375+ # 0384

Oops, yes I did!

Thanks!

"It was one of those little yellow cars.."

 

Actually it was yellow..

 

I promised the host I would try to find the R&T issue in my garage.

 

There is much going on behind the scenes. Something occurred that was unknown to the Lawsons and myself until several days after the "auction" -- it is difficult to believe. I will call it item #7.

Soon I will be able to post about item #7 and some other developments. For now, rest assured there are probably a dozen attorneys reading this thread from at least two continents.

I will also share with the readers an interesting tidbit - two posters in the prior few months are actually connected with the 1989 gang. Their posts were part of a calculated scheme - the scope of which we still do not know.

That review by 180 Out in post #1301 is quite accurate - kinda like he had a listening device. Good legal mind insights.

The ride continues - a few more twists and turns. As to item #7, seatbelts may not be enough for what lies ahead.

Joe

*

 

Well, I know I am not Markinson. I know that Scuderiawithstickplease is not Markinson, so that makes two of us.

As for the language in post 1301, I'd not jump with glee right yet. Or as Harvey Kitel, the Wolf, says in Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start sucking each other's ****s just yet."

For a judge to issue an injunction, it must be a serious issue. Injunctions are extraordinary relief and they are not issued lightly. Any suggestion that issuing an injunction is careless or poorly done by the judge is just ignorant. Judges seldom do this.

 

Perhaps I have missed this, but was an effort made through the London courts in the weeks and months leading up to the Bonhams Goodwood auction to put a stop to that process? If not, why not...?

>8^)
ER

 

See attached summary. The objective is to synthesize the story with facts, dates, docs. I invite any first hand participants to chime in if I am incorrect as to any fact, date, or doc. Keep it clean and pithy.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thank you for the additional detail.

From your perspective, the buyer has asked for his £10.7 million back with costs, the car is back in storage in the UK and there is no valid agreement to settle the dispute.

So are we not back to square one ?

There is a Ferrari with valid title in Europe but an outstanding claim in Ohio.....seconds away round two

 

if this bubble bursts soon, it will all end in tears.

 

There are four sets of lawyers in Ohio and four sets of lawyers in the UK working towards a solution as we speak. One of the reasons I posted the four page summary post #1384 was to help the UK newcomers grasp the history and context, sooner rather than later, with cites to dates and docs to speed them along.

I have yet to reveal item #7 - a real monkey wrench that has been tossed into the works.

I gave up predicting outcomes because I have witnessed people in this dispute do dishonorable, irrational things - it makes it unpredictable.

Also, as to post #1386, I do not think we are in a bubble at the higher levels because there are two new major entrants into the collectibles market(s) with beaucoup bucks - unlike prior price rises, this time, it is not only the US and Europe driving the market. The new entrants are competing now for the best of the best, gaining instant recognition in the collectible circles at the highest levels. Look who you can "rub elbows" with . . . I am referring to China and Russia.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Two comments . . . in all the posts where Swatters claimed to have made the original purchase, I have yet to see any discussion of the price paid by Swatters. That should be easy enough to prove--and there have to be financial records. One can only conclude, since we are over a thousand posts on this subject, that Swatters cannot prove what he paid or even that he paid at all.

As for the rest of the summary, just a picky point . . . one does not "motion" the court. One either "moves that the court" or "makes a motion before the court."

 

Picky?
It is Swaters, not Swatters.

Marcel Massini

 

That's classic 'confirmation bias.' Not having seen evidence (in an internet forum!) does not mean it is reasonable to conclude evidence does not exist.

Proof or not, the Belgian side has said Swaters paid $100,000 for it.

The Case of ?0384AM? | Jacques Swaters

 

You can also add the $625,000 paid to Kleve's agent in 1999 to acquire the Ohio title and parts

We can only wonder why the Ohio Contingent have chosen not to pursue the Agent for the "missing" $625,000 in favour of going after the car, equally why Florence Swaters has agreed to give 50% of the proceeds rather then enforse her claim in an Ohio Court

 

The way I see it, why would the OC pursue Swaters agent ? It's up to Swaters side to ensure that payment was made by his agent, not the intended recipient to pursue it.

To answer the second part:
I suggest because it was the lowest cost, least risk option: Better to give away 50% of something, than end up with 100% of nothing, legal bills and negative publicity.

The car with a tainted title was a libablity and effectively worth nothing to Swaters anyway, in the sense that it would have been difficult to sell and potentially subject to seizure by the US courts at some point or place in the future.

On the bright side , the value of the car has increased substantially in the past 4 years, so 50% of todays price is possibly 100% of the 2010 price....although achieving "all its worth" would be entirely dependant on a clean sale, supported by all the parties

M

 

The agent was appointed by Kleve, not Swater, to act on Kleve's behalf and had a power of attorney signed by Kleve. The enforsement notice issued by Swaters gives the detail and this is the basis of the legal dispute and outstanding hearing.

What is curious is that if, as it is claimed, I employed an agent to act on my behalf and I never received anything of the $625,000 paid to him then I would be persuing him for payment.

As for who benefits from the windfall rise in value, this works both ways. The Ohio contingent disputed the original settlement agreement claiming that Kleve actually wanted $2.5 million for his car. With hindsight Swaters should have paid it !

 

It is not a confirmation bias. It is a fact. Nowhere has anyone in this thread made any mention of the consideration paid to the Ohio Owners (other than the two posts which were in response to my prior post.)

It is a fact that when someone is trying to enforce a contract that consideration would be a huge part of the argument in favor of enforcing the contract. As in: "I paid $625,000 to the Ohio Players, and now they want to cancel the contract?!?" Or as in: "Here is a copy of my bank records where I paid $100,000 for the goods."

That evidence has not shown up yet. And it is not 'bias' to point it out. It is a search for the truth. Understand, I have no dog in the fight; I am just commenting on what I see.

 

early on in the story of the car's flight from Ohio ( and in this thread ), there were shown examples of exchanges of payment and agreements by the various parties to substantiate an effort to effect a sale... go back to follow the money

 

On this specific point there have been posts in this thread that:

1. There were two checks by Swaters to Daniels/Kleve totaling $625,000.

2. Swaters has produced a copy of the backside of the check solely to Daniels proving that it was processed.

3. Per reports by OC a copy of the backside of the second check which was to Daniels and Kleve has never been produced which would prove that it was a) endorsed by Kleve and b) processed.

4. OC repeatedly has represented that the $625,000 figure was not what Kleve had agreed to as the acceptable figure. OC has presented/alleges that the document that Kleve signed had been altered. Per one of Joe Ford's latest posts apparently Swaters side has acknowledged that this document had been altered post signature.

5. The payment procedures as stipulated in the document were not followed by the Swaters side.

 

I agree that evidence is far more compelling than an unsubstantiated statement but ask what physical evidence have we actually seen from the Ohio Contingent "OC" so far ?

Conversley the Belgium Contingent "BC" have provided detailed evidence to support their claim that they acquired title and parts from Kleve on 2nd September 1999. Specifically:

1.A settlement agreement with a witnessed signature of both Kleve and his authorised agent Daniels selling the title and parts for $625,000

2. A bill of sale with a witnessed signature of Daniels

3. Copies of cheques payable to Kleve and Daniels and Daniels company together with a copy of the cashed cheque to Kleve and Daniels

4. The theft report cancelled by Kleve in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a copy of the Ohio title cancelled by the court.

The documents are clearly drafted under legal advise, executed on the same day, witnessed and are together compelling evidence.

So what happens after BC paid their money under this evidenced agreement and what subsequent evidence has been provided by OC to refute it ?

Karl Kleve dies three years later in December 2003 and two years after that his daughter tries to sell the parts and a vin plate at auction. Understandably BC are very upset having paid out good money for them and ask for them back. Kleve's daughter refuses and the BC issue proceedings in an Ohio Court and goes for summary judgement. I can't argue with the reaction so far ?

The bounty hunters then arrive and what happens is a text book defence against litigation and an application for summary judgement to me. You throw up as much chaff and smoke in the air to stop the summary judgment and get the case listed for hearing and this is what the OC sucessfully did. We can't find the money, we agreed $3m no it was $2.5m, they should have paid Kleve not the agent, its barred by legal technicalities and not enough time to disclose written evidence, other than this copy of unsigned agreement with $2.5 written on it. Hardly compelling evidence so far but enough to persuade the judge there is an arguable case.

There then follows a long period of legal ping pong with OC dallying about trying to get the case thrown out, the car back to Ohio, changing council and engaging more bounty hunters to fund their every increasing legal cost. Still no evidence other then unsubstantiated hearsay and each side professing to tell the truth but enough aggravation to persuade all parties to opt for a deal

So what we have now, is a no winners 50/50 split, that was agreed between all parties but now in dispute because the bounty hunters have fallen out over the lion share. Ocean Joe tells us that four sets of lawyers are working on a solution. If common sense prevails we are unlikely to ever see the evidence. Then again, Jaw Jaw is better than to War War as a great man once said and far less expensive to boot !

 

Thanks for this, but I believe it is still open on whether the owner actually received the money. (Did he cash the check?) If not, one wonders whether he was being scammed by some middle men. Although I do see that his signature is on the settlement agreement--but apparently there is some issue of the authentication of that document.

This is an interesting case. We will see where it goes.

 

A lawyer friend once said to me that when a lawyer says that 'It is an interesting case', its time to head for the hills! It generally means that it could go either way and he, the lawyer, hasn't got a clue about the outcome but you, the client, will end up funding his curiosity!

One can't help but wonder what would have happened if Kleeve and Swaters had been able to sit down and talk this through face to face, without the intervention of others who scented an opportunity to make some very big bucks.

 

That option was always available to Mr. Swaters, who chose not to- for whatever reasons.