Court Opinion

ID: 9908294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:06:29.946654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.280117
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                   Court of Appeals
                       NO. 2022-CA-1284-MR

HICKSTEAD FARM, INC.                                APPELLANT

           APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE
                  ACTION NO. 14-CI-01698

DAPPLE STUD, LLC; DAPPLE                             APPELLEES
SALES, LLC; MIKE AKERS, INC.
D/B/A DAPPLE BLOODSTOCK; AND
MIKE AKERS, INDIVIDUALLY

AND

                       NO. 2022-CA-1306-MR

KENNETH L. RAMSEY; RAMSEY
FARM, INC.; AND SARAH K.
RAMSEY                                              APPELLANTS

           APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE
                  ACTION NO. 14-CI-02669

DAPPLE STUD, LLC; DAPPLE
SALES, LLC; AND MIKE AKERS,
INDIVIDUALLY; AND MIKE
AKERS, INC. D/B/A DAPPLE
BLOODSTOCK                                                                   APPELLEES

                                       OPINION
                                      AFFIRMING

                                      ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON,1 AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

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.

1
 Judge Donna Dixon concurred in the Opinion prior to her retirement effective November 20,
2023. Release of this Opinion was delayed by administrative handling.

                                            -2-
                   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:

                                         -3-
                        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.2

                 In the present case, Appellees are Dapple Stud, LLC, Dapple

Bloodstock, Mike Akers, Inc., and Mike Akers individually.3 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

2
    A different judge presided over the case on remand.
3
  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.”

                                                -4-
did not initially file suit against Akers. The motion to file a third-party complaint

against Akers occurred years after Appellants’ initial Complaints.

                 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.”4

                 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

4
    Again, we do not adopt this as a fact of the present case.

                                                   -5-
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.5 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.

               ALL CONCUR.

5
 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.

                                               -6-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DAPPLE
                          STUD, LLC; AND DAPPLE SALES,
Michael D. Meuser         LLC:
Elizabeth C. Woodford
Lexington, Kentucky       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

                         -7-