375+ # 0384

Kleve only has his version of pp1,2. But that is irrelevant as Kleve is willing to use Swaters' version and then says you never paid per your version of the settlement. See paragraph 5 of Swaters version for what happens when only partial payment is made.

In 2005, when a Georgia attorney, claiming to represent an "unnamed client", told the Kleve estate there was a settlement from 1999, and listed docs, the title among that list. Then nothing else happened from GA attoreny. At the time, Kleve estate realized the title was not lost but had been stolen.

It can be incorporated as part of larger agreement, or separate. Mere "reference" to it is not an incorporation, so it is Swaters' burden to have the actual document, and it better be an original. Swaters instead has a Letter of Authority (useless, not what is referred to in settlement, not a POA) and recently, never shown until a couple weeks ago by Swaters, a copy of a Limited Power of Attorney -- but it is NOT an original, looks cut and pasted, and the date is not compatible with the Kleve signature on the settlement.

IMHO, fatal flaws, an obvious after the fact 1999 assemblage while trying NOT to contact or involve Kleve for current signatures.

(Also, when an agent acts beyond his scope, and if one relies on that implied or apparent authority, principal may be liable for that reliance. If applied here, Kleve may have to reimburse Swaters what was paid to that agent if relied upon, but under no scenario is Kleve bound or did a sale or transfer of title occur. These are the type points lawyers learn in first year, and I realize they can be esoteric, or hard to grasp, by the layperson. FYI - I am not a layperson.)




Enough for this Friday afternoon. No need to make the case here LOL.

 

You doth protest too much methinks
Happy Friday nonetheless

 

Oh HO HO HO HO HO!!

You feel fit to dictate what we can discuss on here when you come here with selective excerpts from the court documents. You really do have a cheek.

What exactly are you trying to achieve? Well there will be many opinions on that, but I seriously hope that you are not trying (and don't expect that you are actually achieving that) to influence the court. But if your purpose is to try and influence the opinion of the Ferrari fraternity at large then I suggest that your above plea and surrounding attitude has just done your cause a lot of damage :-(

My opinion only of course, but I suspect I am not alone in my thoughts.

 

I disagree; I think he has done an admirable job of putting forward the family’s case. He is speaking of a guy who left a pile of cars sitting around in his front yard, some of which he himself valued in the millions and has well presented him as someone who has acted rationally in other ways. And if called into question acted if some of us are goofy. The fact is I think most of us here probably feel there is a lot of merit to his case. And a few of us here seem like they could possibly have a future financial stake in the outcome. So I think he has done an excellent job of achieving at least some of what he aims for, which is a purely economic goal (of course).

 

Ocean Joe,

Thank you for continuing to share information with us.

Here is what I have so far:
- car is stolen in '80s
- Swaters gets car
- Kleve discovers Swaters has car and goes after him
- Swaters re-numbers car - manages to keep it.
- Negotiations take place to try to resolve the matter coordinated by Daniels on Kleve's behalf.
- In 1999, all parties including Kleve sign page 3 of a document
- Two checks are cut totaling $625,000 - one check is to Daniels' company, the other is to Daniels and Kleve
- In 1999 Daniels signs over original title to Swaters' group
- In between 1999 and 2005 Kleve goes to Ohio DMV declares his original title lost and gets a duplicate title
- In 2010 A lawsuit is filed to clarify things by Swaters and counterclaims are made by Kleve heirs' group.

By re-numbering the car, Swaters eliminated his credibility. In my opinion, he knew exactly what he had and what he was doing throughout.

Some things do not make sense to me. My question is: If the negotiation was in bad faith on Swaters' part, how was Swaters able to get the original title to the car signed by Kleve's agent and Kleve's notorized signature on a legal document dealing with the sale of the car where Daniels countersigns as authorized agent?

Also, what has become of Daniels? His testimony and bank account history may shed considerable light on things.


Regards,

Art S.

 

Good recap Art, it sound like Kleve never saw his $$ part of the two checks....

The Title transfer is troubling, as if Kleve gave it to be executed why would he seek a replacement?

Why was the motor under another ownership?
Was that what had Kleve on 'hold' as far as not reassembling the car himself??

How long are bank records retained?
These were pretty large sums passing thru these accounts....

 

Yale

You totally misunderstand what I was trying to say. I was commenting on the fact that Ocean Joe suggests that we stick to only what we know based on what he has told us, while he feels at liberty to post court documents at his whim and as they suit him, and suggests that we don't comment otherwise. At least that's the way I read it. Whether he is right or wrong on the side of the argument he takes is a completely different matter.

F

 

The exact date is April 20, 2001, complete with 88 year-old Kleve's affidavit that he had not sold or disposed of his Ferrari 0384AM.

Agree. Swaters is a well-established Ferrari dealer. In essence, it took ten years for him to check the only six build sheets that exist to see that there never was an 0394AM. IMHO a major credibility problem going forward.

$225,000. Daniels, not an owner, nor principal, was paid direct (via his company) by Swaters partner. IMHO, a highly suspect move. Others on this thread say a bribe that flipped him to betray Kleve. The settlement said nothing about breaking up the $625,000 into parts, and said nothing about paying Daniels's company direct. IMHO Daniels inserted himself (his company) into the payola, and Swaters partner went along with it, or Daniels would not release or sign title. IMHO, With Kleve at $2,500,000, Daniels and Lancksweert know there is no deal with Kleve, so a deal is done without Kleve using an assemblage of old documents -- the result we now see. Thus also why they never went back to Kleve while alive for the parts or the VIN plate they say they bought too. IMHO yet another serious credibility problem; a "tell" as someone else said.

Good question. In the lawsuit, motion was made to compel Swaters to bring Daniels and Lancksweert into the lawsuit since Swaters is so dependent on them. That motion is pending.

A court will often seek only enough answers as required to make sound ruling on the claim before the court -- some of these interesting questions may never get answered.

 

"Agree. Swaters is a well-established Ferrari dealer. In essence, it took ten years for him to check the only six build sheets that exist to see that there never was an 0394AM. IMHO a major credibility problem going forward. "

Mr Swaters knew his way around in the Ferrari archive. He would take along his computer and research there. The Ferrari paper history was not held in such high regard back then. Build sheets were casually stuffed in boxes and some sheets were also missing. It was only later when Ferrari came to truly appreciate their commercial value that the 'history' was more carefully accounted for.

In the past one person accumulated copies of more than 400 different build sheets. As an example of the lack of interest; no one wanted to buy them years later for a total figure that was probably less than $50 per car...
CH

 

Ocean Joe or other with knowledge:

Why are the documents locked by the court? Is this a true statement? Which side requested that they be non-public?

Jeff

 

Definitely a true statement:

http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=doc&casenumber=A1001370

Also refer to OJ's earlier post concerning the documents if you have not already:

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=139758664&postcount=56

>8^)
ER

 

See attached a photo . Taken in April 2010 . One of the many parts examined that were the parts not stolen from Ohio , all part of 0384AM.

Reflective of the condition of the car the day it was stolen from Kleeve.

Questions:
1. Does anyone have a photo of 0384AM when it showed up in Atlanta right before shippment to Belgium ?

2. Does anyone have a photo of the 0394AM chassis plate that was fitted to 0384AM right after it's release to Swaters in 1990 ?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Still awaiting Judge's decision on four motions.


There is an article about to come out in next issue of Keith Martin's Sports Car Market magazine. It may be out already for digital subscribers.


The article is in the "Legal Files" section and is written by John Draneas, a knowledgeable attorney and car buff.

 

Any news on the court verdict?
branko

 

Still waiting.

Also, the Sports Car Market magazine article hits newsstands this week.

I will alert this board when and what is decided.

This is an early phase of the court proceedings.

Inspections by experts have not yet been done.

 

In essence, the Ohio Judge Nadel denied all 4 motions.

Defendant Lawson' Motion to Dismiss Swater's complaint for failure to join necessary parties Lancksweert and Daniels was denied, concluding that those parties are not necessary to adjudicate the rights of Swaters and Lawson.

Defendant Lawson' Motion to Dismiss Swater's complaint for statute of limitations on a contract of sale was denied, concluding that the contract being sued upon was more of a settlement contract involving intangible rights, thus subject to Ohio's 15 year statute of limitations.

Plaintiff Swaters' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (gag order) about the case was denied, with no reasons given.

Defendant Ford's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to bring the car to Ohio jurisdiction was denied, with no reasons given.

The case now proceeds towards trial, with a Case Management Conference set for Sept 30, 2010.

 

Interesting.......the trial should bring all kinds of interesting details to light.....

 

Does this mean that the actual documents/filings by both sides can now be posted for all here to read for themselves?

Jeff

 

In my views, of no legal background, Swaters, no matter how honorably some may view the remainder of his reputation:

1) Purchased an historic chassis + (known by him at the time, to be 0384AM), despite his vast knowledge and experience in classic Ferrari owners and dealings, from shadowy purveyors, while almost assuredly in full understanding of, who this chassis legally belonged to and that he was purchasing stolen property without title of legal ownership. (I would think that these would have to prevent him from claiming high ground as the "Bona Fide Purchaser")

2) Fraudulently re-numbered the chassis only serving to further illustrate his knowledge of the illicit activity he was engaging in, prior to the restoration/recreation of the disputed property.

3) When much later, Swaters attempted to secure clear legal title and the remaining parts, he has produced evidence that the monetary exchange to satisfy his part of the legal exchange, was not executed as clearly prescribed/required in the contract.

4) It does not seem that Swaters' claim of delivery, of ANY funds to Kleve, can be supported by evidence of canceled check.

It appears to me, that unless a lot of evidence contrary to what has been made public to date is exhibited, Swaters has engaged, in a number of less than honorable actions, throughout this saga. Which would hardly be the behavior of the innocent/blameless "Bona Fide Purchaser."

Of course this is only my opinion, based on what has been brought to light so far and we will all see what the court decides.

Waiting.....

 

records are still locked as of this morning

http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber=A%201001370

 

Here's a photo of Jacques taken in the 70s sometime, sitting in his 0064M. He is such a gentleman and so highly regarded that I find it hard to accept that he is involved in any skullduggery. I guess we'll have to wait and see. (Well, I don't seem to be able to attach a photo. Is there a lifetime limit or something?)

 

Shouldn't be...once subscribed....

 

Jeff

If you have specific questions, do not hesitate to post and I will seek out docs to answer your questions.

After this post I will post one of Swaters' docs that I think you will find most interesting when you compare to Swaters alleged Sept 2, 1999 settlement agreement posted earlier.

Joe

 

This is a two page letter of authority dated June 18, 1999 submitted by Swaters in his Complaint.

Kleve signed the alleged settlement agreement on July 16, 1999 - as you know Kleve contends p1 and p2 of the doc were switched out with a lesser price ($2,500,000 vs $625,000) and a different payment procedure (to Kleve vs to Daniels). Note the date that Lancksweert signed it. (The alleged Settlement Agreement was posted earlier herein.)

Note the specific payment procedure as you analyze and compare. It becomes apparent that something is amiss, especially as to payment procedures.

Kleve had Daniels on a short leash and Swaters or his partner Lancksweert knew it.

Again, this is from Swaters' complaint.

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe,

I would like to see the complaint and response documents for each side. Are there depositions and supporting witness statement document for each side.

Generally, since you are here we get your side of the story but not a lot on why the other side believes their stance is valid. This would also include understanding why they believe that some of your arguments are in error.

Jeff