Eric Lamaze has lost the second of two seven-figure lawsuits related to his horse sales practices after a judge ruled Dec. 30 in favor of Nikka VD Bisschop\u2019s former co-owner, Lorna \u201cMuffie\u201d Guthrie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The recent ruling from Florida Circuit Court Judge Maxine Cheesman struck Lamaze\u2019s pleadings and entered a final judgement of just over $1.6 million, plus attorney costs and fees, in favor of Guthrie, a family friend and former investor in Lamaze\u2019s horses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The two-year legal battle began in January 2023<\/a> when Guthrie and her now-deceased husband Jeffrey Brandmaier sued the Canadian Olympian for fraud, breach of contract, and breaking Florida law, claiming he owed them more than $1.4 million related to the misrepresented purchase of \u201cNikka\u201d and another horse, and the subsequent sale of Nikka\u2014who would go on to represent Canada in the Olympics and world championships\u2014to his former clients Mark and Tara Rein. <\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is sad that the legacy of Eric Lamaze will be his deceitful and disloyal dealing with the many friends and families who for decades supported him and his career,” Guthrie said of the verdict and the events leading up to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (The Reins, who later filed a cross-claim related to Guthrie\u2019s suit, won that suit Sept. 5 when the Florida court ruled in their favor to the tune of $5.5 million<\/a>\u2014a decision Lamaze has appealed.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Cheesman originally ruled in favor of Guthrie and Brandmaier in November 2023<\/a>, that decision was overturned by an appeals court<\/a> and the case returned to Cheesman\u2019s court in May 2025. The appellate court found that the lower court \u201cabused its discretion\u201d and denied Lamaze due process when, during a September 2023 hearing, Cheesman heard testimony and ruled against him after<\/em> granting his then-attorney\u2019s request to withdraw from representing him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe court concludes that the Lamaze defendants\u2019 conduct constitutes a fraud that permeates the entirety of these proceedings. Their pleadings cannot be trusted, their testimony has been shown to be false, and their submissions were deliberately fabricated.”<\/p>Circuit Judge Maxine Cheesman <\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n The December 2025 ruling came after Lamaze apparently missed multiple hearings and case management conferences scheduled in the case since it was returned to circuit court, including a final hearing set for Nov. 13 in which the judge was to consider Guthrie\u2019s attorneys\u2019 motion to have Lamaze\u2019s pleadings struck and a final judgement entered in her favor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Lamaze Defendants have failed to attend multiple duly noticed hearings in this case, including the [Nov. 13] hearing on the plaintiff\u2019s motion to strike,\u201d Cheesman wrote in her final judgement. \u201cDespite clear instructions from the court requiring all parties\u2019 attendance, and despite direct communications between the court and [Lamaze\u2019s most recent representative in the case, publicist Pascal Renauldon] on the same day of the hearing, where it became evident that Mr. Lamaze made a conscious and deliberate decision to disregard the court and go horseback riding instead, Mr. Renauldon advised the court that Mr. Lamaze would not appear at the hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge also noted that, while Lamaze can represent himself in such hearings, law requires that the \u201ccorporate defendants\u201d\u2014his companies Torrey Pines Stables Florida, Torrey Pines Stables, Inc., and Little Creek Investments, Inc.\u2014must have legal representation, and that they had violated multiple court orders by failing to find counsel since Lamaze first was told to do so in December 2024, when his most recent attorney withdrew from representing the rider and his businesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe court finds that the corporate Lamaze defendants have acted in deliberate and contumacious disregard of this court\u2019s authority by failing to comply with both the January 2025 order and the August 2025 order, which cumulatively provided \u2026 over ten (10) months to obtain counsel,\u201d Cheesman wrote in striking all the corporate pleadings in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRather than retaining licensed counsel as required, the court finds that the Lamaze defendants improperly relied on a nonlawyer, Mr. Renauldon, to act on their behalf in this litigation,\u201d the document continues, noting that Renauldon\u2019s participation in the case, which included filing various motions for Lamaze, \u201cexceed clerical assistance and constitute the unauthorized practice of law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n For his part, Renauldon, founder of the French public relations firm R&B Presse, had argued both to the court and to the public, via press releases, that Lamaze was caught in a \u201cprocedural trap,\u201d saying that because the court froze his assets in 2023, he has been \u201cstripped of the resources needed to fund a fair defense.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Renauldon said this week he has never acted as an attorney, only as an administrative assistant to help Lamaze. Lamaze filed an appeal to the December decision on Jan. 12, he added, noting that the December ruling was so similar to the 2023 one overturned by the appeals court that it, too, should be overturned. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously, in response to the September ruling in favor of the Rein family, he had written that plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys \u201cexploited the fact that while an individual may appear pro se, a corporate entity must be represented by an attorney\u2014an impossibility as long as Lamaze\u2019s assets remained frozen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lamaze also argued in court, as recently as Dec. 24, that he should not be required to participate in the circuit court case until his appeal to the Reins counterclaim\u2014filed Sept. 30 in Florida\u2019s 4th<\/sup> District Court of Appeal\u2014has been ruled upon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCompelling discovery, depositions, or execution-related proceedings at this stage risks irreparable prejudice by effectively mooting the appeal before the appellate court has ruled,\u201d he wrote Dec. 24, objecting to an effort by Guthrie\u2019s lawyers to force him to participate in the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n