultrasound presence of active disease; that the horse was lame on examination; that the equine
had so many radiographic changes in the front feet (known as navicular), fusing hocks, sore
right neck and shoulder, and remodeling in other legs, all of which a detriment to the
soundness and overall health of the equine. The report also noted the equine had the presence
of a central midline ventral incision which is otherwise known as evidence of prior colic
surgery. The report closed with commenting that the future soundness of the equine was in
objectively and subjectively and was not predicted to be sound in the future. The equine at the
time of the vetting was just 8 years old which was extremely young for such significant
47. Maria Chungunco also requested a copy from her insurance company of the application
for insurance and medical certificate that she never saw and same was provided. Once again
certificate and application. As Chungunco has since learned, the application completed by
Stewart was completed with untruthful information entered by Stewart, and the medical
certificate completed by Batchelor contained untruthful information.
48. Had the application and certificate been accurate, the policy issued Exclusive would have
had coverage exclusions which would have been detected by the buyer such that Chungunco
could have mitigated her damages, including by terminating the purchase transaction.
49. Instead, Stewart billed Chungunco 15% commission for her agent duties for the purchase
payment on April 5, 2014, for Exclusive she would be sued by the sellers and would have to
return Exclusive to the sellers. Chungunco requested Stewart to contact the sellers to seek an
extension to the second payment and Stewart advised the sellers would not extend same.
51.Instead, Stewart engaged in self-dealing to the exclusion of her principal Chungunco,
purportedly paid the second payment to Rose Hill Farm for Exclusive of $50,000 and attached
an 18% interest rate to what she referred to as a “loan” to Chungunco.
52. Stewart accepted a Bill of Sale from the seller Rose Hill Farm made out to Stewart’s own
Oddly, the initial purchase by Chungunco was to “Jolli Farms” as seller, and now the Bill of
Sale listed seller as “Rose Hill Farm.” Stewart has never explained the change in seller and
Chungunco does not now know who or what the seller is or even if Stewart actually made the
Chungunco and thereafter, also unbeknownst to Chungunco, changed the registration of the
horse with the United States Equestrian Federation (“USEF”) to solely the name of Stewart’s
farm, Glenwillow Farm. This occurred on or about April 28, 2014, which is the date stamp
USEF placed upon the Bill of Sale.
54.After reading the PPE report, Chungunco advised Stewart that she was withholding further
payments due and owing for the purchase until Stewart could propose an acceptable solution
to replace a damaged, inappropriate horse.
55. In the meanwhile, Chungunco continued to board her other horses with Stewart in
Maryland after the completion of the Florida horse show circuit, upon which certain charges
56. Stewart advised Chungunco that she would sell the horse for $150,000.00 to someone she
knew that was aware of the horse and would use the money to apply to the balances owed by
Chungunco. Chungunco realized Stewart could never sell Exclusive with his medical issues.
58. On or about July 15, 2014, Stewart advised Chungunco that Stewart would speak to her
own lawyer about the dispute. Thereafter, Stewart informed Plaintiff that Bernadette nor her
horses.would have any further training from Stewart.
59. On July 17, 2014, Kimberly Stewart advised Chungunco through counsel, that Chungunco
and her family were prohibited from entering Stewart’s farm property were not allowed access
were forced to terminate the leases on Lost Love and Storyteller. Each lease demanded the
equines only be cared for and trained by Kimberly Stewart and no other.
60. Chungunco made attempts with the Kasowitz’s, the owners of Storyteller, to allow a new
trainer to house and care for the pony instead of Stewart given the loss of trust of Stewart by
the Chunguncos, however, the owners declined to allow same.
61. The Kasowitz’s stated the pony would stay with Kimberly Stewart. Thus Stewart
interfered with the Chunguncos rights and obligations under the Lease because they were no
longer allowed to access the pony.
62. Each lease has a non-refundable clause of the lease fee that was prepaid. Therefore, given
no ability to visit or ride the equines coupled with Stewart having full control over the
decision making of the equines, Chungunco was left no choice but to terminate the leases on
Lost Love and Storyteller effective July 17, 2014.
63. Thus Chungunco was deprived of the use of her leased equines from July 1, 2014, through
November 2014, thus costing Chungunco over $40,000 per equine in lost lease payments.
Additional losses will be realized to find replacement mounts for Chungunco so late in the
season as the qualified shows are so close. Chungunco qualified these mounts for such shows
and has been deprived of competing.
64. Chungunco requested to have Spellbound, an equine fully owned by Chungunco, released
in exchange for the balance owed paid on the pony’s services and Stewart refused to allow
such exchange. Instead, she warned that the Chunguncos could not come on the farm property
to see their equines.
65. Stewart has no legal right to the retention of the pony Spellbound.
66. As a result of Stewart wrongfully retaining the equines owned by Chungunco,
Chungunco was forced to retain counsel in Maryland and Florida.
67. Thereafter, Stewart illegally and fraudulently imposed a claim of lien in Maryland upon
the one pony Stewart originally coveted: “Spellbound.” Stewart did so by fraudulently
claiming that all of the alleged charges incurred against all of the Chungunco horses and
ponies belonged to Spellbound and that all those charges were incurred in Maryland.
68. Stewart claimed $207,083.18 was owed and attempted to schedule a sale of Spellbound
to pay for those trumped-up charges. Exhibit E & F.
69. In such a sale, Stewart will be allowed to “credit bid” the amount she claims is owed and
it is unlikely that any third party will outbid her, thus allowing Steward to wrongfully claim
ownership by public sale of Spellbound, the coveted pony, though illegal and fraudulent
70. With respect to Spellbound, Stewart is owed only $16,767 for costs in Florida, while
costs in Maryland attributable to the pony were $6,215. This is a total of $22,982 attributable
for Spellbound and Stewart has refused to surrender the pony despite an offer by Chungunco
represented to the Maryland court that she was owed $207,083.18, and based upon those
fraudulent representations, the Maryland court issued a Writ of Attachment. Exhibit H.
72. Again pursuing her scheme to obtain the coveted pony Spellbound, in support of her
Maryland writ, Stewart submitted a fraudulent Affidavit attaching her invoices to Chungunco
from which Stewart claims she is owed $207,083.18. Exhibit I.
maximum,’ the amount owed by Chungunco attributable to Spellbound in Maryland is $6,215.
74. Adding several charges in Pennsylvania and Virginia, the total owed on Spellbound is no
more than $23,032.
75. However, Maryland’s horse lien statute neither allows a stable keeper to lien a horse for
charges incurred out of state nor for charges other than care and maintenance of the horse.
Therefore, charges for such items as “shipping-trailering,” “lessons,” “commissions”,
“hotels”, “food per diem”, “braiding”, and “entries” are not permitted to be claimed as
lienable expenses, nor are expenses incurred outside of the state of Maryland.
76. The dispute between Stewart and Chungunco originates in Florida where Stewart,
operating as Glenwillow Farm3 was retained to provide services in Florida at horse shows. As
such, much of the dispute is unrelated to the State of Maryland.
77. Spellbound had only been in Maryland commencing May 1, 2014, and of that time left the
State for what may be 30 days, thus being in Maryland less than 45 days. To that end, the
invoices supplied to the Maryland court exceeded $207,000 but contained charges that were
not legally permissible for Stewart to claim against Spellbound, including but not limited to:
(i) charges for other horses;
(ii) charges for commissions on sales;
(iii) interest charges for a personal loan to buy a horse;
(iv) housing for people;
( v) braiding;
(vii) horse show entry fees;
(viii) lease charges; and
(ix) commission for leases.
78. Nevertheless, in perpetuation of Stewart’s scheme to fraudulently obtain ownership of the
pony she most coveted, Stewart illegally claimed these expenses and expenses of other
Chungunco horses, against Spellbound.
79. As of the present time, Stewart is intending to illegally hold a public sale of Spellbound.
80.All conditions precedent to this action have either been waived, excused or performed.[irp]
82. Defendant Batchelor was and is a Florida licensed veterinarian who held herself out to
the public and the Plaintiff in particular as capable of and also undertook the corresponding
duty to the Plaintiff of providing a pre-purchase examination in accordance with that level of
care and skill which is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar
83. As the veterinarian representing Chungunco and conducting the PPE of Exclusive on
Plaintiff’s behalf, Batchelor had a duty to Plaintiff to conduct a proper medical and physical
examination of show quality equines to determine and find deficits, abnormalities, defects,
preexisting conditions, past surgeries, and existing medical and physical conditions that might
affect the performance of that horse in the show rings.
for Plaintiff fell below the acceptable standard of care in conducting and communicating to
Plaintiff the results of the PPE.
85. The conduct of those services by Defendant Batchelor fell below the acceptable standard
of care in that Batchelor:
(i) she completed the insurance medical certificate with clear inaccuracies to that
which she reported on her prepurchase report of the same day;
(ii) failed to properly document on the medical certificate that the horse had not only
suffered a suspensory injury but underwent a procedure known as PRP and additional
treatment in the months in close proximity to the purchase examination;
(iii) failed to properly report on the medical certificate that the equine was actually
lame during her prepurchase examination;
(iv) failed to communicate to Chungunco the existence and extent of the prior right
front suspensory injury, the prior colic surgery, the navicular disease in both front feet,
fusing hocks, and the lameness of the horse during the PPE;
(v) failed to obtain the actual vet reports and records of the equine known as
Exclusive from the prior treating veterinarians to fully appreciate the magnitude of the
prior treatment and procedures that the horse had previously sustained;
(vi) failed to pull blood and urine for a prepurchase drug screening on February 23,
(vii) failed to follow the guidelines promulgated by the American Association of
Equine Practitioners, on the proper conduct in and reporting of pre-purchase
examinations for equines;
(viii) provided shockwave therapy at the horse shows to Exclusive at the specific
the direction of Stewart without the consent or knowledge of owner Chungunco such that
such actions were impermissible under the spirit of competition, federation rules and
(ix) improperly informed the insurance company on the medical certificate ·
accompanying the insurance application that Exclusive was in full work and showing
when in fact its last time competing was June 2013 and had not competed in the year
86. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was relying upon her and her PPE findings in making the
decision whether or not to purchase Exclusive.
87. The revelation by Defendant Batchelor of any one of these findings would have caused
Chungunco to avoid purchasing the horse, had they been disclosed to Chungunco at the time
of the PPE by either Batchelor or Stewart.
88. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, errors, and omissions of Defendant
Batchelor, Plaintiff has sustained damages.
BATCHELOR, D.V.M, for actual and consequential damages, including but not limited to the
full sum of the purchase price of the horse, medical costs incurred as a result of her
90. Stewart agreed to be Chungunco’s agent during the search for, selection and inspection of
Exclusive. As such, Stewart owed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff as her principal, including
without limitation duties of loyalty and candor and the duty to act for the benefit of the
Plaintiff regarding the purchase of Exclusive.
91. Stewart purposefully, and with intent to deceive for her own financial gain, lied to
Plaintiff about the behavior and health of the equine Exclusive in an effort to deprive Plaintiff.
92. Further, as the agent of Chungunco, Stewart owed a duty of fair dealing to Chungunco in
the locating, evaluating and recommending of an equine for sale for minor, Bernadette
Chungunco, for the purpose of competing in the junior hunter division.
93. Defendant Stewart breached in her duties to Chungunco by:
(i) recommending the purchase of an equine named Exclusive that
had a constellation of medical ailments that made him unsuitable as a competitive
show horse at the junior level; recommending a horse that was blind in one eye
whose vision affected its mental capabilities in competition;
(ii) recommending an equine with a known significant known injury of the
suspensory, coupled with knowing the suspensory was still inflamed and would
be painful to the equine to compete;
(iii) recommending an equine she knew would be in pain when competing and
would react in ways to be dangerous to a minor rider;
(iv) failing to convey to Plaintiff that true findings of the pre-purchase
(v) failing to advise Plaintiff not to buy the equine Exclusive;
commission to the detriment of the minor child;
(vii) improperly advising Chungunco that the horse Exclusive competed after
June 2013 when in fact it had not as it had been entered to show and never made
it to the ring or would be found on the judge’s card, information readily available
to Chungunco’s agent Kimberly Stewart.
(viii) advising, instructing or permitting Hope Batchelor, DVM, to complete a
fraudulent and untruthful medical certificate regarding Exclusive to obtain
insurance coverage of major medical and mortality insurance of $100,000.
(ix) submitting the application of insurance and completing same with
knowingly false information and instructing Maria Chungunco to sign same when
Maria Chungunco was never provided a copy of the prepurchase report;
(x) instructing, without consent or permission of Chungunco, Hope Batchelor,
DVM, to perform shockwave procedures on Exclusive at horse shows in an effort
to hide obvious and known lameness;
(xi) changing the ownership information on the USEF registration system into
the full name of Glen Willow Farm on or about April 28, 2014, without permission
or consent of Chungunco;
(xii) fraudulently and illegally impressing a Claim of Lien in Maryland upon
Spellbound for an amount in excess of$207,000, far in excess of reasonable
charges permitted by law, and including charges not permitted by law in an effort
to fraudulently obtain the pony Stewart most coveted;
Storyteller, and thereby causing a constructive termination of the leases which
caused substantial losses to Chungunco; and
(xiv) refusing to release to the owner, Chungunco, her pony Spellbound owned
solely by her and refusing them access to said pony;
(xv) causing a depreciation in value of Spellbound after missing the 2014 Pony
Finals and qualifying for the indoor shows;
94. As a result of these breaches in the fiduciary duties by Defendant Stewart, Plaintiff
Chungunco not only purchased the equine known as Exclusive but also caused Plaintiff to
incur significant expenses in training and care of the equine known as Exclusive. Additional
damages were incurred as a result of constructive termination of leases and failing to release
said pony, Spellbound.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks an entry of a judgment against Defendant Kimberly
Stewart for actual and consequential damages including but not limited to the purchase price of
Exclusive, lost insurance premiums, loss of leases, loss of use of the lease equine and use of
Spellbound, attendant costs of the equine, costs and attorneys fees incurred in opposing the
fraudulent claim of lien in Maryland and such other relief as the Court shall find just and proper.
(Fraud against Kimberly Stewart)
96. When communicating the results of the PPE of Exclusive with Plaintiff, Stewart
represented that the horse was sound and sufficiently healthy medical condition and soundness to
that Plaintiff would rely upon them.
97. Defendant Stewart knew or had reason to know that the statements were false when he
98. By making the aforesaid representations promoting the Exclusive purchase, Stewart was
promoting the purchase of Exclusive, thus earning commission on that transaction.
99. Additionally, by adding Exclusive to the other Chungunco horses under her care, Stewart
was perpetuating her scheme to overwhelm Chungunco with charges so that Stewart could then
fraudulently impose a claim of lien upon Spellbound, the pony Stewart coveted.
99. By failing to reveal the existence and conclusions of the Batchelor PPE, Stewart sought
to conceal from Plaintiff material facts concerning the condition and suitability of the horse
Exclusive so that Stewart would benefit from the purchase transaction.
100. Stewart knew that the Batchelor PPE findings contained material facts as to the risk for
loss of soundness of Exclusive, yet failed to reveal and concealed those findings from Plaintiff in
order to cause Plaintiff to consummate the purchase of Exclusive by relying upon the favorable
statements of Stewart as to the condition and suitability of Exclusive.
101. As a direct and proximate result of those fraudulent statements and omissions by
Defendant Stewart, Plaintiff purchased the horse Exclusive but thereafter encountered an
extended period of difficulty with the horse and lost the use of the horse.
102. Plaintiff therefore incurred significant actual damages, including but not limited to the
purchase price of Exclusive, payment of unnecessary commission, loss of leases, loss 9f use of
the lease equine and use of Spellbound, attendant costs of the equine, costs and attorneys fees
not have incurred but for the acts and omissions of Defendant stated herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks an entry of a judgment against Defendant Kimberly
Stewart for actual and consequential damages including but not limited to the purchase price of
Exclusive, payment of unnecessary commission, loss of leases, loss of use of the lease equine
and use of Spellbound, attendant costs of the equine, costs and attorneys fees incurred in
opposing the fraudulent claim of lien in Maryland and such other relief as the Court shall find
just and proper.
(Conversion against Kimberly Stewart)
104.By illegally restraining and detaining Exclusive to the exclusion of Plaintiff, and by
exercising unilateral care, custody, and control of the horse to the exclusion of Plaintiff,
Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion and control over property of another
inconsistent with her ownership rights in that horse.
105 .As a result of such wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts by which Stewart exercised
exclusive dominion and control over the horse Exclusive, Plaintiff has sustained damages
including but not limited to loss of the horse, loss of use of the horse and costs of
opposing the Maryland illegal claim of lien.
Stewart for actual and consequential damages and for such other relief as the Court shall find
just and proper.
(Declaratory Action against Kimberly Stewart)
107. This is an action for declaratory judgment and supplemental relief pursuant to Florida
Statutes §86.011 et seq. and§713.65.
108.There is a current dispute between Chungunco and Stewart as to whether the Claim of
Lien is valid and enforceable against Spellbound and, if valid, in what amount.
109.Chungunco contends that the Claim of Lien is unlawful, that it is fraudulent, and that it
should be dissolved and /or diminished to the proper amount.
110. Stewart contends that the Claim of Lien is valid.
111. Specifically, Chungunco contends that in the Claim of Lien, Stewart has willfully and
fraudulently exaggerated the amount which said lien is claiming. Additionally,
Chungunco contends that Stewart has willfully included charges not properly claimable.
Chungunco further contends that Stewart has compiled his Claim of Lien with such
willful and gross negligence as to the amount to a willful exaggeration and fraudulent
lien. Stewart disputes these contentions.
112.Chungunco and Stewart are in doubt as to their legal rights and duties under the Claim of
113. There is a compelling need for this Court of equity to declare the rights and obligations of
the parties under the Claim of Lien.
Stewart as follows:
C. That the Court declare and order that the Claim of Lien be dissolved;
D. That the Court declare and award Chungunco her attorney’s fees;
E. That the Court declare and award Chungunco its costs; and
F. For such other and further relief as is just and proper.
(Unfair Trade Practice Act Violation against Stewart)
115.This is an action brought pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Chapter 501 (2014).
116.Defendant, at all times material hereto, provided goods or services as defined within
§501.203(8), Florida Statutes (2014).
117 .Defendant, at all times material hereto, were engaged in a trade or commerce within the
definition of §501.203(8), Florida Statutes (2014).
118.At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of or controlled the sale of Exclusive and
had actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances
that her acts, as described below, were unfair or deceptive and/or prohibited by law.
119.Chapter §501.204(1) of the Florida Statutes declares that unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.
120.Commencing on a date unknown, but at least on or about February 2014, the Defendant
engaged in a systematic pattern of conduct designed and intended to induce a consumer to
purchase Exclusive via a series of false and fraudulent representations.
Exclusive to Plaintiff as an 8-year-old horse worth $100,000.00.
122.Defendant represented that Exclusive, other than being blind in one eye, was healthy and
sound and capable of withstanding extensive showing in the junior hunter 3 ‘6″ division.
123.Defendant knew full well before any such vetting of the equine Exclusive that he was not
sound and would not be sound but induced Plaintiff to have the equine undergo a
124.Defendant knew full well that the prepurchase examination demonstrated significant
medical ailments, for more extensive than an 8-year-old horse show present with, and
failed to convey such information to Plaintiff.
125.Defendant instructed the prepurchase veterinarian to not perform a standard drug test
during the prepurchase examination when she knew full well Plaintiff wanted such a test
to ensure the horse had not been medicated to mask its true medical presentation.
126.Defendant knew full well before engaging a veterinarian to conduct a prepurchase
examination that the horse had dangerous propensities that could not be predicted nor
handled by a minor rider at the level of Chungunco.
127.Defendant prepared a Bill of Sale for said purchase of Exclusive and represented and/or
otherwise stated to Plaintiff that they would provide a Bill of Sale for said equine that was
located in Wellington, Florida.
128.As a result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff purchased said
equine and Defendant enriched herself in the process.
engaged in deceptive acts or practices as aforesaid in violation of the provisions of
Chapter §501, Part II of the Florida Statutes.
award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to §50 1.2075, damages, and grant such other relief as
this honorable court deems just and proper.
(Tortious Interference with Business Relations against Stewart)
131. By undertaking the aforesaid acts, including but not limited to refusing entrance
and access of the Chunguncos to all of their equines and locking Spellbound in his stall,
Stewart interfered with the existing purchase and lease transactions which Chungunco had
with third parties.
132. Chungunco had definite rights under the leases and purchase transactions
including but not limited to use and /or ownership and/or custody of the equines subject to
133. At the time Stewart undertook such wrongful actions, Stewart was aware of the
existence of those business transactions, because Stewart had arranged all of them and knew
134. Those actions of Stewart which interfered with Chungunco’s business
relationships were intentional and unjustifiable, for reasons including but not limited to the
fact that Stewart wrongfully denied access to the equines while making fraudulent and
135. As a result of such interference, Chungunco has sustained damages including but
not limited to the loss of multiple lease fees, loss of purchase monies, attorneys fees and
costs to defend the fraudulent Maryland action, and other consequential and actual damages.
Stewart for actual and consequential damages and for such other relief as the Court shall find just
CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, PLC
12008 South Shore Blvd.
Wellington, FL 33414