The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled against coach Kenny McPeek’s request for a sales commission. My dear son After he developed the award-winning machine, it was auctioned for $3.5 million.
Highlights of her career on both dirt and turf include wins in the 2017 American Oaks (G1T), 2016 Pocahontas Stakes (G2), 2018 Modesty Handicap (G3T) and 2017 Dueling Grounds Oaks; and runner-up finishes in the 2017 Kentucky Oaks (G1), 2017 Ashland Stakes (G1), 2017 Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Cup Stakes (G1T) and 2016 Alcibiades Stakes (G1), among others. She has earned more than $1.3 million.
Shortly after owner Nancy Polk passed away, her heirs decided to sell Daddys Lil Darling at Fasig-Tipton’s 2018 November Sale, where the winning bid went to MV Magnier. McPeek sent the Polk estate a bill for $175,000, 5% of the sale price.
The court wrote that “McPeek… first alleged an additional clause in his oral contract with Polk by sending a letter to her heirs” after hearing that the mare would be sold. However, the court found, McPeek stated in the letter “that he and Polk had repeatedly discussed a 5% commission for himself if Darling were sold but that Polk had steadfastly refused to sell, preferring instead to keep Darling as his own breeding mare.” McPeek’s commission claim was based on his development of the mare throughout her career.
The 29-page opinion, written by Judge Robert B. Conley, said that after McPeek’s claim was dismissed by Polk’s heirs, he responded by filing a lawsuit based on allegations of breach of express contract, breach of implied contract and claims of “quantum meruit,” a legal term meaning the value of services rendered.
The Fayette County Court in Lexington sided with Polk’s heirs, relying on a provision, part of the statutory plan, that prohibited the payment of commissions in connection with the sale of horses unless there was a written agreement.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, writing that McPeek’s claim was not barred by the provision, which the court wrote was part of a complex, multi-part statute. The court of appeals wrote that the provision “covers only agreements to sell, purchase, or transfer horses between a buyer and a seller or their agent. The law requires a receipt and a bill of sale, neither of which were available for the agreement between (McPeek) and (the Polk heirs). The agreement at issue in this case was a horse training agreement. It was a service agreement, not a horse sale agreement.”
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling and essentially held that the law by its terms “applies to any contract or agreement ‘for the payment of commissions, fees, gratuities or any other form of compensation in connection with any purchase, sale or transfer of horses…'” The opinion also dismissed McPeek’s claims based on implied contract and quantum meruit, ruling that the law in question outweighed such claims.
The Kentucky Supreme Court consisted of seven justices. Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter recused himself from the case. Of the remaining six justices, four ruled in favor of Polk’s heirs. Two justices found that the majority opinion “completely disregarded” the context surrounding the law in question, and thus failed to discern the law’s legislative intent.
