This may well go down in FChat history as "Best First Post", ever (although there's been some good ones!) and I'd like to make the nomination today!!! No wonder I can't get a Mod into the pissing contest in Collectibles Section over my Papal Ferrari Key Chain!!!! I hope she gets the car back, long enough to at least do a few doughnuts, maybe smack a dent into one of the fenders......
I'd say suing Bonhams for theft might be the first order of business, after the Holidays?? A nice round damages $$$ number, in the ten's of million$, might get their attention. You have evidence in Marcel's posts here, that they did NOT get a very good return on the car, for their actions.. The new bidder might not appreciate getting his name splashed over the Internet, those guys like to run silent and deep, for many reasons....
I think it's never left Kleve's Estate, except to enjoin Ocean Joe in the partnership to pursue recovery of the vehicle???
If that is still true I can't see 0384 entering the US. It would be very easy to seize. I think Bonhams might have bitten off more than they can chew on this one.
THIS.......I thought maybe a philanthropist was stepping up locally, to get it back and hand her the keys.....
Ray My understanding is that the proceeds were to be split between Swaters and Lawson. That makes £5 million to you and the sub contractors What do you think is fair ?
"I am just guessing that the new owner does not care or even know about your post because he is busy driving around in his new car"
Bonhams, established 1793, must be worried.........then again, always read the small print CLAIMS BY OTHER PERSONS IN RESPECT OF THE LOT 8.1 Whenever it becomes apparent to us that the Lot is the subject of a claim by someone other than you and other than the Seller (or that such a claim can reasonably be expected to be made), we may, at our absolute discretion, deal with the Lot in any manner which appears to us to recognise the legitimate interests of ourselves and the other parties involved and lawfully to protect our position and our legitimate interests.
Ray. Thanks for your post. I have followed this for some time from a far . I am the current owner (custodian) of a humble 330 gt 2+2 I am very attached to the car and would be heartbroken if someone took it away from me. When that car was stolen from your father in law a crime was committed and then over the years others have profited from that . Such a shame that your wife has had to deal with this for so long. I hope she gets the car back and that you get to enjoy it.
Ray Lawsons post.. "I am just guessing that the new owner does not care or even know about your post because he is busy driving around in his new car"
IF as reported here the buyer at the auction is from Ohio IF that person brings the car to their home to Ohio Ray's Lawson's post on F-Chat may not be their source but the information contained therein will have a bearing upon the winning bidder's actions. I suspect that there are going to be some more entities racking up legal bills on this matter. Until the title situation is resolved it would not seem likely that the winning bidder will be "driving around in his new car" in state of Ohio.
The car was given to Bonhams to sell at one of their premier events and it was extensively publicised before being sold for over £10.7 million. Three questions come to mind. Firstly, was £10.7 million a fair price given the history and the circumstances ? It might have have raised more without the spectre of numerous disgruntled interested parties circling around do we believe it was a fair result ? Secondly, if Bonhams perceived there was a problem with title surely they would have pulled the sale ? There are numerous examples of them doing this in the past. Finally, there is now a pile of cash waiting to be distributed and not a race car, is this not of benefit to all parties ? My suspicion is that the offers of assistance to the new owner "so as to be helpful in setting matters straight" is most likely about who gets what and ways of extracting more.
Maybe, maybe not. Were any potential bidders not participating or did they not bidding to the level that they would have if the cloud was not there? Ray Lawson says that Bonhams received multiple notifications that included A) Ohio title was on hold by the state; B) Heads of Agreement that defined the authorization of the parties for a sale had expired; C) Consent had been withdrawn for the offering by the Lawson & Ford side; D) Bonhams' own attorney was seeking authorization from the Lawson & Ford side on the day prior to the auction. All that makes me suspicious that Bonhams had direct knowledge prior to and at the time of the sale that there were outstanding unresolved issues with the ability to convey clear title. Agreed that there is now a pile of money sitting in an account. Though if you have been reading closely through the pages there is evidence that the distribution of the funds is THE sticking point amongst the selling parties. Would be very surprised if this distribution happens before that is settled. But you so certain that their target is the successful bidder and not the others who perpetrated the offering?
Invalid sale is an invalid sale.. There is no buyer after that, the bid will get walked back, and it sounds like all deals are off. That's a real shame if Bonhams, et al simply let the sales agreements "time out"?? It sounds like there is now "more to it, than that" or else the Lawson/Ford side (although Ford seems to be out of it too) would have renewed the agreement in place
Oh jeez, here we go again... For a car that is almost completely unoriginal (aside from the engine and a handful of salvaged parts) and with heirs having once agreed to sell it and divide proceeds from a highly-publicized marque event, I can't see: A) how £10.7 million isn't a satisfactory price given all of the sellers' own legal shadows surrounding it, and B) how injecting yet more ownership uncertainty will do anything but erode its value further, compromising the winning bidder's position, wearing away sellers' proceeds, putting Bonham's reputation in question, negating any future gains from the car, etc. If I were the new owner, er, "winning bidder", and if this is real, I'd be getting ready to ruin some people right about now. In the end, it'll only be attorneys who see a dime from this sale and, for the rest, there'll be a nice cautionary tale.
Did the auction winner not merely purchase an option contract? If we agree that the hammer price was less than it would have been with a clear title, and that the money will not be paid out of escrow unless clear title is presented, it seems that this purchase was little more than an option to buy the car at the hammer price, at some future date, and upon the meeting of the contingency that the consignor can present a clear title.
The question should be was the auction house purporting to be providing clear title to the bidders at the time the auction started. It strikes me that there would be no/miniscule interest in making binding bids when it is clearly represented that there is any title conveyance issue.
This is very curious. I have just read the judgement given by the Ohio Supreme Court http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2014/2014-ohio-2252.pdf My understanding is: That there was a heads of agreement "to extinguish all claims" and to send the car to auction with Bonhams which was agreed by all parties and executed in March 2013. This agreement made reference to dismissal of Ohio law in favour of jurisdiction under English law. Swaters or the Belgium Contingent "BC" obtained a motion in July 2013 to enforce this agreement. We can only guess as to why only four months after agreeing to a deal the Ohio Contingency "OC" were unhappy with the arrangement resulting in the BC seeking to enforce it The Supreme Court then dismisses this motion and reinstates the pending claims made by the OC on the 28th May and five weeks later the car is sold. My question as a non lawyer is. The car has been sold in accordance with the terms of an agreement governed by English Law and the car and the proceeds are in the UK. What is the effect of a judgement of the Ohio court and outstanding claims by the OC on the validity of the sale ? The answer may explain why Bonhams proceeded to act in accordance with the heads of terms and ignore what was happening across the pond
My understanding is that the Heads of Agreement (would be nice to see this document instead of just having references to it) defined the agreement of the Belgium, Ohio and Gardner contingents and then their consent to have the car auctioned by Bonhams at a particular auction. For whatever reasons what all it took to make the car and all Ohio items available for that original auction venue did not take place. The Ohio contingent subsequently lost a court decision. It was then appealed and they won as detailed in your link for the Supreme Court ruling. What that ruling did was nullify the Heads of Agreement. When that happened it apparently means that there is no agreement amongst the Belgium, Ohio and Gardner parties. It was the Heads of Agreement which also apparently defined the English Law clause which should mean that the UK as the forum went away too. Me, my speculation is that the sale to the successful bidder stands (no idea how the title issue is resolved quickly if the car comes into the US) but that it will be several more rounds of legal fighting to everything concludes with all the parties.
don't see how the Bonhams auction can stand, since the subsequent court action leading up to the sale nullifies the various documents and decisions that led to the agreement of sale... which goes back to the basic tract that property involved in a theft cannot be transferred until ALL legal defects are resolved, since there is no defined ownership to transfer... Bonhams could not consummate a sale having lost the ability to convey ownership...
And it appears Swaters side thought there was a problem before the sale, otherwise why did they ask for permission ? ( see below) Perhaps Bonham's proceeded with the auction on the basis that they had sighted the Heads of Agreement last year, and were not aware that there had been subsequent challenges / changes. If they thought they had a green light to proceed, and none of the parties told them otherwise, why would they even suspect anything was amiss or look for problems ? It would be interesting to hear if any of the Ohio group or their lawyers where communicating directly with Bonhams prior to the auction M
That would be my layman's understanding as well.....but following this left me in the weeds, long ago! Why would Bonham's have been in pursuit of reinstatement, frantically, the day before the auction, otherwise??
