Just for the record/scorecards, 2nd photo in post 1250- Gentleman on the left is Zach Gottesman, Cincinnati attorney for CG.
What are the details on the Swiss charges, if you don't mind. We know Chris Gardner's rap sheet, you could use it for a pull down window shade. He is looking tan and healthy... No way he has legitimate title to the car, although he has handled some pretty large 'partial payments' from Swaters it seems. I don't think at any point in time, Kleve ever got "all the money" against his ask. Making any transfer paperwork on the contract in question at that point in time, NULL and VOID. Hence to Hold by Court Order that is still in place on the car to this day. The MGB on blocks made me smile though. My older brother drove an MGB....
So who wants extra butter on their popcorn?? Starting to wonder if this is cycle of terminal litigation and chest puffing games is a better fate for the car than the one seen below... >8^) ER Image Unavailable, Please Login
Contrary to Max Vito's claim I do not believe that this is anywhere close to over. Maybe the car stays with the winning bidder from the auction but the rest of the players do not appear to have a consensus that the end has been reached. Is this the "Thor" who is the cause of the Administrative Hold on the title in Ohio? Jeff
This is a sad site to see but regardless it was Kleeve's car to do what he wanted with it. Bottom line is the car was stolen from him its sad that the FBI was no help to him in recovering it.
Marcel, I have eaten all the popcorn. Please accept my apologies. As always, you are correct: at this point we are Certainly going to need more popcorn. Best Regards, Dave
I have not read the first approximately 1200 posts in this thread. I jumped in here to share my construction of the recent Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that any dispute arising under the Heads of Agreement must be filed in London and will be decided according to English law. I have also looked at the docket entries in the underlying Swaters v Lawson case, filed in Hamilton County, Ohio. What I get from that docket is that Swaters filed suit against Lawson in February 2010. Lawson filed a Counter Claim. In April 2010, Joe Ford was added as a cross-complainant in intervention. Lots of litigation activity ensued. I looked at the late 2011 to early 2012 entries on the docket, to see what was the basis of the references in the January 2012 text messages or instant messages from the mystery man "christopher," that Joe Ford shared in Post 1230 (http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143235322-post1230.html). The subject of those messages was a "375 deal" that, according to "christopher," would have "Dave" playing both sides of the table, and would also result in "CG makes a little and can finially trash Joey for good." That was a dry hole. There is nothing in the Swaters v. Lawson docket, in late 2011-early 2012, to reflect any such "375 deal." Specifically, on November 23, 2011, Swaters filed an Opposition brief to a motion to strike a request by Swaters that Ford be dismissed. There were no further filings for three months. On March 8, 2012, Lawson filed a motion to compel production of "the body parts and parts of the chassis." Nothing in between. On May 8, 2012, someone filed a Notice of Filing of New Title 0384 AM. I'm not sure what that was about. More litigation activity ensued. There is a long gap in filings from November 30, 2012 to June 17, 2013. According to the appellate court opinion, it was during this gap -- specifically in March 2013 -- that the parties signed the "Heads of Agreement." "The parties" as of March 2013 did not include Christopher Gardner. Nor did the appellate court mention Gardner. It appears therefore that Gardner is not a signatory to the HoA, and therefore he is not bound to its terms. That is, unless Joe Ford signed the HoA as Gardner's agent, and Ford had the authority to bind Gardner. As already mentioned, after November 30, 2012, nothing more was filed until June 17, 2013. On that date someone filed a "Notice to the Court." Then, on July 10, 2013, the court filed an "Order." On the basis of the Court of Appeal decision filed on May 28, 2014, and based on the fact that the HoA was created in March and that Swaters was filing a motion to enforce the HoA in July, one of these documents must have adopted the terms of the HoA as the judgment in the Swaters v Lawson case. On July 10, 2013, Christopher Gardner filed a Motion for Leave to file a cross claim in intervention. We know from the Court of Appeals decision that, on August 19, 2013, the trial court entered an order doing the following things: *Granting a July 23, 2013 motion of Florence Swaters (of Belgium) to enforce the Heads of Agreement and to dismiss the Ohio action. *Specific orders concerning the delivery of the various parts of the Ferrari, the transfer of title, and the disposition of the proceeds from the auction. *Dismissing all pending claims and counterclaims with prejudice (i.e., final termination on the merits). *Dismissing the claims of Lawson and Ford prior to the distribution of the proceeds of sale. *Holding that the Heads of Agreement was enforceable. *Refusing to find Florence Swaters in breach of the agreement. We also know from the May 28, 2014 Court of Appeal decision that the HoA included a forum selection clause, and that the Court of Appeal applied this clause as the ground to strip the trial court of jurisdiction to enter at least the final three of the six bullet-pointed orders. (The appeal that was before the court did not attack the first three of the six orders. But the logic of the decision would require the vacation of these three orders as well, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.) On August 26, 2013, USA Today ran a story that 0384 was to be sold at auction "within a year." London auction will end fight over vintage Ferrari. Also I am attaching a photo of the car from the August 2013 story. The caption of the photo identifies the man sitting in the car as Chris Gardner. Compare this man to the Max Vito photo of Gardner and 0384. Newspapers make mistakes, a lot of mistakes. But it doesn't look like the same guy to me. On June 27, 2014 the car sold at auction for GBP 10,753,500. Why did I write all this? Because for one thing many of the posts in this thread are confusing to me, while I tried to limit the present post to known facts (other than a couple educated guesses that I had to make along the way). For another thing, if Mr. Gardner has any colorable claim to the car -- i.e., a claim that would require at least a motion for summary judgment to dispose of it, if not a trial -- it was an oversight on the part of the parties to the Swaters v Lawson not to include him as a party to the HoA agreement. With Gardner not a party to the HoA, he alone is not required to submit his disputes to the London court, at least not in the absence of a forum non conveniens attack on the Ohio venue. I note that his case is set for trial in September. So it must at least have raised some triable issues of fact which, if resolved in Gardner's favor, will result in a judgment in his favor. Edit: Come to think of it, it is possible that Christopher Gardner no longer has any affirmative claims to be tried in September; that this trial will be with respect to the cross claims of other parties. I don't care to research this possibility -- the docket is available to the curious at the same web site as the Swaters v. Lawson case -- but I include this observation for the sake of completeness. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yet another poster who seems to blame the attorneys. From where I sit, there are a lot of bad actors here and no need to yell at the attorneys. This is going to be an interesting thing to follow and here is why . . . I have asked a number of my attorney friends this question. Let's say that you have an agreement, which itself is a settlement of a valid and existing law suit. That lawsuit is in the US. But the agreement 'chooses' the law of England as it's forum. Now, move forward and that contract expires. Or at least the time for performance has expired. The legal issue is this . . . if you sue for breach of THAT agreement, then the choice of law forum--England is valid, because you are suing under that contract. But let's say that you are not suing under that contract, because you are suing to recover your property that is in the possession of someone else. The "time for performance" has expired--meaning the time in which you sell the car has expired. Once that happens, you have the right to recover your car. The right legal angle in Ohio would be to avoid suing under the Heads of Agreement, but rather to reinstate the original suit, which would preclude the Heads of Agreement. In fact, using an expired contract could be seen as fraud. The end of this story has not been written. And it is not OK to say, well there is 18 million on the table, let's split that. Not even close.
If the attorneys who drew up the Heads of Agreement did not include a term that all parties to the agreement were releasing all claims arising from or related to #0384, known or unknown, then these attorneys' malpractice insurance policies just got added to the mix. Conversely, if such a term was included in the HoA, the only grounds on which any party could rely to make a claim to ownership or possession of the car are limited to the terms of the HoA. All pre-existing real-world claims have been waived and released. Is there a dispute regarding the meaning of a term of the HoA? Is there a dispute regarding the performance of a term of the HoA, or regarding any excuse from performance? Better have Thor fitted with a horsehair wig and book him a flight to London.
Interesting choice of terminology and language. You sound like you are perhaps afraid to talk openly about the case? You certainly need to ponder what Bigtex wrote below about CG's rapsheet and if you are so sure of yourself, give us some facts about either CG or OJ, that might make us think that CG, great man, top bloke. Great post, love it
I understand your point, but that is not my point. Let me back up. I used the word "reinstate" the original suit as a matter of convenience. I didn't want attorneys chiming in and bringing in statute of limitations or collateral estoppel issues. So let me restate my proposition and let's assume there are no statute of limitations or estoppel issues. You and I have a disagreement about some personal property and we start litigating. We then sign an agreement to drop our litigation and you will sell the personal property by a date certain. Period. End of agreement. There is nothing in the agreement to suggest what happens if you don't sell by that date. (Although I have seen some suggestion that the parties were supposed to return the property if it was not sold.) Were I writing that agreement, I would have included a clause that if the contract went unperformed then the remainder of the agreement--which rendered all prior claims released was null and void. Or you could argue that the HOA simply tolled the statute of limitations. Anyway . . . OK, that England agreement has expired and was unperformed. I believe a good lawyer could make a case that since there is no controlling agreement (I am channeling Algore's 'no controlling legal authority' here), you would be free to bring a new claim in your home jurisdiction. And, I believe that it may have been a mistake for the Ohio lawyers to sue on the HOA, when they may have had claims back in the USA. It is a subtle point, but one that has probably led to a disposition in this case.
I see this blog is busy. Good insights Peloton 25, Big Tex, Timmmmy, and especially Drive550PFB. Let me make three quick points: Point One: A minor correction for the record -- Gardner did sign the HOA, along with Bonhams, Swaters, Lawson, and myself. Gardner was my financier "through trial appeals, and physical recovery" whom I placed in default in approximately Sept 1, 2011 because he quit paying bills and failed to hire Elizabeth Conklin to help Herb Haas. As to Gardner's role as financier and as to how I helped Haas because Conklin was not hired, see attached letter from Herb Haas, attorney for Gardner, Lawson, and myself. The Gardner claim that I was Gardner's attorney and/or that Gardner was a principal is his last ditch attempt to avoid the consequences of his default. It will fail. Point Two: Bonhams was duly and timely warned about the HOA's expiry and non-rollover to a future auction aspect. See attached July 29, 2013 email. When the agreed Sept. 14 2013 Goodwood Revival auction was missed, I withdrew my HOA Power of Attorney. That was on Sept 24, 2013. I posted that on Ferrari Chat, post #1025. I pointed out to Bonhams that the April 23, 2010 Status Quo Order prevented any movement of parts or docs. I also pointed the risk to anyone using Gardner as a source of info he is not credible "We know Chris Gardner's rap sheet, you could use it for a pull down window shade" nice one Big Tex. I just learned of another Gardner window shade, this one from Broward County, FL. Point Three: Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner are desperate to revive the HOA so they try to blame the delay on me and Lawson. The reason that will fail is because Swaters and Gardner wasted the critical months by litigating to enforce the HOA in the wrong venue, Ohio, when it should have been in London. Penny wise, pound foolish, literally and figuratively. They convinced the Ohio judge to issue the Aug 19, 2013 Order in the wrong venue and then filed a joint motion to find Lawson and me in contempt for not speedily complying. As they did all this in the wrong venue, the HOA clock ran out. Lawson and Ford appealed the Aug 19, 2013 Order, but it will not be until May 28, 2014 that the appeal decision comes down. Meanwhile, instead of waiting for the appeal, Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner go off on their own, and in early Jan. 2014, they start promoting a new auction without any Ford and Lawson consent. Lawson withdraws her HOA POA on Feb. 18, 2013 and requests Bonhams prepare and return the Ohio Parts and Docs. Later, I also instruct to return of the Ohio Parts and Docs. Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner ignore Ford and Lawson's instructions. On May 28, 2014 Lawson and Ford win their appeal and the Aug 19, 2013 Order is reversed because it was rendered by an Ohio court that was divested of its jurisdiction, but only as to HOA disputes. Jurisdiction is not divested as to any other matters as is now being observed by this blog community. Conclusion: Like I told Bonhams on July 29, 2013, if the HOA expires, all of it expires, not just the provisions you do not like. If Bonhams, Swaters, or Gardner wanted to truly enforce the HOA, they should have done so in London in accord with its venue selection clause a clause upon which Bonhams included in the HOA. Regardless, to remove all doubt, Lawson and I withdrew consent and the HOA POA's and instructed them to return our property. Don't be misled by the bluster of cartoon characters, no matter their size or number. So . . . what happens next is . . . you will not believe it . . . I still can't . . . but it's Saturday morning and I gotta go work on my MGB. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Joe, A few questions: 1. As said in a posted newspaper article with an interview of a Garner attorney and repeated now by Max, Garner is claiming to own the entire 50% interest of the non-Swatters contingent. On what basis, upon what legal ruling is this assertion being made? Obviously you and Kleve-Lawson disagree on this. 2. Can you/will you say to what monetary amount Gardner supported the efforts until he stopped paying? 3. Did you find Gardner or did Gardner find you to start this quest? How did Kleve-Lawson come into this? She found you or you found her? 4. Are there continuing cases in Ohio or is it all moving to London? 5. Is there truth to the rumor that the Swiss government has asked Gardner to relocate from Switzerland? By the way, glad to have you back. Jeff
In answer to question number #3, I think I can answer this best, since myself and husband were the ones to get Joe Ford involved in the first place. We called Christopher Gardner and talked to him about the situation that arose after Kristie was served a lawsuit brought on by Jacques Swaters. Christopher Gardner was recovering from an illness and did not want to get involved and could not help us but referred Joe Ford to us, explaining he was not an attorney but very helpful in getting information for Christopher in his case in France. We called Joe Ford and after extensively talking to him, we called Kristie gave her Joe's number. That is how Joe Ford got involved. Closely involved, Debc
There is no legal basis; it is a triple flawed novel claim in which Gardner thinks that if he can show I was his attorney practicing law in Ohio, then he can claim as a result I can't charge any fee, and then he claims that eveything I did in my name must therefor belong to him. It is preposterous. In fact, Judge Nadel's Order of Aug. 2, 2011 undid any alleged transfer of 100% from Lawson to me and confirmed Lawson at 30% and Ford at 70%. Gardner only has a claim against a portion of my proceeds provided he financed as agreed, and he did not. The Gardner-Ford dispute is a sub-dispute that arises from the Ford-Gardner F375 Agreement. My tally shows about $170k, less than half of what I have spent, which is not yet over, and in the midst of that I have Gardner's bad faith vendetta begun on or about Jan 12, 2012, the effects of which are only now becoming known. I see Debc answered that one. She is accurate but for maybe Gardner did not tell her the whole truth at the time because at the time, Gardner was quite busy in Bali getting massages. If you can call that a recovery from an illness, well . . . Yes, A1001370 Swaters v Lawson (on appeal) and A1306451 Gardner v Ford (underway), both in Ohio state court. We are taking care to keep the maximum in Ohio. Bonhams has begun something in London too, awaiting more info on that. I am unable to confirm at this time. Glad to be back. And I see I put a wrong year in a prior post. Lawson withdrew consent and HOA POA on Feb. 18, 2014, not 2013. Joe *
I'd like to see the flow chart, of how much money changed hands over time, between Swaters, CG, and then went forward to Kleve, supposedly. Chris Gardner is splitting the deal into multiple payments, comes up short of the ask, deposits not verified into Kleve's bank account, all types of weirdness. It would be insightful, against the "stolen/ or purchased" argument. Kleve though his car was stolen, yet at some point in time, CG has it, and then represents to Swaters that he has "bought it". Swaters gets a car, but typically to a lot of used Ferraris.."we had the books, tools and spare tire....but we forgot them in the wash rack, when we detailed it"...and they never catch up to the car! That's actually where the repurposing and relabeling of goods occurs. The die stamp kit comes out, and a car in Europe disappears from the FBI under a new identity... Which is probably a violation of LOT of State, Federal and International Law, treaties, EPA, and DOT regulations, you know "all that jazz".
