Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Association Membership Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals panel hears dispute over membership, application form changes and retirement‑plan eligibility at Harness Horsemen's Association
Summary
Owners and former directors of the Harness Horsemen’s Association of New England argued that the association breached bylaws by requiring an altered application; the association said applicants changed the terms and the organization retained discretion to determine membership and plan eligibility.
Attorneys for appellants William Krikorian and William Abzanor told the Appeals Court the Harness Horsemen’s Association of New England (HHANE) improperly refused to treat their 2018 submissions as renewals and that HHANE’s handling of membership renewals damaged plaintiffs’ ability to receive benefits under a newly created retirement savings plan (RSP).
Scott Lathrop, arguing for the appellants, said his clients were long‑standing members and followed an April 26, 2018 notice instructing members to renew by May 31. He said plaintiffs submitted the annual dues and an application that redacted a newly added line granting HHANE exclusivity to negotiate with the Plainville track; plaintiffs struck that language because, they testified, it had not been approved by the board. Lathrop argued the bylaws required only submission of the application and dues to remain an active member and that denying their renewal was a breach and caused forfeiture of the inaugural look‑back benefit in the RSP.
Mike Leedberg, for HHANE, told the panel that voluntary associations retain discretion to determine membership; he said striking agreement language constituted a counteroffer and that the association had authority to require an unaltered form. Leedberg described the RSP as administratively complex, with a points‑and‑eligibility calculation administered through racing development funding and accounting procedures, and said appellants did not present necessary evidence—such as racing history or enrollment for the inaugural year—to support a damages calculation.
The judges questioned whether an ongoing contractual relationship existed between HHANE and the appellants in 2018, whether the printed renewal notice could be read as preserving membership, and whether the plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing on damages should have required an accounting expert. The court also discussed procedural record completeness, including whether certain trial court docket entries and exhibits were in the appellate appendix.
No ruling was announced. The appeal raises questions about membership governance in private associations, the scope of bylaws, and remedies when applicants alter required forms.
