375+ # 0384

True, I just think the paying of said sums would have made everyone happy, rather than making the lawyers happy.

 

IMO This is a spot on assessment of third party affect in this lawsuit. How happy or not Ocean Joe is with the outcome. It looks like his involvment changed the course of the outcome.

I also wonder just how much the Swatters heirs new about the cars history.

 

Where is Kristie Kleve? As a woman car crazy girl, in the Man’s Ferrari world, I have followed this story on Kristie Lawson-Kleve and the remains of her father’s Ferrari. I am waiting for a post from her, seems she said nothing here and seems to be controlled by this Ocean Joe poster. Is she real? And what is all this "between the lines" concealment that is so confusing to all of us?

 

Well stated....IMO...

 

Please let us not forget that Jacques Swaters was a member of the resistance, captured and imprisoned by the Nazi's, enlisted in the SAS to fight in Holland, was a successful race driver, established Ferrari Francorchamps and promoted, collected and conserved Ferraris all of his life.

The case for Jacques Swaters:

He did not "receive stolen property". Like it of not under the laws of Belgium he purchased a car in good faith from a dealer that the Kings Prosecutor, the highest authority in Belgium, had confirmed could be sold. Le Soir, the Belgium national newspaper covered the story BEFORE Swaters brought it and everyone in the Ferrari community knew where the car came from. He purchased a car legitimately in Europe he knew he could not take it to the USA

He did not try to "hide" the car. I accept that registering the car as 0394 gave Swaters some protection against a subsequent claim in the US but again think it is nonsense to think that he was trying to hide the car by using a different chassis number. Immediately after buying the car, Swaters sent in Ferrari to try and buy 0384 from Kleve but he wouldn't sell. Consequently Swaters could not register the car as 0384 and had no other option to use another number and in this case he used a number that everyone knew was not associated with the model.

Would Kleve have saved the car ? Doubt it, the car needed someone like Swaters to restore the car with the original engine and preserve an important Ferrari (although looking at what was delivered to Bacchelli & Villa I am not sure much of the original car remains)

Did he eventually "Man up and do the right thing" ? I think he did. Ten years elapsed and Kleve sends in the bounty hunters to get some money. I think Swaters believed he had settled the matter and reached an agreement with Kleve on buying the title and the remaining parts. Why else would Swaters instigate legal proceeding in the USA against the daughter if he had any reason to suspect he was open to challenge. He had a lot to lose and little to gain.

In conclusion, this tread kept me entertained during my holiday and prompted further research on Jacques Swaters. Personally, I would never buy a car knowing it was stolen legally or not but then again I am not the type of man that would enlist with the SAS and fight for another country.

Kim

 

There are a few pictures posted on Swaters website as well as dotted about in this thread

 

,
Perhaps he did believe that he had settled with Kleve and was entitled to the parts, perhaps he thought that the Kleve heirs would not have the resources to contest the case but regardeless there appears motivation from Swaters to bring the matter to a head. Maybe he knew he wasnt going to be around much longer and wanted to tidy up loose ends, knowing that he would be the best person to conclude the matter.

 

Fair comment and a possibility. However, following the agreement in 1999, Swaters renumbered the car to 0384 and had been openly using the car all over Europe. Kleve died in 2003 and Swaters had put the daughter on notice in 2005 when she attempted to sell the remaining parts he thought were his. But I suggest the provocative action in 2006 of the daughter re-registering the chassis 0384 in her own name forced Swaters to act to protect his interest rather than a simple desire to tie up loose ends.

The big answered question to me is why the Kleve camp refused to join the agent Daniels in the proceedings. After all he was THEIR agent and portrayed by them as acting without authority. If the agent transferred title to Swaters without their authority or in breach of the agreement then it should have been his head on the block.

Could it be that a wealthy, well respected and now deceased, Ferrari legend was seen as the easier target ?

The answer I suspect is

 

Only guessing, but what would be the point if Daniels didn't have the car, and perhaps insufficient assets to make him a worthwhile respondent.
M

 

No commercial point I agree but it would at least be justice.

Swaters paid $625,000 for title and if Kleve claim they never received it, someone needs to pay up !

 

I read it like the Kleve side thought there was collusion between Daniels and the Swaters side. If so then that would alter the who to chase.

Jeff

 

Disagree. Anyway you look at it, if Daniels did not act in accordance with Kleve's instructions, collusion or not, then Kleve would have a claim against him for any loss.

I consider the collusion suggestion improbable. Would Swaters pay good money knowingly for a falsified agreement that subsequently could easily be challenged by Kleve ?

Makes no sense. Remember, Swaters had legal title in Europe that was not challenged by Kleve in a European court. He did not need to do a deal. Swaters paying money under the agreement was a commercial decision that allowed him to use 0384 and take the car to the USA without fear of challenge.

 

Kleve had a claim against Daniels. IMO No doubt. But that claim in no way dissolves his claim against Swaters. In the US and I would argue in most of Europe.

Swaters could probably keep the car. BUT he would have to be very careful about where it moved. And increasingly so as time went by.

You say Sawters paid "good money" after the 99 supposed agreement. I ask you to look close and hard at the payments vs the agreement. Make any sense that 2 checks almost untraceable were issued. One to Kleve/Daniels and one to Daniels company. That payment structure was no where in the agreement. Strange very strange given the gravity of this deal no one for Swaters caught it.

And remember we have lots of court filings. Lots of Kleve documents NO WHERE does he mention 625k as a settlement amount.

Swaters is almost non existent on the record for anything relating to this car. Probably smart on his part.

Swaters had been dealing with cars and large cash deals most of his life. I find it really hard to belive. After knowing he owns a stolen car from the US. Swaters didnt have the caution or good guidance to nail ALL of the related paperwork and payments down in concrete.

If he had I suppose and I am no expert. A summary judgement would have been very easy to achieve in any US state or fedral court.

Greed, stolen cars, and integrity. Hire reputable lawyers. Get solid agreements. And pay for it all in the most transparent way possible.

Swaters got bad advice? I wonder how many deals he closed in his life? A neophyte Swaters was not.

Was he something else?

Something smells bad about Swaters in the whole story.

All of this is my personal opinion. (1st amendment disclaimer)

 

Fantastic reply and I for one agree. Before the obvious cheap shots accusing you of bagging Mr. Swaters I would argue simply that whether or not Mr. Swaters was involved in ripping off Mr. Kleve does not denigarate his memory in any meaningful way. So what if he did have a role, SO WHAT, he also sold many amazing cars, raced many of them and was a key figure in the eventual success of the firm. Its not sleazy to ask uncomfortable questions, same deal if we debate the merits of old Enzo.

I think its just important for historical accuracy that we try to get the facts straight and if possible we get to the bottom of who did what. Maybe this isnt the best forum for doing this but you can be sure the settlement will include confidentiality clauses so how else will we know what happened back then. Further and as I have said many times, it would be great if out of all of this some fair settlement is reached between the two camps as would appear to be the case now.

Now who wants to discuss the rather despressing claims of Tutis whoever he is? Ferrarichat oldtimers will recall the similar accusations thrown around about 0799 and 0738 at various times

 

Lets not forget that co-owner Lancksweert executed the settlement not his partner Jacques Swaters. There were two parties involved

On 2nd September 1999 Lancksweert and Daniels (authorised by Kleve) met in New York to complete the transaction. Daniels handed over the Lien release, bill of sale, release of theft status and signed an agreed press release. In return Lancksweert handed over two bank cheques. The July settlement agreement stipulated that the funds in the Escrow account would be released to Daniels not Kleve and bank cheques was the easiest and a certain way to do it.

Kleve may dispute the amount and claim he never received it but handing over a bank cheque for title documents is how any cautious individual would act. Even a Neophyte.

 

I post a photo of the Ferrari as it was in Kleve’s ownership 1988.

I post a photo of the Ferrari as it was in Swater’s possession 2010.

We are only custodians in this world, good or bad ones. As Ferrari owners, as I am, we want to be good custodians.

I do not think anyone knows who Ocean Joe aka/ Joseph L. Ford III really is, just I know he’s no Ferrari man – never was, never will be.

Flobert
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So as far as Swaters / Lanckswert were concerned, they'd paid ( to Daniels ), and as far as Kleve was concerned, he never received any money (from Swaters, via Daniels).
I wonder what Daniels has to say about that.

M

 

Really, you can draw this conclusion from 2 photo's?

 

I agree. Jacques did a lot of things in his life that were notable. Unfortunately, this episode is not one of them.

Wait a minute. If Swatters knew the car was stolen when he bought it how can it be a legitimate purchase. If it was in the news and generally known in Belgium and in the Ferrari community that the car was stolen, then the purchase wasn't legitimate. I don't know anything about the laws in Belgium, but in the US, where the car WAS stolen, it could and would have been impounded immediately because it was the property of Kleve and the FBI apparently agreed. I can understand if he might have had an argument that his purchase was in "good faith" if he didn't know it was stolen, but you are implying that he knew it at the time and, if so he didn't act in good faith.

Jacques registered the car as 0394 to obscure the identity of the car. In the US, changing the VIN number is a felony, punishable by time in jail. If Jacque came to the US with the car and it was overstamped as 0394 and was caught in that subterfuge he could easily gone to jail for it. Your comment that changing the VIN number was to provide "protection against a subsequent claim in the US" is just silly. Why did he send Ferrari to try to buy the car if he had legal ownership? The reason he did was that he didn't have legal ownership. Why couldn't he register the car as 0384? Most likely it would have been impounded and he did try to use a number that was associated by Ferrari with a 375 engine and could have confused all but those with intimate access to Ferrari records. According to an earlier post in this thread "Interpol and the U.S. consulate went to Swatters and they found the car had 0394AM on it and couldn't do anything to seize it." Obviously changing the VIN number was done for the specific purpose of hiding the car from the authorities and it worked.

Kleve would likely never have saved the car, but this and comments that others have made about the welfare of the car are inane. It was Kleve's property. His to keep as he wished. If he wanted to let it rot, then it was his to let rot. While the car was restored and kept to a high standard, that is simply not germane to the conversation.

Swatters may well have believed he owned the car legally at that point, but if you bought all the parts, why wait 10 years, after the original owner has passed on, to make a claim in court for the pieces that you were supposed to have received in the deal? Something smells here. Jacques may well have been swindled, or could have been in cahoots with Daniels. I simply don't know and it really doesn't matter. He had obviously written checks, but there is no evidence that the full payment that Kleve wanted for the car (>$2M) was conveyed to him. I don't believe Jacques ever received the title to the car and could not produce the signed title which conveyed ownership from Kleve. Bottom line is that he didn't own the car in the eyes of the US authorities. I just happen to think that he figured he had outlasted the statue of limitations and was making a play for the rest of the parts that he didn't have.

Yes, this has been an interesting thread, and you are wise not to purchase a car that you know was stolen. In this country there are numerous cases where cars have been stolen and, when the car is found, years later and fully restored, the original owner or his insurance company have recovered the car and the current owner loses his investment entirely.

I find it hard to defend Swatters in this matter because too many of the things he was supposed to know and not know just don't wash. Swatters was no dummy, and being a lawyer he knew what he had to do. The convenient intervening sales before he bought it, the renumbering of the car, both with the intent to keep him from legal obligation to return it. IMHO he most likely knew exactly what was going on and he knew what he was doing and for that reason his legacy will forever be tarnished by the actions he took.

 

MODS can you please ban/delete this shill spam account.

 

That we do not know. Almost every time a Ferrari gets renumbered it is because there is a clear title available that the owner wishes to use to get the car registered. That in itself does not tell anything of status of the car itself.

 

"Auction to End Fight Over Ferrari."- http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013308260019&nclick_check=1