375+ # 0384

All you need to do is insert the word "stolen" before #0384AM, and add the word "title to the Vehicle and" before the word possession. Then you have it.

This is not a contest of who has more parts. It is a contest of ownership of a stolen car, that was partly disassembled when stolen, such that it was a "stolen portion" and a "remaining portion" that stayed in Ohio.

If you leave that out, you kinda don't get it. See the prior post about the distinction between ownership and authenticity.

Good luck.

 

Thanks again for "bringing the story" Ocean Joe.....great pics too!

I'm off to run a few more weld beads around my VIN plates......

 

Fort Pierce, Florida, February 27, 1955, at the SCCA Nationals, car #5, 0384AM, from an old magazine.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It sure is fun playing attorney!

So -- the "good" that is returned -- what is that? Is it unambiguous title? Is it a couple pieces of metal? Is it the "whole" thing that currently has a title in some jurisdictions?

As I understand it, there are two vehicles each claiming to be 0384, each having bits of 0384, and each having legal title in the locale where the disputed items currently reside.

If I took the bits in the USA, with the USA title, and restored them, would that thing have rights to participate in events? Would the european thing be confiscated if it came to the USA? Would the USA thing be confiscated if it came to Europe? In reality, nobody would be foolish enough to try these without resolving this situation in both jurisdictions.

The remedies seem to be either to ignore the situation and don't attempt to move the vehicle(s?) or to buy out the other party's interest / claim. It seems as though the situation is disclosed and resolved, if not satisfactorily.

Maybe Roman Polanski should settle this by buying both.

 

Wow, a visit back to this thread is like visiting the gulf of mexico, what a mop up ahead! So, I saw the car in the 1990's in Europe and it had the number 0394AM on it. I noted it, it was clearly marked 0394AM. I was told that this was a copy of a 375AM, not the original. It was in a shop, and when I questioned the car I was shuffled away from it quickly. I did look at the car and took a few photos, I think I have them still. What I noticed is that the car was NOT a copy, and the chassis was indeed original, and there was most of the car there, the original front clip, axles, entire chassis, but no motor ( maybe in another shop). It was NOT at Ferrari SpA. Having known the original was STOLEN (I had the F-newletter and my Monza ( in the same condition actually) at the time, so no novice here ) . Later, at a F-challenge in early 2000 I saw the car again, and it had the number 0384AM on it..and I remember saying WTF. I knew it was the same car. I looked at the foot pedals and they were rusty and original, same as when I saw them in the 90's. So, I think there was never 2 cars - just one car and it was concealed under a counterfeit number from 1989 to 2003. When it was stolen in 1986, everyone knew it was the Kimberly 0384AM and Ferrari SpA had explicted records proving that , and it was titled 0384AM. Those records are uncontested, and always have been available and unquestionable. Ferrari SpA was noticed the car was stolen before Swaters bought it - wasn't he well connected to the info source on this mystery car? I do have a few books where the car is referances as 0394, but why I don't know. What is amazing is that Kleve sent a U.S. Congressman to try to recover the car once he located it in Belguim, Interpool and the U.S. consulate went to Swaters and they found the car had 0394AM on it and couldn't do anything to seize it. What interpool was told by Swaters during that affair no one knows. Further, the car was often refered to as a Hulk , burned out, and junk. Do you think that would be forecast into playing down the value of what was stolen from Kleeve? The car was never in a major fire, we all know that. It was disassembled, and outside, but still worth more than $50.000 paid for it in the late 80's.

 

cdu,

No, there is the majority of the car which was stolen from Ohio, which wound up with Mr. Swaters.
Mr. Swaters is suing Mr. Kleve's heirs for the remaining parts in Ohio which weren't stolen with the car.

SEE my post #12 in this thread (Page 1).

There has only ever been one chassis. There is only one surviving car. That has never been in dispute.
At issue is whether Mr. Swaters properly obtained the vehicle after it was stolen.

As a side note, which many have picked up on, is the question of WHY Mr. Swaters claimed the car was 0394 for a time before reverting to its true identity, 0384.

Best,
Dave

 

+1

 

+1

 

+1

 

I have no (zip, zero, nada) interest in the outcome of all of this. At the moment, I'm only interested in the legal aspects of the case. We've all likely heard stories that if the car isn't intercepted before it gets put on a container ship to God know's where, it's probably gone for good. But, in the interests of what's "right", I do hope the car ends up back KK's family. It was rightfully his, and it was apparently stolen from him. A sad story.

CW

 

You hit the nail on the head.

I will post an actual court case document for all to see to show the impact on Karl Kleve's recovery efforts.

 

This is a copy of a letter from Karl Kleve's Congressman who tried to assist Karl to recover his car.

If anyone was wondering about the impact of changing the number, then consider the attached, and the motivations of why would someone change the number.

Again, Ferrari never made an 0394AM, as is easily determined by checking the six build sheets for 375 Pluses.

Plus, Swaters claims that the Belgian authorities seized the car as 0384AM and then released it as 0384AM, and "allowed the sale to proceed" to him as 0384AM.

Yet despite all of the above, Swaters, a long established Ferrari dealer, calls it 0394AM.



You do the math.


*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is a very interesting thread and it will be watched to see the outcome.

(Sorry I don't know how to copy a past thread but these were already made earlier)
"A settlement was finally reached and Mr. Kleve surrendered his claims against the car." (Post#2)
"From the news article posted, it indicated that Swatters paid $625k in 1999 for clear title (and presumably the remaining parts)." (Post#33)

But in reviewing all the threads it looks like the crux of the issue is the fact that Mr. Swaters seems to have paid someone $625K in 1999 to settle this in the US and get clear title and maybe the remaining parts. Yet Mr. Kleve and heirs state they were not paid and did not settle anything.
I would think the prudent thing would be to follow the money and see if it WAS paid and if it was WHO cashed/deposited the check. If it was Kleve, his heirs, or associated party, then I would take that to mean a settlement was indeed reached and Swaters should get clear title.

It is very interesting to see how different countries view these laws and what precedents they use to decide certain cases. But it seems that Swaters has clear title in Europe but not in the US. I would think that he would want clear title everywhere based on the value of this machine now it has been restored.

However, I think we all agree that it is not fair for Kleve's heir to be compensated based on the value of the restored car when what was taken was basically a chassis and front half of the body work.
I believe someone else purchased a lost racing chassis under a Delvin body for $25K-40K so maybe that is all this chassis is worth. (OK maybe not quite as simple but we might agree that the sum would be substantially less than $2.5M for a completed car).

This will be watched to see the final outcome.

 

Not quite. The value of this car lies in what is original and what is provenance. Without that, which belongs to the Kleve heirs, Swaters at best has replica components, which are like maybe $100-200k.

This is an important distinction. The value is not in the restoration - it is in what is original and authentic for this historic car.


Stay tuned.


*

 

(Man I need to figure out how you guys copy those previous quotes)

The main question I have is if anyone has confirmed with Swaters that he cut a check for $625K in 1999. If so, was it cashed/deposited? If yes, by whom.
If we had the answers to those 3 questions, it think it would help determine if a settlement was reached in 1999.
It was previously said that later in life that Mr. Kleve was not in the best mental health. Could he have agreed to a settlement, and then later regretted his decision and changed his mind?

Again, this will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Charlie

 

I will post more court docs tomorrow.

Swaters claims that his partner cut a deal with Kleve's agent in September of 1999. Swater's partner did not pay Kleve the $625k. Swaters' partner paid $225,000 direct to Kleve's agent, and then cut a second check for $400,000 made out to both Kleve and agent. Don't you find that odd? Why two checks? Do you see what is really going on there?

Remember, this deal was done by the same guys that renumbered the car to 0394AM - the same guys.

Does it strike you as odd to cut a check direct to the agent and not to the principal? Think about it.


The very "settlement agreement" Swaters has brought to the Ohio court says that if they "fail to remit the complete and full payment as stipulated herein to Daniels for the benefit of Kleve and Daniels, Kleve and Daniels withdraw any agreements or representations, and shall reserve all rights to the subject automobile, as well as, any and all rights to pursue any necessary legal remedies and action." That is an actual quote from Swaters alleged agreement.


So, even if you assume it was an agreement, Swaters did not perform his obligation, thus Kleve was not bound and no transfer or sale occurred.


Think about it.



*

 

(Hey look Maw! I did figure out this quote thingy)

So, it sounds like what we are actually talking about is the $225K that went directly to the agent and not to Kleve. Because of that, Kleve (and now his heirs) feel the contract was not completed and therefore void. However, where does this leave the $400K. Did Kleve acknowledge receiving it? (or do we think the agent absconded with it also?)

So if Kleve did receive the $400K and his heirs were paid the remaining $225K, would that complete the contract started in 1999. Otherwise would Kleve heirs have to forfeit the $400K back to Swaters to truly void the contract and start negotiations all over again. It seems that Kleve was compensated 2/3rds with the $400K and simply needs his remaining 1/3 to be whole (might have to figure in some inflation/interest in there somewhere).

Thanks

Charlie

Thanks for sharing

Charlie

 

Sorry if I implied the agent for Swatters did something illegal. "Absconded" was not the right word. Maybe I should have asked if the $400K made it all the way to Kleve.
Sorry
Charlie

 

According to Swaters, the $400,000 check was cashed by agent, and strangely Swaters has copy of back of that check.


About a year after that "event" Karl Kleve, now 87 years old, still working continuously with FBI to recover, can't find his Ohio title, and applies and gets a duplicate. That date is April 20, 2001 and the sworn statement that Karl makes at the time is that he did not sell or dispose of the car. So, I think it is clear no deal was completed. Again, Karl is still working with FBI up until his death.

Net effect: no deal was made, and maybe Karl is liable to reimburse for rogue agent's acts. Payment direct to agent, at odds with contract terms, smells fishy to me.

The Ohio court will certainly consider this, and consider the source, the same crew that changed the number to 0394AM.

 

So you are saying the $400K never made it to Kleve?

You stated the the payment was made to "Kleve and Kleve's agent" Do we know the relationship between Kleve and his agent? maybe it is unimportant.

If I purchase a piece of real estate and I give a check to the sellers "agent" I would assume the deal is done. If the seller later says he did not get my money, I would say "that is between you and your agent".

I know we are talking about a partial payment here, but the principle is the same. Is it Swaters responsibility to vet(sp) Kleve's agent?
Not sure if that applies in this case. But the water continues to get muddier.

Man, this is turning out to be like some international crime novel!

 

No money got to Kleve, but that issue is a side issue.

Swaters claims that Lancksweert, his partner, bought and paid for 0384AM by agreement of Sept 1999.

Swaters partner SUSPICIOUSLY fails to pay according to that contract. Instead of paying the $625,000 for benefit of "Karl Kleve and Mark Daniels" as required, he pays $225,000 direct to Daniels (the agent).

Thus, a failure to perform on the part of Swaters' partner, and certainly no binding contract with Kleve. Now, remember, Kleve estate docs show page 1 of that agreement was for $2,500,000, while Swaters' page 1 shows $625,000, while his partner suspiciously pays the agent direct with a check in the agent's name. Hmmmm, I wonder why?? Again, this all courtesy of the renumbering crew. A year or so later Karl Kleve can't find his 0384AM title, and gets a duplicate after affirming under oath and penalty of perjury that he did not sell or dispose of 0384AM.

What is wrong with this picture?

(Below is part of an actual Court document, Swaters Feb 12, 2010 Complaint, Exhibit J, page 2, para5.)

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Unless you spell it out for us (we're just curious observers here!), the rhetorical questions don't make the picture real clear.

An early post in this thread indicated that Kleve sold a portion of his interest in the car to what some indicated was an opportunistic character who sought the car in Europe (Daniels?). If this man held a partial interest and represented Kleve, the problem with the $625,000 making it home would be on Kleve's end of the deal, would it not? The $400/225k split would appear to be a technicality (presumably based upon an agreement between Daniels and Kleve), but would that be grounds to void the deal despite payment being made?

Also, the $2,500,000 figure does not sound reasonable. I don't claim to be an expert, but I recall 1999 valuations pretty well. I don't think the fully restored car (with new body, engine, gearbox, wheels etc.) was worth $2.5 million then. And that equipment was a lot more than $100,000.

It's a terrible injustice that Kleve had his property stolen. That's clear. But if his administration of his affairs was so poor (as would seem to be obvious by the junkyards, loss of his property to the city, the missing $400,000, etc.), I'm not sure the sworn statement that he didn't sell the car would hold up. Just my two pence!

 

Forgive me for asking what may be an ignorant question, but how does a car like this suddenly become another car "0394" that never existed, then return as "0384" with a restamped engine, etc, without some sort of legal consequence for the owner? Its not like it was a secret - several parties seem to have known about this, but no one pressed the issue?

Altering vins is obviously illegal - did no one care back then? did the authorities not do their homework? Seems odd that it was examined and released when found to have a different vin, yet that would be the first thing that anyone would have changed


Or, as someone else alluded to, if Kleve had been more attentive to his affairs and pursued the case in a different manner, would this never have gotten as far as it did?

 

I don't follow this part. Doesn't losing his title make his case very hard? Is it that easy to get a duplicate, even without showing the actual car as proof? Seems very odd to me because it could mean that someone may sell his car, then claim he lost his title, receive a duplicate and proceed to claim his car to be stolen/never sold? Or did he get a duplicate based on the collection of parts he still owned? Confused...

 

I'm not picking sides but at what point do you call a car with original chassis and engine a replica? Or are you referring to the lack of original body?

on the other hand...

isn't it odd that Swaters, who is pretty much 'safe at home' with the car in Europe, brought the fight to the US and the jurisdiction from which the car was originally stolen. Isn't he opening a can of worms by disputing ownership in a US court, who could (?) rule that everything from the theft forward is null?


***disclaimer*** My law degree came from a bubblegum machine. I was actually hoping for a PhD in nuclear physics, but ran out of quarters