The above is incredible and if Bonhams can be shown to have been complicit in any regarding this turn of events, then the Kleve family is going to be the new owner of Bonhams. Nowhere in this thread have we heard of this character and he is issuing a threat to Bohnams, for which he extorted millions? That is a fair representation of the facts where I sit. As for your various steps, it needs to be point out that your 'legal' posturing has some holes in it. When one gives a power of attorney, one makes it (1) revocable upon notice, or (2) irrevocable or (3) revocable upon the passage of time or certain events. But in all of these types of powers of attorney, one thing is black letter law. When you sign a contract pursuant to a valid power of attorney you may not later revoke that signature. Meaning, if the POA was valid at the time you signed (or our attorney in fact signed) the agreement, then you may not later cancel that agreement by revoking the POA. The POA is still valid and in full force for the time period it covered. So, by cancelling/revoking your POA, you are not revoking anything that happened while that POA was in place, but you are simply putting the world on notice that the POA is no longer effective--from here forward. You cannot impact the past and retroactively cancel an agreement.
need to concur with the opinion that Bonhams may have new owners soon... especially on how fast word of the mechanizations of the events leading to and including the auctioning of #0384 spreads through the collector community... Monterey Auctions coming up in the next week or so... would be interesting to measure the confidence level of those consigning to Bonhams by the withdrawals of especially the significant lots, their image is tarnished by the events in UK and may be in further trouble if potential bidders start suspecting the validity of credentials for cars at auction as more news of pending court action is released...
Rare Ferrari to be auctioned, legal issues swirl Kimball Perry, [email protected] 12:01 p.m. EDT May 21, 2014 Cincinnati's piece of international auto racing history goes to auction in England next month but legal issues surrounding the rare 60-year-old Ferrari continue to play out in Hamilton County courts. "This is one of the most famous race cars ever being auctioned," Zach Gottesman, the Cincinnati attorney for one of the car's owners, said. "All the stuff that's happened is a real sideshow." What's happened are two lawsuits, a judge finding of contempt for some in the case not following his orders and one of those involved, Joseph Ford, continuing to try to hang on to what he believes is a percentage of ownership of the car. The car is controversial and coveted because it is so rare and unique, built as a power beast in the golden age of auto racing. At auction, the now-restored 1954 375 Ferrari Plus Grand Prix Roadster 0384AM is expected to be sold June 27 at the Goodwood Festival of Speed just outside of London for $20 million to $30 million. This Ferrari 375 Plus, one of only four in the world, is the subject of an international fight between a Westwood man's estate and a former Belgain race car driver. The Belgain faction said it paid $625,000 to Karl Kleve years ago but the Westwood man's daughter says those documents were altered because the agreed upon sale price was $2.5 million. The car was restored in Ferrari's Italian facilities to its original luster. "The interest in these cars is spiking," Gottesman said. "It could surprise us and go for more." Even as the auction is proceeding, though, Ford continues his legal fight to claim ownership in the car or the tens of millions of dollars it's expected to bring. Ford's attorney, Richard J. Rinear, emailed The Enquirer for this story to note the judicial orders against Ford involving the Ferrari are under appeal. He gave no other comment. Ford is a Florida resident and former lawyer. He was hired by Christopher Gardner, the American-born auto enthusiast now living in Switzerland, to negotiate on his behalf for part ownership of the car. Instead, Gardner alleged in court documents, Ford finagled his way into partial ownership of the Ferrari by cheating Gardner. Gottesman is Gardner's lawyer. "We don't want this (legal fight) splattered on the car. That's him. That's not the car," Gottesman said. There is some concern that Ford's continuing legal wrangling, despite Ford signing documents that would allow the auction to take place, could result in the car fetching less money than expected at auction. "It's unfortunate that we have to deal with this guy flapping his arms," Gottesman said. The car was sold to Westwood's Karl Kleve who kept it on a property in Green Township. Unknown to his family until years later, it was stolen in 1989 and sold to the Belgian racer, Ferrari importer/distributor and classic car collector Jacques "Jack" Swaters who didn't know it was stolen. Swaters restored the car and kept it at Ferrari's Maranello, Italy, museum for five years where Kleve's heirs saw it and initiated action to get it back. After that, Gardner hired Ford to try to buy the car from Kleve's heir, Kristie Kleve Lawson, of Westwood. Gardner thought he bought the majority ownership of the car that still sat in Europe. Ford then contended he owned the car, not Gardner. Later, Swaters and the other three battling owners Gardner, Ford and Lawson, known as the Ohio faction in court documents agreed to put the car and the spare, original parts up for sale. They agreed Swaters would get half of the sale proceeds. The issue now is who gets or doesn't get the other half, potentially $15 million. Lawson, whose attorney wouldn't comment, admits she sold her share of the car to Gardner. Ford says he owns 70 percent of it but Gottesman, as Gardner's lawyer, sued saying Ford gets nothing because he lied about being a lawyer and cheated Gardner out of millions over the last decade. Last week, Common Pleas Court Judge Norbert Nadel found Ford and Lawson in contempt for disregarding the judge's order and trying to withdraw the car and its original spare parts from the auction. They also withdrew legal permission, after all parties agreed, for the car to be auctioned. Despite the legal issues, Gottesman said the auction will occur, the car will be sold and the money placed in escrow until the issue of ownership is resolved. He believes Gardner, his client, will get half and the estate for Swaters, the Belgian who had it restored, will get the other half. The legal issues are set for a Sept. 2 jury trial. The car 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus Grand Prix Roadster 0384AM, the first of six made; Once owned by Kleenex heir Jim Kimberly; One of four existing. Other three owned by international billionaires, including clothier Ralph Lauren; 12-cylinder, 4.9-liter engine, the largest made by Ferrari for race cars; Reached 180 mph, much faster than other cars of the time; Came to Cincinnati when bought by local Cadillac dealer Howard Hively who sold it for $2,500 to Karl Kleve; Stolen from Kleve in 1989, two men were later convicted. Source: Enquirer research, May 2014 Octane magazine, Bonhams.com.
That's really not much of an article....it reads like Gottesman dictated it, actually.."unknown to the family, until years later it was stolen"..that's the world according to Chris Gardner.... Thanks for bringing it in, tho.....
How does this NOT affect Bonhams and the upcoming sale at Monterey with the same clientele who bid on 0384AM? People are talking about this colossal f-up outside of this forum now. One cannot mess up an $18 million sale like this and expect a mulligan!
The latest Sports Car Market has a good summary of the 0384 saga by John Draneas. To me, Bonham's behavior is inexplicable, given what has been revealed in this thread. So I am, at this point, forced to conclude that there is significant information they have that has not been revealed on FC.
And you REALLY believe that an internet website such as fchat (or others) is the right place for all this? Come on! Don't be naive. Washing dirty laundry on the internet? Marcel Massini
I do not understand why Gardner is quoted by Bonhams as being a joint vendor and I agree with the last post that we are not getting the whole picture. From the Swaters website there are documents that confirm: That OJ had a sale agreement and option agreement with Kleves daughter, Lawson, from February 2010 and from OJ's motion to clarify, his interest to now 100% of the Ohio Contingent proceeds. The agreed restraining order attaches a copy of the agreement between Ford and Gardner splitting the proceeds and paying Lawson an eye watering $75,000 under the agreements (although these are not disclosed). The broad terms of the agreement are that Ford holds the benefits of his title and rights "in trust" for he and Gardner in return for Gardner paying the legal fees and Lawson. The proceeds are then used to pay back Gardner first and the balance split 50/50 The way I see it. Ford wants 100% claiming Gardner didn't perform in paying the bills. Gardner wants 100% claiming Ford was only his agent and over stepped the mark. Kleves rightful heir and the true injured party, Lawson gets peanuts As for OJ finding it incredible that the newly introduced Zanotti was not disclosed, I suggest he re reads the order for contempt against him dated 21st September 2011 as late entrants into this pantomime are always welcome. More popcorn ?
Well all the parties seem to be here on Ferrarichat, either actively posting or watching closely, and some have been for years.... With the global "reach" of Ferrarichat in the English speaking world (and in many other places as well) , I'd suggest that pretty much anyone who has a serious interest in older Ferraris is well aware Ferrarichat and of this thread, and that in itself may have a bearing on what participants do, and how they behave. M
I would say that Marcel's comment is more about how there is more information beyond what is publicly disclosed here. My suspicion is that the discovery files are quite huge and we have seen or snipits of them. Jeff
That is absolutely correct. And I can assure you that NOT all the parties involved are on fchat. Any website is the wrong place for such a complicated legal case. Marcel Massini
From a lawyers point of view I am sure you are correct. However from the point of an interested party, not directly involved, it is a case of unjque interest. I don't claim to understand much of the legalese being discussed. However having a file of over 150 pages on this car going back to its beginning and following its career forward and the variety of people and issues involved I am not at all surprised at where things are today. Considering the provenance of 0384, the ruling from the court did not,as I predicted some time go, bring finality to this. It's just the way the world works and I suppose it is a credit to the car that, if nothing else , all this is a reflection of the importance placed on this vehicle.tongascrew
Marcel - I am no doubt naive, but I assure you I never thought FC or any other public website had all of the important information. In fact that was my point, evidently poorly made. Nevertheless I will continue to follow this story as best I can with whatever resources are available to such as I. Actually one of the fun parts is, when someone who might be a party posts, trying to figure out his angle.
I have Peloton on "Ignore" so I only see his posts when he is quoted by another user. In this case, I find it completely incredible that he would seek to blame lawyers. (This is why I have him on "ignore" because I find his logic to be pedantic and jejune.) The parties to this transaction have screwed it up royally. It is fortunate that there are lawyers here who can try to sort out the mess made, because, if there were not, we may be looking at "pistols at dawn."
Just like you couldn't comprehend the context of my "you have nothing" comment to another user that sparked your action, you have me on ignore because you don't understand my posts - that's not my problem. I was NOT blaming the lawyers - we completely agree who is at fault here. Hopefully someone will quote me so you can see you were wrong again. >8^) ER
