Florida Appeals Court Reinstates Eric Lamaze’s Defense in Show Horse Investment Dispute Amid Due Process Concerns

April 30, 2025 – West Palm Beach, FL — In a major development in a high-profile equestrian investment lawsuit, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida has reversed a default judgment entered against decorated Canadian equestrian Eric Lamaze and his affiliated companies. The appellate court ruled that the lower court violated the defendants' constitutional rights by striking their legal pleadings and proceeding to a final judgment without giving them a fair opportunity to secure new legal counsel.

A Legal Battle Rooted in the Elite Equestrian World

The legal proceedings stem from a soured investment partnership between Lamaze — a former Olympic gold medalist and internationally renowned show jumper — and a group of investors: Lorna M. Guthrie, Jeffrey Brandmaier, and Knightwood Stables, LLC. At the heart of the dispute is the ownership and management of two high-value show horses, purchased for competitive and financial gain.

According to the plaintiffs, they had invested substantial funds with Lamaze and his companies — Torrey Pines Stable Florida Corp., Torrey Pines Stables Inc. (an Ontario corporation), and Little Creek Investments Inc. — in return for partial ownership of the horses. The lawsuit alleged that Lamaze misrepresented the purchase prices, effectively defrauding the investors by pocketing the difference. One horse was allegedly sold without investor approval. The plaintiffs moved to hold Lamaze personally liable by piercing the corporate veil.

Freezing of Assets and Claims of Medical Emergency

Immediately after filing suit, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte prejudgment writ of attachment and garnishment, freezing Lamaze’s assets. They argued he was dissipating funds and removing assets from Florida to thwart collection of any potential judgment.

Lamaze, citing urgent medical needs due to brain cancer, filed an emergency motion to dissolve the writs, stating he needed access to his frozen bank account to travel to Belgium for treatment. He presented medical documentation to support the request, which was later called into question.

At a February 2023 hearing, the trial court ultimately dissolved the writs, finding the plaintiffs had not sufficiently justified the asset freeze. However, the court stayed that dissolution pending a rehearing motion from the plaintiffs. This procedural delay left Lamaze’s assets frozen for months.

Allegations of Fraud and Judicial Sanctions

In a dramatic escalation, the plaintiffs returned to court in September 2023 with a motion to strike all of the defendants' pleadings, alleging fraud on the court. Central to their claim was a letter purportedly written by a Belgian doctor indicating Lamaze was undergoing brain surgery and could only participate in court proceedings in writing.

Evidence submitted by the plaintiffs included findings from a Canadian court that had recently concluded Lamaze submitted forged medical documents in that jurisdiction — including the same doctor’s note used in the Florida case. A private investigator’s affidavit and text messages further suggested the note had been falsified. A Canadian news article also quoted Lamaze as stating the letter was intended only to influence the American proceedings and unfreeze his accounts.

Despite these serious allegations, Lamaze’s attorney requested permission to withdraw from the case, citing ethical conflicts if the documents were indeed falsified. At the September 22 hearing, the court granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw and, within the same session, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the pleadings and entered a default judgment in their favour.

Lamaze was left to represent himself, as his companies — which legally cannot appear in court without an attorney — became unrepresented due to the withdrawal. Though Lamaze admitted the doctor’s note was inaccurate, he testified that he had undergone throat surgeries for cancer and had not intended to mislead the court to delay the proceedings, but rather to expedite the unfreezing of funds. He apologized for submitting the incorrect note.

Appellate Court Cites Denial of Due Process

In its ruling, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a continuance after Lamaze’s attorney withdrew. The justices emphasized that due process — the right to be heard with fair representation — is fundamental and was denied when the trial court proceeded with the sanctions hearing immediately after granting the withdrawal motion.

The court held that the corporate defendants, which by law require legal representation, were particularly harmed by the ruling, as they were left unable to defend themselves at all. The appeals court also noted that Lamaze, as an individual, was severely disadvantaged in representing himself at the hearing, where evidentiary objections were not made and where the judge questioned Lamaze directly, sometimes rejecting his responses as irrelevant or hearsay.

Citing multiple precedents, the appellate panel reiterated that courts should not proceed with adversarial hearings immediately after granting counsel’s withdrawal unless there is an urgent need to act — which was not present in this case.

Concurring Opinion Highlights Overreach in Sanctions

Chief Judge Klingensmith, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the majority’s decision to reverse the default judgment but added that the trial court’s decision to strike the pleadings as a sanction for fraud also went too far. He acknowledged that while Lamaze’s conduct was inappropriate, the alleged fraud related to scheduling a hearing and did not directly influence the factual issues of the underlying case — namely, the alleged misrepresentation in the horse investments.

“The conduct at issue was neither one that... would have interfered with the trier of fact’s ability to impartially adjudicate the issues between the parties, nor would it have unfairly hampered appellees’ presentation of their case,” KlingenSmith wrote, suggesting that lesser sanctions should have been considered.

What’s Next?

With the reversal, Lamaze and his companies will have their pleadings reinstated and can continue defending themselves in court. The plaintiffs are not barred from seeking sanctions again, but any future motions must now proceed with full adherence to due process protections.

The ruling is a notable example of Florida’s appellate courts carefully balancing the need to sanction misconduct against the imperative to preserve fair and impartial judicial proceedings. It also adds a dramatic chapter to an already complex legal saga at the intersection of high finance and international equestrian sport.

Read the full decision of the Florida Court of Appeal HERE.

Photo: Eric Lamaze competing with Hickstead at the Spruce Meadows Masters 2010. Credit: Robin Duncan Photography