A judge determined that a wealthy horse trainer’s husband, a bankrupt meat magnate, was the one who entered into the contract with the builder and not the woman, saving her from having to pay an outstanding £273,000 bill for the renovation of her £3.5 million property.
When builder Bobby Kher sued Niki Tottman over a costly $500,000 program of renovations he put out at her huge property in a beautiful Hertfordshire village from 2015 to 2017, Niki Tottman prevailed in court.
The “whole financial part of my life” was allegedly taken care of by her husband Nigel Tottman, who filed for bankruptcy in 2019 when his family business failed, meaning that his earlier obligations are forgiven.
The judge decided that she was not responsible for the £273,000 shortfall.
She also charged builder Mr. Kher with unfinished and subpar work, alleging that her equestrian daughter’s £30,000 bedroom, where she competed for Team GB in dressage, had a damaged toilet in the ensuite.
The equestrian and her former meat tycoon husband Nigel, according to Mr. Kher, agreed to pay a total of £523,271 to renovate the house and adjacent equestrian facilities at their home in Cheverells Green, Markyate close to St. Albans.
However, they left him with a £273,000 unpaid bill.
Hermione and her father created a design for Hermione’s bedroom, and that cost £30,000 alone.
In spite of dismissing assertions that the work was subpar, Recorder Richard Shepherd has now decided that Mrs. Tottman is not required to pay the contractor anything and has assessed him a legal fees bill of £58,000.
The 61-year-old Mr. Tottman was the owner of Nigel Fredericks Ltd., a multimillion-pound speciality meat company that had been in his family for more than a century, until its collapse in 2019 and the loss of some 250 employees, according to testimony in court.
Judge Shepherd stated that the former public school student is now discharged bankrupt.
Niki, his 61-year-old wife, is a skilled dressage horse trainer who built a successful equestrian facility called Oliver’s next to her home.
Along with her daughter Hermione, who has competed for Great Britain on the FEI International Pony Circuit, she manages the company.
The couple got into a complicated legal battle with their builder, Mr. Kher, after he claimed they had a shortfall of £273,271 after spending $523,271 to renovate their house and the adjacent dressage stables.
Mr. Kher alleged that he agreed to renovate the home, Hermione’s bedroom, and the nearby equestrian facilities but that only £250,000 was ever paid.
Despite Mrs. Tottman and her husband’s claims to the contrary, he and his company, Turnkey Contract, went to court in an effort to obtain the $273,271 cash balance that was still owed to them.
Although his lawyer, Mukhtiar Otwal, explained that he was not seeking a formal court judgment against Mr. Tottman because his status as a discharged bankrupt with all of his debts erased precluded him from doing so, he sued both Mr. and Mrs. Tottman.
Mrs. Tottman, a mother of six, however, insisted that everything was agreed upon and paid for by her businessman husband, who she claimed held the family purse strings.
She claimed that she did not enter into any legally binding contracts with Mr. Kher or his company.
Maurice Rifat, the couple’s attorney, argued in court that Mrs. Tottman “was not the contracting party” and urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit against her.
“The court is invited to dismiss the claim against Mrs. Tottman in circumstances where she was not the contracting party, all works completed had been paid for, there are still open issues and snagging, and the claimant cannot properly prove that any additional sums are due for alleged extra works,” he urged.
Throughout their 37-year marriage, Mrs. Tottman testified to the court that she had never taken responsibility for handling the household’s financial obligations, always leaving everything to her husband.
I am the mother of six children, therefore I have mostly been a housewife,’ she proclaimed, adding, “I leave the entire financial side of my life to my husband.”
That is what I have been doing, raising the kids and taking care of the house.
She claimed that her job had changed because she established a successful equestrian facility next to the couple’s £3.5 million property, which she and her daughter now oversee.
The equestrian center was more of a “hobby” in the beginning, according to Mrs. Tottman, but her experience and understanding with horses have transformed it into a highly successful and active company.
Despite managing the stable yard’s daily operations, Mrs. Tottman noted that she still left decision-making up to her husband, telling the court: “I couldn’t make any decisions without his approval.”
Additionally, after Mr. Kher and his business completed work at her equestrian center, she would inspect the finished product but leave the billing to Mr. Tottman.
She said, “Nigel would always pay for everything and approve the works.”
I did contribute, she said, but solely with regard to the decor’s colours, furnishings, and finishing touches.
When asked about the £30,000 bedroom expense, Mrs. Tottman said she had nothing to do with it and that her daughter and husband had designed the space primarily on their own.
She also complained that there are still issues with the renovated ensuite bedroom, saying “the shower doesn’t turn on and the toilet doesn’t work.”
The claim Mr. Kher made against Mrs. Tottman, according to his attorney, was “based on oral agreements he entered into with Nigel and Nicola for building and maintenance services to Olivers, which he undertook throughout 2015 to 2017.”
Recorder Shepherd passed judgment, stating that Mrs. Tottman had not shown any credible information regarding persistent issues and flaws, and that her main objection had been directed at the electrics.
I believe she has failed to demonstrate that the works are flawed in the asserted manner,’ he said.
He supported Mrs. Tottman’s argument, however, that she had no part in deciding the terms of the contract or paying Mr. Kher for the work he had completed, stating that “she had no employment at the time and spent much of her time either in the saddle or caring after her children at home.”
The judge dropped the case against Mrs. Tottman because she “deferred to her husband” in financial matters and received a monthly allowance of £1,000 from him, which put her in no position to give a builder substantial sums of money.
He declared, “In my opinion, the contract with regard to the original works was between Mr. Kher and Mr. Tottman solely.”
I acknowledge that she took part in some of the conversations, but that doesn’t mean she was a signatory to the agreement.
Only minor issues, like selecting color schemes, finishes, or flooring, required her assistance.
The judge concluded that Mr. Kher had only received $250,000 of the $523,271 that Mr. Tottman owed him in compensation for his services, adding that “the only payment made was the single payment of $250,000, such that the remainder is due and payable.”
However, the judge ruled that due to Mr. Kher’s status as a discharged bankrupt, no judgment had been requested against him, so he could not order Mr. Tottman to pay the remaining amount.
He further mandated that Mr. Kher pay Mrs. Tottman’s legal expenses in the amount of £58,000 after dismissing his lawsuit against her.