To those who I promised a more complete discussion of my viewpoint, as well as anyone else who is interested, here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xmqekrrell...al-12Jun14.pdf

Please note that I am not posting this with the intent of reopening debate, but only because I gave my word to numerous people that details would be forthcoming. Thank you.

That was a good read

not sure if it's just me but parts of that document are unreadable because of missing words and phrases. At first I thought it was just redaction but as you read further there are huge chunks missing.

I didn't read every word of that letter, but a lot of what I did read was not any different than the portions of the case that Lee Childs' lawyer wrote about here: http://davidzeitlin.com/mitchnick-v-...poker-justice/

I feel like people could debate in never-ending circles about this but instead of writing a long post (which I started to do) I will simply say this: the makeup he owed was makeup, it doesn't matter if you call it damages, and it doesn't matter what the jury said. This is the court of 2+2. Any reasonable poker player would say that Lee played his A game the great majority of the time, which from a backer's point of view should be satisfactory if not exemplary. A backer is within their rights to drop a player at any time if they're not happy with the horse's performance. There's nothing about your specific staking relationship that is so egregious or unique that it would entitle you, as the backer, to more compensation than the hundreds if not thousands of other backers out there who sometimes take it on the chin.

Too many missing words/sentences - so gave up after first 5 pages

don't back. just play with your own money and avoid these issues

Sorry, it is a PDF file, so there will be problems reading it on some devices. It should be fine on any device that is Adobe compatible.

whoa holy **** 15 pages? cliffs anyone?

Cliffs:
-Written contract had stipulations regarding payback timing, paperwork, playing A-game, etc.
-Contract had vague stipulation that if contract breached, then any make-up due would be owed as backer isn't able to realize full value of partnership
-Backer got frustrated that Lee wasn't doing paperwork regarding cashes in timely fashion and was drinking at one FT and drunk the night before another.
-Backer chose to terminate contract and claimed Lee was in breach of contract and therefore owed $40k in makeup. Lee disagreed about breach and therefore felt owed nothing.
-Backer decides to sue
-Jury decides that all 6 stipulations were breached, but not materially. So, no damages were awarded.

The End.

It's actually very well-written and I can see his side of things.

Read all, agree cliffs are pretty spot on and actual file was well written. Sorry to hear about the loss of your father Lynne. It is a shame this could not have been resolved amicably between two seemingly honest and decent people. Best of luck in the future.

Lynne seems like a very reasonable and professional person. I see both sides of this argument, but the most impressive thing is that Lynne still basically speaks very positively about Lee, and comes across as also attempting to see both sides.

Lots of respect.

Backer stakes Horse in a long term relationship. Backer and Horse's staking deal splits profits 50/50 with makeup.

Horse wins $30,000 in a poker tournament. Horse is in makeup: the score reduces his MU from $230,000 to $200,000. Horse has never done anything untoward before, but on this occasion he collects $30,000 in cash from the payout window and immediately loses it all at the dice table.

1. How much does Horse owe Backer?

2. Presume Horse and Backer have a signed contract stating "if Horse breaches the contract in any way, Horse owes Backer the makeup figure." How much does Horse owe Backer?

3. Presume Horse and Backer have a signed contract stating "if Horse misappropriates winnings, we hereby agree that constitutes a material breach, and liquidated damages shall be Horse's makeup figure at the time of the breach." How much does Horse owe Backer?

I'm reading it on a $2000 laptop and it looks like ****.

I'm so sorry. It is fine on my laptop and iPad. If you have Adobe Reader installed, it should be okay. I wish I could be of more help.

Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting read. Well written indeed, you have a talent.

My thoughts on what you wrote (I have not read any of the other threads):

You made 17,000 dollars profit less a $5000 unpaid loan.

You never alleged that Lee cheated you, you allege that you could have made more money investing elsewhere, if Lee promptly made deposits and submitted tax forms.

You knew Lee liked to drink at the table and had success before the agreement and he continued to drink and have success afterwards, yet you complained about his drinking.

The jury made the right decision.

Good read.

If you want a contract to be enforced by the courts you need to have a lawyer write the contract.

I've done a lot of backing and use written contracts but they only serve to insure the terms are clear.

I was happy with the courts findings, the staking system won't work if backers can end the agreement based on non-material breaches and the makeup reverts to debt. OP makes the claim that they were suing for liquidated damages. Feels like legal maneuvering to me. If those issues were a big enough concern, especially the drinking, there should have been action taken at the time of the contractual breaches. From my perspective it looks like a free roll by the backer. They continued backing hoping for a nice to run to get even and if that didn't happen they could convert their losses to debt.

I feel for the OP. I'd love it if horses always got 8 hours of sleep, ate healthy, never drank or smoked, exercised, got reports on in time, etc. That's just not realistic.

As an aside, I see in so many threads about perceived injustice is the advice to get a lawyer and sue.

OP I am assuming, paid the lawyer up front. Here is how it works. If you go to a lawyer and say I want to sue this person and you pay the lawyer up front, the lawyer will always take your case.

Only sue another entity for damages if the lawyer will take the case on contingency. Shop around to balance competency and lowest contingency percentage. If a lawyer won't take a case on contingency you don't have a case.

This is not to say lawyers are not extremely useful for criminal defense, contracts etc.

I really don't understand why any horse would agree to makeup in the first place. In my view a stake is: I give you money to play with, and we split any profits at an agreed upon rate. If the stake is lost, that's just a part of the risk. Adding makeup turns it into some weird quasi loan. In this case, the backer was 17k in the black yet the horse was still 40k in makeup. That just doesn't compute to me. Arrangements like this seem so tilted in the backer's favor. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

the cost of your laptop can't fix the fact that you don't know how to use it properly.

Lee was seen drinking (moderately) at one FT, but the other instance cited in the case was seeing him drinking (heavily) the night before the start of a tournament (which plenty of pros do from time to time).

Thanks very much to JamesD816, feedmykids2, epcfast and many others for your kind words ... To those who have commented about flaws in the contract, I appreciate and agree with much of what you say. The contract with Lee was drawn up almost six years ago. Since then, and starting before I instituted the lawsuit v Lee, the contract I use has been revised several times, incorporating statements that prevent a similar situation from arising.

With regard to the readability of the document--I couldn't read it on my laptop either, but then I clicked on the "download" button that appeared at the upper right of the document. That accessed a version of the PDF that I could read.

Since no one wants to play my hypothetical quiz game, I will just say this:

Lynne, had you labeled that damages provision "liquidated damages" or anything else you wanted, I'm quite confident a trier of fact would not enforce it. Had the jury found material breaches and awarded you $40,000 in damages, you would be defending an appeal right now.

Contract law lesson for NVG:

Most contracts do not state what the damages shall be in the event of a breach. In a contract with no damages provision, in the event of a material breach, the jury has to calculate the amount that fairly compensates the Plaintiff. Contractual damages are "make whole," or compensatory.

If a contract dictates the amount of damages that are recoverable in the event of a breach, that amount isn't automatically considered valid. The amount dictated in the contract must meet certain criteria. In sum, the amount stipulated by the contract must relate causally to the injury. It must be a good estimate of compensatory harm rather than a penalty. In making this analysis the courts examine the actual negotiation of the term, i.e., did the parties talk about whether these damages would be a fair form of compensation. The courts also give deference to sophisticated commercial entities and to parties who use lawyers in drafting agreements.

The damages clause in the contract at issue here fails spectacularly to meet the criteria needed for valid liquidated damages. It is a penalty to the player, or an inducement to perform, NOT compensatory. I felt very strongly about this issue; this was the one issue I was willing to pursue an appeal on.

It is difficult to overstate what a death trap this contract (as written, thankfully not as ultimately enforced) was for Lee. It foisted upon him four administrative obligations and two vague obligations regarding the quality of his play. It then goes on to state that if he "breaches the contract in any way" that he will owe his entire makeup figure, without reference to a specific amount, to the backer. Incredibly, the original version of the contract actually called for the return of makeup PLUS an additional percentage if Lee walked/breached. Lee negotiated that term out.

I am not accusing Lynne of drafting this brutal contract with the intention of suing or of gaining an unfair advantage. She had a background in business and was unfamiliar with staking when the parties entered into this agreement. It seems she was accustomed to entering into business deals with the best of it and treated this contract as she would any other. She is permitted to do that. The court system is also permitted to dump her lawsuit, which is what ultimately happened.