“Curious” Aspects of the HJ Hampton Story (Atkins v. Martin)

October 31, 2011

A Cautionary Tale to Owners

The court decision in Atkins v. Martin (May 19, 2011) appears to have treated HJ Hampton as an investment property that was ostensibly part of a “partnership” as claimed by Atkins. Note that this was not a jury trial and the court decision was rendered by a single judge. The judge made her decision based on an administrative hearing solely on the alleged “partnership.” The fact that the judge ruled there was a partnership, essentially believing Atkins, does not mean that Linda Martin was not telling the truth.

If one reads the court order, it is clear that the judge did not rule that Linda Martin was not the owner of HJ Hampton – that Martin was the owner appears to remain undisputed. The May 19, 2011 ruling simply “believed” Peter Atkins’s version that he and Linda Martin had agreed verbally to a “partnership” over HJ Hampton and the judge therefore ruled that this “partnership” must be dissolved. The dispute was settled (as heartbreaking as it was, Martin simply did not have the resources to continue the litigation) and by mutual agreement, the actual details of the final agreement between the parties cannot be revealed. However, there are many aspects of this case that are part of the public records that are very “curious” and can, and should, be discussed. One thing is for certain: this case should serve as a cautionary tale for all owners, experienced or not, in the ways of riders/trainers and the equestrian world.

With all due respect to the court, the judge was not familiar with the equestrian world prior to this case. Any reader who knows anything about the equestrian world will find the following aspects of this case most “curious” and anyone with a conscience should find them disconcerting. The information contained herein is provided in the hopes that it may save another unsuspecting owner from the terrible heartache and considerable financial expense this case has cost Martin and her family.

Linda Martin is not an eventer, or equestrian herself. She has never competed and does not ride. No one in her family has ever participated in the sport of eventing. At the time she met Peter Atkins, she was totally inexperienced in the world of eventing and in fact, equestrian competition other than local 4-H shows and as a spectator at a relative’s hunter/jumper shows. Martin is a life-long horse lover who has an equestrian facility, but is not herself a rider/trainer.

Peter Atkins testified to being a professional equestrian for 35 years. No one has doubted his abilities as a rider/trainer, nor has anyone questioned his accomplishments with HJ Hampton. It should be noted, however, that his only participation ever in four-star events (Rolex and World Equestrian Games, both in 2010) was with HJ Hampton. No other horse has ever taken him to that level before or since.

There are many aspects of this story that remain to be told. In fact, Martin has not gone public with her side of the story to date. Though Martin cannot discuss the terms of the final agreement between the parties, the matters outlined in this document are all part of the public record (depositions, court testimony, public statements made by the parties involved, with the exception about the offer made to Martin in jest by Atkins’ father; that is not part of the official court testimony). Martin has paid a very high price for her trust of Atkins and for her initial ignorance of the equestrian world, especially of the sport of eventing. Since November 2010, she has learned a great deal about the judicial system, eventing, agreements, protecting her own interests, trust and desperation.

Brief Background

There was no written agreement between the parties. Not getting one from the outset was Martin’s first big mistake. Instead, she trusted Atkins. Martin tried to get a written agreement for a while, but Atkins was always “too busy.” When Martin insisted in November 2010, Atkins went to court, first seeking an injunction, then filing suit against Martin. Martin countersued.

Peter Atkins claimed to the court that he and Linda Martin had a 50/50 verbal partnership. According to Atkins, he agreed to take over training of HJ Hampton and assume expenses; then, when they sold him, they would each get their original investments/expenses back and split any profits 50/50. Martin had HJ Hampton’s bill of sale from the previous owner and all import papers at the commencement of the suit. Atkins never had or produced any documentation signed by Linda Martin attesting to any ownership or partnership rights or agreements.

Linda Martin asserts, to this day, that she allowed Atkins to ride and compete with HJ Hampton under what was, in her mind, a verbal free lease agreement. For Martin, it was never about the money. She was thrilled to be the owner of an animal who was doing so well, and hoped to gain some publicity for her farm, Hidden Brook Farm in Grantham, NH (www.hiddenbrookfarmnh.com). One day, she expected the horse to come back to her family and to a relative for whom he was originally intended. Martin testified that since January 2008, Peter Atkins essentially had HJ Hampton under the terms of a free lease. She did not have any control over decisions about training, shows, competition schedules, etc. (Atkins confirmed that he had TOTAL control over all training and showing and care decisions.) Martin trusted Atkins entirely and implicitly. Martin allowed Atkins to ride and compete HJ Hampton as long as he was assuming expenses, and this was done on a month-by-month basis. Martin trusted Atkins and was pleased with how he treated HJ Hampton; she never questioned his care or his ability as a rider/trainer. As long as Atkins had HJ Hampton, Martin did not expect offers for sale, since in her mind, she was the owner, Atkins was the rider/trainer, and they had a verbal free-lease agreement, not a “partnership” to profit from HJ Hampton’s eventual sale, as asserted by Atkins. Once Atkins began competing with HJ Hampton, Martin did not think that Atkins was training and competing HJ Hampton in order to sell him. She believed he was thrilled to have the ride and therefore willing to assume the expenses as long as she allowed him to have the horse. Besides, Atkins begged on numerous occasions “Please just don’t take him away from me.”

It wasn’t about the money for Martin. Oddly, for Atkins, it was never about the money, either. Note that Atkins did not ask the court to make Martin abide by his version of the alleged agreement so he could recoup his expenses and make some money; he did not assert that it was time to profit from his hard work as they had ostensibly agreed by selling HJ Hampton. Instead, he told the court under oath that he wanted to keep the horse. Atkins’ lawyer suggested to the court that the judge order an auction so that a syndicate might purchase HJ Hampton so that Atkins could keep the ride. So it wasn’t about the money for Atkins, either: it was about gaining full control and ownership of HJ Hampton and removing him entirely from Linda Martin. It appears that Atkins had this agenda almost from the time he first met Linda Martin and HJ Hampton.

In 2009, Martin began asking Atkins to put their relationship in writing, but he was always too busy (Atkins even testified to this under oath). At ROLEX in April 2010, Martin realized for the first time that she was not recorded in ANY official documents as HJ Hampton’s owner. She had made the erroneous assumption that anytime Atkins was asked to record “Owner,” that he was listing her (and until ROLEX, she completely trusted Atkins). This was obviously a major mistake on Martin’s part, and she is paying a very high price for this mistaken assumption, as well as for the overall trust she placed in Peter Atkins between summer 2007 and November 2, 2010.

“Curious” Aspects of the Case

Anyone familiar with the equestrian world will find the following points very “curious.” These have not been publicly shared, as Martin did not engage in any public discussion of their relationship, hoping to protect their privacy. This may have been another of many of Martin’s mistakes, as she was vilified in the public arena apparently by those in “Atkins’ camp.” Even those who claimed to be “reporting” on the case (such as those at www.eventingnation.com) do not know Martin, nor did they ever so much as inquire about her side of the story. The whole story remains to be told, and will be one day, in the hopes of warning other owners and saving them from the heartache and devastation experienced by Martin and her family as a result of this case. The points outlined below are part of the public record.

1. Atkins’ Claim

Peter Atkins claimed (under oath) that the alleged partnership was formed in either December 2007 or January 2008 (court documents have either or both). He cannot recall exactly when. According to Atkins’ testimony, the agreement was made either in a single phone call or in a series of phone conversations. He cannot recall. Atkins cannot remember where he was exactly when the call(s) took place. According to Atkins, there were no witnesses, no written documentation. Atkins did not produce any phone records for the time period in question. (Atkins’ own testimony, deposition/court hearings.) Curious.

2. Atkins says HJ Hampton was “always for sale” but there were NEVER any offers or advertisements

According to Atkins, since the time of the original alleged “partnership agreement,” HJ Hampton was always for sale (Atkins’ testimony). However, according to court records:

1. Atkins only talked to a few people in the very beginning (he cannot recall who exactly, or the details of those conversations). (Atkins’ testimony)

2. Though HJ Hampton was always for sale, Atkins never advertised or marketed HJ Hampton anywhere (Atkins’ own testimony), not even on one of the three websites he set up: www.runhennyrun.com, www.atkinseventing.com, www.runhenny.com (Atkins’ Eventing Blog).

3. Atkins never brought a single offer to Linda Martin for the sale of HJ Hampton (Atkins’ testimony), except for his own, on November 10, 2010. (See #12 below.)

Linda Martin was not surprised at a., b. or c., since in her mind, HJ Hampton was NOT for sale anyway, so she never expected or pressed Atkins for sale offers. Curious.

3. Each party to recoup expenses, but Atkins kept NO RECORDS

According to Atkins, under the terms of the alleged “partnership,” each party was to recoup expenses upon the sale of HJ Hampton. However, 1) Atkins did not know how much Linda Martin originally paid for HJ Hampton until these court proceedings (Atkins’ testimony), and 2) Atkins did not keep records of his expenses. Atkins testified under oath that in December 2010 after instituting suit against Martin, he produced an accounting of all his expenses from 2008 on “from memory.” Curious. Atkins did not keep records of the expenses he was hoping to recoup upon the sale of HJ Hampton. Curious.

4. Atkins gets FEI Passport (January 2008), lists self as sole owner; when Martin realizes this (2010), Atkins tells Martin this is “very common”

Despite the fact that, according to Atkins, HJ Hampton was for sale starting in

January 2008 and he originally planned to sell him rather quickly and make some money (Atkins’ own testimony), Atkins applied for and obtained an FEI Passport that very same month, January 2008, through Equestrian Australia listing himself as sole owner. (Documentary evidence of this, FEI website, court documents)

a. Atkins did not ask Martin’s permission to do this, nor did he show Martin the passport. In fact, the first time she saw a COPY of the passport was in August 2010 when it was faxed to her by someone at USEF when she was trying to sort out the ownership on record for HJ Hampton. Subsequently, she saw another COPY of the passport in the court documents used by Atkins to obtain the preliminary injunction on Nov. 17, 2010. To date, Martin (HJ Hampton’s owner with the bill of sale until June 2011), has NEVER seen the ORIGINAL FEI Passport, though she asked Atkins to see it on multiple occasions once she knew it existed.

b. When Martin became aware (without any doubt at ROLEX in April 2010) that she was not listed in any official documents as HJ Hampton’s owner and questioned Atkins about this, he assured her that these documents were for show purposes only and did not indicate legal ownership in the eyes of the equestrian federations. He further assured her, and she believed him, that he had to be listed on these documents in order to ride for Australia, since he is an Australian citizen. Martin now knows that this is not true, but did not know this until after the commencement of this lawsuit. At ROLEX 2010, Atkins even introduced Martin to his equine massage therapist as “Henny’s owner” (in front of a witness).

3. In the period prior to the World Equestrian Games in 2010, once it looked like Atkins/HJ Hampton might get to compete, Martin insisted on being listed as owner. Atkins did get her an owner’s agreement to sign, but told her he had to be on it, too (“for show purposes only”), or he couldn’t ride for Australia (this is simply not true, but she didn’t know it then). At this point, she wanted to know why she wasn’t in the passport and wanted to be listed as owner. Atkins assured her this was not a problem. From an email dated August 17, 2010 in the run up to WEG, when Martin wanted to be listed as owner, Atkins assures her (entered into evidence, court records):

“Our situation is very common where someone owns a horse but is not listed in the passport. You will get owner credentials and a barn pass IF (big IF) he gets to run at the WEG.”

This assurance came from Atkins to Martin fewer than three months prior to his instituting a lawsuit against her.

d. Despite Atkins’ multiple assurances to Martin that the FEI passport was not considered proof of ownership, he used the document to support his claim, along with an old Coggins (!) that had his name down as “Owner” in his initial filing with the court on Nov. 17 seeking an injunction against Martin. (See point #5 below) Curious.

5. Atkins uses FEI passport and copy of an old Coggins to get a court injunction against Martin

November 17, 2010: After Martin refuses Atkins’ offer for $125,000 (see #12. below and recall that it has never been about the money for Martin), Atkins uses the FEI Passport, the same one he assured her was not for proving legal ownership, and a copy of a Coggins (clearly not proof of legal ownership) to appeal to the court for the injunction against Martin. With 35 years experience as a professional equestrian, it is likely Atkins knew that these documents are not considered proof of legal ownership. Curious. In fact, up until the day of the final settlement, only Linda Martin had any documentation about HJ Hampton’s ownership – her original bill of sale and HJ Hampton’s original import papers. In fact, in all of the documents where Atkins had listed his name as SOLE owner of HJ Hampton, Atkins was NEVER ONCE required to show proof of ownership documents. None of the documents he had in his possession when he instituted suit, therefore, are considered “legal proof” of ownership, since they were all issued based solely on the applicant’s (Atkins’) word. Curious.

6. Equestrian Australia official Team 2010 WEG Guide: Atkins “bought the horse” (August 2010, three months prior to the legal dispute)

In the official media guide for Equestrian Australia published in August 2010 for

the World Equestrian Games (Australian Equestrian Team 2010 World Equestrian Games, Lexington, Kentucky, Team Guide), the “owners” of HJ Hampton are listed as “Peter and Amy Atkins” (page 4). Furthermore, in that same media guide, Atkins’ biography reads as follows (page 22, italics added):

“Peter competed in his first CCI4* in April of this year, finishing 23rd at the Rolex Kentucky event. Henry Jota Hampton was a Hunter Jumper horse until three years ago when Peter took over the ride and then bought the horse. A natural on the cross-country course “Henny” has had a speedy rise to the top level of the sport.

Atkins never shared this Team Guide with Martin, and in fact, Martin first saw this guide in electronic form only on the Equestrian Australia website on February 11, 2011 when preparing for this court hearing. (Martin’s testimony)

This is “curious” and has never been explained: Atkins claims to have purchased HJ Hampton at some point prior to August 2010, even though he offered Martin $125K for HJ Hampton three months later (in November 2010; see point #12 below). He testified he believed this was the fair, full market value at the time of the offer. When Martin refused the offer, he sued over an alleged “partnership” and asked the court to auction off HJ Hampton as a partnership asset so that he could have a syndicate purchase him and he may keep the ride. So, did he, or did he not purchase him prior to the publication in August 2010 of the Equestrian Australia Team Guide where the claim is made that he is the owner who already purchased HJ Hampton? Obviously, what is printed in the Team Guide was not true. Clearly, the attempt was made in the Official Australia Team Guide for WEG 2010 to present to the world that Peter Atkins (and also Amy Atkins?!) were the outright owners of HJ Hampton. Very “curious” indeed. And just when and how did Amy Atkins acquire an interest in HJ Hampton? This was never explained. In fact, Amy Atkins did not attend a single court proceeding, nor was she asked to provide any testimony. Curious.

7. Atkins named to Equestrian Australian National A Squad; doesn’t tell Martin or get “Owner’s Agreement” signed

Peter Atkins/HJ Hampton as a pair were named to the National A Squad for the Australian Equestrian Team for 2011. This announcement was made in late January, 2011, during this legal dispute. According to the official rules of Equestrian Australia, prior to being named to a national squad, riders are obligated to inform and get owners (all owners) to sign a “Horse Owner’s Agreement” allowing their horse to be named to the team and agreeing to certain conditions. Not only was Linda Martin not asked to sign the Owner’s Agreement, she was not even informed by Peter Atkins that he and HJ Hampton were being considered for the squad. Martin learned of it from a press release by the Equestrian Australia Team on the official EA website when the squads were named. Atkins had obviously told EA that he already owned HJ Hampton at least as far back as summer 2010 (see the official EA Team Guide referenced in point #6. above). There is an email between EA and Atkins prior to the announcement of team members for 2011 indicating that Atkins was involved in the current dispute but that it should be settled and he hoped to have full control of HJ Hampton soon. Clearly, Equestrian Australia had considered Atkins/HJ Hampton for team membership as far back as summer 2010 (prior to this dispute), but Atkins never shared this with Martin, nor did he share with her that this would mean certain obligations on her part. This is curious, indeed, but not too surprising, considering that Atkins had not shared with Equestrian Australia that he was not the rightful owner of HJ Hampton; just the opposite -- he had allowed EA to publish in the official Team Guide for WEG (August 2010) that he had already “purchased” HJ Hampton some time ago. It appears that it was not just Martin who was not getting the full, truthful story from Atkins. Equestrian Australia claims to have ethical standards and a “code of conduct” for its members and riders and that there are sanctions for not abiding by such. . . If Equestrian Australia management were to know this backstory, would anyone care? Curious, indeed.

8. Dual Registration of HJ Hampton: Atkins claims not to have known until August 2010, but competes using both numbers June 2008-August 2010 (even using the original number the he claims not to have known existed to compete at ROLEX, 2010)

USEF had two registrations for HJ Hampton:

4699608 Hampton (Lauren Briggs as owner, from whom Martin purchased him)

5006287 Henry Jota Hampton (Peter Atkins as owner)

Peter Atkins under oath claimed that he didn’t know about the double registration until August 2010. However, he competed using both numbers, as documented in the official USEF records:

Henry Jota Hampton: 5006287 (Atkins as owner) Atkins competed under this number from 1/11/2008 until 9/10/2010

Hampton 4699608 (Briggs as owner) Atkins competed using this number beginning 6/27/08, and uses that number all the way through 08/25/10, including at Rolex in April 2010. Curious.

Despite the fact that according to Atkins, HJ Hampton was always for sale starting in January 2008 and he originally expected to sell him rather quickly and make some money, Atkins registered himself with USEF as the Owner (again, sole owner) of Henry Jota Hampton, that same month, in mid-January 2008. Atkins had been given information that HJ Hampton was already registered with USEF (email from Linda Martin to Peter Atkins dated July 27, 2007; presented to the Court). Atkins knew for a fact that the horse had competed in USEF events, in fact, he himself used the original registration number starting in June 2008. He had also asked Martin about HJ Hampton’s lineage, so he knew the sire and dame. Atkins’ sworn testimony to the court is that when he went on the USEF site to check for the horse registration in January 2008, it was late at night, he was tired, and there were a lot of Hamptons or horses with “Hampton” in the name. So he just applied for a new registration. Curious. Anyone familiar with the rules of horse registration (as Martin was not then but now is) knows that IF Atkins had tried simply to change the ownership registration, he would have been required to submit a bill of sale or other proof of transfer of ownership (USEF regulations). Clearly, at that point Martin would never have signed over such. However, USEF required no such proof of ownership when registering a brand new horse for the first time. This is how HJ Hampton ended up with two registrations.

Note further that the original horse registration number is 4699608 and is under the name Hampton and has the American style month/date/year 6/9/2001 recorded for birth. When Atkins applied for a new registration, he used the full name of Henry Jota Hampton, and recorded the horse’s birthdate Australian style, listing the date/month/year as 9/6/2001. Atkins claims this was an innocent oversight. Oddly, in the FEI passport that Atkins obtained in that same month, HJ Hampton’s birthdate is listed as 6/09/2001, the same way it was listed under his original USEF registration, American style, so it seems Atkins recorded the birthday both ways during the same month – one way for USEF, the other way for FEI. Curious. Atkins was issued a new horse registration number by USEF: 5006287. Atkins testified, under oath both in deposition and in the courtroom, that he did not know there were two registrations until August 2010 when Martin attempted to get information from USEF and began asking him about it. However, Atkins rode and competed under BOTH registrations from 2008 until November 2010, interchangeably. He even used the horse’s ORIGINAL registration number (under the previous owner Briggs) that he claimed he didn’t know existed until August 2011, even using it to compete at ROLEX in April 2010!! Curious. The official USEF records for these two horse registration numbers document that Atkins used both registration numbers from 2008 through 2010, in direct contradiction to his testimony under oath that he was unaware of the dual registrations. Atkins has never explained this contradiction. USEF and FEI claim to have ethical standards and a “code of conduct” for its members and riders and that there are sanctions for not abiding by such. If USEF or FEI management were to know this backstory, would anyone care? Curious.

9. Atkins claims to have sent Martin “thousands” of photographs via email; yet never ONCE mentions alleged “partnership”

Atkins testified that over the period of time that they were allegedly partners, he

had sent Martin “hundreds,” or actually probably “thousands” of photographs via email. However, he never once managed to mention in any emails this alleged agreement or their “partnership.” (Atkins’ testimony) Not a single piece of documentary evidence introduced by Atkins refers to his relationship with Martin as a “partnership” or that they were “partners.” The term “co-owner” appears for the first time referring to Martin’s farm, not Martin herself, in print on October 25 (see # 10 below). Curious.

10. Atkins gives local interview, refers to Martin as “co-owner;” doesn’t tell Martin the truth about location/time of interview

In October 2010, Atkins gave an interview to The Valley News, a local NH/VT

newspaper. Prior to the interview, Martin and Atkins discussed that the interview was to take place, and Martin asked for it to be at her facility, Hidden Brook Farm in Grantham, NH. She also requested that she be listed as owner. Martin also discussed this with Atkins PR agent, Candace Quackenbos. Atkins originally agreed to hold it at Hidden Brook Farm, then told Martin subsequently that it was going to take place over the phone, since he didn’t have time to travel from VT to her place in Grantham, NH. Martin believed him. Another mistake. It turns out, however, that the interview did take place in Grantham, NH, but not at Martin’s facility, rather at the Dunkin’ Donuts about 2 miles from Martin’s farm. Curious.

When the article appeared, it listed Hidden Brook Farm as HJ Hampton’s “co-owner,” and Linda Martin’s name was nowhere in the article. Martin immediately (the day of publication) visited the newspaper offices (in person) and had a correction published, stating that she was HJ Hampton’s owner. At this point, Martin became determined not to allow HJ Hampton to travel to Florida with Atkins until she and Atkins had a written agreement in place. Atkins had continued to put her off, claiming he was too busy. Martin had an agreement drawn up by attorney Ms. Asplund-Walsh and mailed it to Atkins. (Martin’s testimony, other witness testimony)

11. November 2, 2011 Martin and Atkins discuss the written agreement Martin had sent to him

On November 2, 2011, Martin and Atkins had a telephone conversation about the

lease agreement he had received from her. (Martin took notes from memory the next day.) In a heated conversation, Atkins told her he was not going to sign anything, but that she would not touch HJ Hampton and he was taking him to Florida that weekend no matter what she had to say about it. Martin asked Atkins to come to her place to discuss this, but he claimed he was too busy. She told him that HJ Hampton could return to Hidden Brook Farm and stay there until they worked something out. Immediately after the call, Martin consulted with her attorney at the time (Ms. Asplund-Walsh), and was advised to go pick up her property, HJ Hampton. Linda Martin picked HJ Hampton up from Atkins’ barn in VT on November 2 on the advice of Ms. Asplund-Walsh, who also advised her to seek an injunction against Atkins to keep him away from HJ Hampton, but Martin “did not want to do that to Peter.” She believed he would come and talk to her. (Martin’s testimony) This now appears to have been another major, and very costly, mistake by Martin. Curious.

12. November 11, 2011 Atkins offers Linda Martin $125,000 for HJ Hampton

This offer was made through attorney Philip Lake (Beverly, Massachusetts). Atkins claims this was a fair full price offer that he made to “avoid all this legal” mess. (Atkins’ testimony) Ostensibly, this offer was made by Atkins on behalf of a syndicate, though the details were never revealed.

It remains a mystery why a “partner” would offer full fair market value to buy out a 50/50 “co-owner” or “partner” (Atkins’ own sworn testimony states he believed this was fare full market value!). Curious.

Here is the direct text from the email sent by Attorney Philip Lake to Linda Martin’s first attorney (Ms. Asplund-Walsh) about the offer he made through Ms. Asplund-Walsh of $125K over the phone on November 11: (spelling errors retained)

From: Philip Lake [mailto:plake@glovskyx2.com]

Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 3:34 PM

To: basplund@metrocast.net; Bronwyn.Asplund-Walsh.6039344834@orcafax.net

Subject: Henry Joda Hampton

Ms. Asplund-Walsh:

When we spoke yesterday I was not aware that Mr. Atkins scheduled trip is in fact his move to Florida for the winter.  Ms. Martins, however, apparently is aware of that.  Mr. Atkin’s goal is to complete this transaction before leaving, which is why I have funds in my escrow account.  This can only be accomplished if we coordinate a wire almost immediately.  I fear that this matter otherwise is going to head in a bad direction.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

Philip

Philip G. Lake, Esq.

plake@glovskyx2.com”

Linda Martin declined the offer, and this did indeed, “head in a bad direction.”

The only other offer that Linda Martin EVER had on HJ Hampton was jokingly made by Peter Atkins’ father when he was visiting from Australia to attend the World Equestrian Games. Mr. Atkins senior asked Linda, as she understood at the time to be in jest, if she would consider “trading a house in Australia for a horse.”

Mmmm. . . not a house for her 50% of the partnership to buy her out. . . not half a house or interest in a property. . . Curious. This offer was not entered into testimony by either side. But apparently, at the time of WEG (two months before this legal dispute), Atkins’ own parents were well aware that Linda Martin was HJ Hampton’s owner, not their son’s “partner” or “co-owner.” Curious.

13. Atkins’ financial problems: Foreclosure (i.e., no Florida location for HJ Hampton, massive IRS liens for over 1.3 million dollars for 2005-06)

It is unclear whether Atkins had or has the resources to purchase HJ Hampton outright himself. Atkins lost his farm in Florida (14776 North Magnolia Ave, Citra, FL 32113) to foreclosure (judgment for JP Morgan Chase dated April 14, 2009 and filed in Marion County. FL, File # 2010077635). The total amount of the judgment was $503,732.34 (mortgage balance was $453,933.61 plus fees). This property was subsequently purchased by Karen O’Keefe on January 21, 2011 for $170,000, during the legal dispute over HJ Hampton. The mortgage instrument with Salem Five Mortgage is dated January 21, 2011 for $123,750.00 and was filed in Marion County (Florida) on January 28, 2011 (File #2011007552). Ms. O’Keefe testified in court on March 10, 2011 on behalf of Atkins. Ms. O’Keefe testified that Peter Atkins is her trainer, and she further testified that she is leasing the property she purchased in Citra back to Atkins for as long as he wants it, with an option to purchase it. She did not include the fact that her mortgage document has a “Second Home Rider” expressly forbidding such leasing/renting arrangements (see public document). Prior to Ms. O’Keefe’s purchase and agreement to lease Atkins’ old property back to him, Atkins appears to have had no place to take HJ Hampton in Florida. It further appears that Atkins would not be able to purchase a property himself in the near future, considering that he also has an IRS lien against his assets in the sum of over one million dollars, $1,391,838.32 to be exact, only for the tax years 2005 and 2006. Ostensibly, this lien would apply to an asset such as his farm, or a valuable competition horse, and there could be the risk that the IRS would order an auction (even of HJ Hampton) to satisfy the tax obligation. This tax lien (Serial Number 695557110) was filed in September 13, 2010 (File # 2010083572 OR BK 054111 PG 0701) and is a matter of public record. It can be found on the Marion County, Florida public records website along with all the documents mentioned here (www.marioncountyclerk.org /Search Official Records/). The lien states that “there is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property belonging to this taxpayer for the amount of these taxes, and additional penalties, interest, and costs that may accrue.” This is perhaps why Atkins was desperate to force a sale of HJ Hampton to a syndicate – to protect this “asset” from possible IRS action. It is not clear how much Ms. O’Keefe knew about Atkins’ financial problems, and it is not the purpose here to cast aspersions on Ms. O’Keefe, or the other woman, Ms. Kevin Whitney, who testified on Atkins’ behalf about what a wonderful trainer/equestrian he is. It is doubtful that either of them know anything except for what Atkins has told them about the HJ Hampton dispute. It appears that both Ms. O’Keefe and Ms. Whitney have been financially stable clients for Atkins. Atkins testified under oath that he though Linda Martin “had more money than she does” when he first met her, so it appears he likely thought Martin would become a client similar to these two.

Martin knew that Atkins lost his property in Ocala to foreclosure, but she knew nothing of the extent of Atkins’ financial difficulties prior to this lawsuit. Clearly, HJ Hampton had given Atkins a major career (financial?) boost. In fact, his own testimony indicates his client base at least tripled since he has been competing with HJ Hampton. These financial difficulties may explain why Atkins was so desperate to maintain control of HJ Hampton, as well as all the merchandising he had begun to do via the runhennyrun website. (See #14 below.) Curious.

14. RunHennyRun website and merchandising: Done entirely without Martin’s (alleged “partner’s”?) involvement

Regarding the website www.runhennyrun.com: Atkins testified that he is not

very good with computers, and that someone else did the website for him. When Martin first saw the website in May 2010, she asked for some changes (it was inaccurate and did not list her anywhere). Among other things, Martin was not pleased that HJ Hampton was characterized as having been “mentally fried” – in fact, there were witnesses during the court hearing that testified that this was not the case at all and that he was ridden by another trainer and other riders for months before Atkins took over his training. Atkins ignored Martin’s requests to make changes to the website from May 2010 through early November, until sometime after November 2, when Martin picked up HJ Hampton. At some point between Nov. 3 and Nov. 7, the website was changed:

Nov. 2 version: “I was asked to take him on in training, then two months later, the owners told me they couldn’t afford to keep him in training and asked me what I wanted to do. I could already tell he was extremely talented and offered to take him on as my own project.” (italics added)

Nov. 7 version: “I was asked to take him in training, then four months later the owners told me they couldn’t justify keeping him in training any longer as he would not be suitable for them. They asked me what I wanted to do. I could already tell he was extremely talented and we agreed that I would take him on as a project.” (italics added)

Note that both versions were unilaterally determined by Atkins, who never consulted Martin on any of the content on this page. Martin claims that neither of the above versions is entirely accurate. However, when asked about this change under oath, Atkins testified that after Martin picked up HJ Hampton on Nov. 2, his wife reminded him that Linda had requested some changes, so he made them so she wouldn’t be mad. It appears that the changes he made were subtle changes referring to their alleged agreement, though she had asked him to make other changes, as well. Martin was never shown any text that was used anywhere on any website pertaining to HJ Hampton, and she certainly never agreed to either text that appeared here. In fact, Atkins NEVER even told Martin he was planning a runhennyrun website, nor did he consult her on any aspect of his efforts to market runhennyrun merchandise. Nor did she know about the logo contest to design the merchandise logos until it was over. When Martin did learn of the merchandising efforts, she did not begrudge Atkins the revenue, since he was paying all expenses, but she found it disconcerting that it was all being done without even telling her. Curious. This was, indeed, a very odd “partnership.” Atkins never produced or shared with his alleged “50/50 partner” merchandising plans or the existence of a paypal account. In fact, when first requested to produce information about this paypal account as part of the interrogatories for this lawsuit, Atkins and his attorney declined to produce it until Martin’s attorney filed a motion to compel it two weeks prior to the first hearing on March 10, 2011. Receipts show that Amanda Edson (HJ Hampton’s groom) had ordered merchandise that was sold on the website. Perhaps Edson was another “partner” that Martin wasn’t aware existed? Who actually, legally, owns and profits from (and pays taxes on) the runhennyrun.com merchandising? This remains unclear to this date. And all those “donations” to RunHennyRun? It appears those generous donors never knew that HJ Hampton had an owner named Linda Martin. Curious.

15. HJ Hampton’s colic surgery covered by insurance carried by Martin’s sister (continually since 2007)

In December 2010, in the middle of the legal dispute, HJ Hampton suffered colic

and had colic surgery. That surgery was covered by an insurance policy on HJ Hampton that was carried and paid for by Linda Martin’s sister for all the years that Atkins was working with HJ Hampton. Atkins is not listed on that insurance policy. Curious. Martin and her family did not find this curious, since Martin was HJ Hampton’s owner, not Atkins. Curious.

There are many, many more “curious” aspects to this case.

Someday, the whole story will be told.

Cautionary Tale to Owners

In May 2011, the court ordered an auction of HJ Hampton as a partnership asset. The court gave Atkins the right to determine the details of the auction – where, who, when, etc. This is also curious, since if the court had determined Atkins and Martin were “partners,” didn’t Martin have any say or rights in determining how the auction would take place? Atkins originally said they would hold the auction in Ocala, FL. Then he changed it to Vermont, and said only 4* riders would be allowed to come and ride HJ Hampton prior to the auction. Martin simply did not have the financial resources to file an appeal, which would have required 100K cash bond. As heartbreaking as it is, she simply no longer had the financial resources to fight to keep her horse. Atkins had finally succeeded in getting HJ Hampton away from Linda Martin. Linda Martin and her family will never be able to put this entirely behind them. Just because they have not shared their agony publicly, that does not make it any less real.

If you have read this far, thank you. Most likely, you have read this far because you are familiar with the equestrian world. That means you are likely to understand what it might mean to a rider to be able to ride a top, winning horse like HJ Hampton. You can also likely imagine what riders might be willing, and desperate enough, to do to get and keep such a ride. You are likely, therefore, to see that many of these “curious” aspects of the story add up to a very different version of what has been told publicly to date.

One thing is for certain: this case should serve as a cautionary tale for all owners, experienced or not, in the ways of riders/trainers and the equestrian world.