A divided Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against trainer Kenny McPeek’s claim for a commission on the sale of Daddy’s little darling after his development of the multiple stakes winner resulted in a price of $3.5 million at auction.

Highlights of the mare’s career on dirt and turf included wins in the 2017 American Oaks (G1T), the 2016 Pocahontas Stakes (G2), the 2018 Modesty Handicap (G3T) and the 2017 Dueling Grounds Oaks, as well as second places in the 2017 Kentucky Oaks (G1), the 2017 Ashland Stakes (G1), the 2017 Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Cup Stakes (G1T) and the 2016 Alcibiades Stakes (G1). She earned more than $1.3 million.

Shortly after the death of owner Nancy Polk, her heirs decided to sell Daddy’s Lil Darling at Fasig-Tipton’s 2018 November Sale, where the highest bid went to MV Magnier. McPeek issued Polk’s estate a bill for $175,000, 5% of the sale price.

The court wrote that “McPeek … first asserted an additional term of his oral contract with Polk by sending a letter to her heirs” after hearing that the filly would be sold. However, according to the court, McPeek stated in the letter “that he and Polk had discussed several times a 5% commission for themselves if Darling were ever sold, but Polk had steadfastly refused to sell, preferring instead to keep Darling as her own broodmare.” McPeek’s commission claim was based on his development of the filly throughout her career.

The 29-page opinion by Judge Robert B. Conley states that after McPeek’s claim was dismissed by Polk’s heirs, he then filed suit alleging breach of an express contract, breach of an implied contract and a claim for “quantum meruit,” a legal term that describes the value of services rendered.

The Fayette District Court in Lexington ruled in favor of Polk’s heirs, citing a legal provision that prohibits the payment of commissions in connection with the sale of a horse without a written agreement.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, writing that McPeek’s claim was not barred by the provision, which is part of a complex statute with multiple sections. The appeals court wrote that the provision “applies only to agreements to sell, buy, or transfer horses between a buyer and a seller or their agents. The statute requires receipts and bills of sale, which would not be available for the agreement between (McPeek) and (the Polk heirs). The agreement at issue in this case was an agreement to train horses. It was an agreement for services, not an agreement to sell a horse.”

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling in essence that the Act, under its own terms, “applies to any contract or agreement ‘for the payment of a commission, fee, gratuity or other form of remuneration in connection with the sale, purchase or transfer of a horse…'” The ruling also dismissed McPeek’s claims based on implied contract and quantum meruit, ruling that the Act at issue preempts such claims.

The Kentucky Supreme Court is comprised of seven justices. Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter has 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 was “totally without regard” to the overall context of the law in question and thus failed to recognize the legislative intent of the law.