375+ # 0384 | Page 72 | FerrariChat

375+ # 0384

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by tongascrew, Jul 26, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    450
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    #1776 Ocean Joe, Aug 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017

    Speaking of the Ferrari Community that hangs out here - I have a question.

    The below pic has never been published. Marcel will want to add this to his collection.

    What car? What race?

    Joe

    *
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  2. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy F1 Rookie

    Apr 5, 2010
    2,612
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    NO, simply states he bought the car without stating who from, it seems clear that the car was purchased (BY GA) from the people who stole it.....

    GA never states I bought it from you or I bought it from Karl Kleve. If you want to be from Supermans bizarro world you could take any position on what it doesnt say BUT my version of fits with the established timeline.
     
  3. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy F1 Rookie

    Apr 5, 2010
    2,612
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell

    Yep, totally with you on that, but dont you just love that every new poster on this thread is claiming there either was no car or the car wasnt stolen because Karl Kleve never owned it.

    Come on Seespotrun, DogDay and Max Vito (Where did he go?) and whoever else wants to be a conspiracy theorist, put your cards on the table and tell us what your ahem, game is........ In recent posts from you the abovementioned we have been told the pictures of #0384 are fake, the car is fake, it was never in Ohio, it wasnt stolen, it never existed, Marcel is a liar and on and on. It is like every conspiracy/ hoax all wrapped up into one. Its kind of like the 9/11, moon landing and JFK assassination plots.

    Or just continue because some of your posts are the funniest things I read on a given day.
     
  4. Athanase

    Athanase Formula Junior

    Jan 27, 2007
    311
    375 Plus 386AM Farina, Grand Prix du Sénégal 1954.
     
  5. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    +1

    It is a shame we only get the Ohio Contingent side to the story albeit that they have all fallen out and accuse each other of skulduggery. Then again Belgium is better known for their Beer, Lace and Chocolates than for entertainment
     
  6. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    ??
     
  7. GBTR6

    GBTR6 Formula Junior

    Dec 29, 2011
    452
    Titletown, USA
    Full Name:
    Perry Rondou
    I dunno, Beer, Lace, and Chocolates sounds pretty entertaining!

    Perry
     
  8. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    450
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    #1783 Ocean Joe, Aug 19, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
    The classic car guru ("Guru") is the husband of Debc and has handled private treaty sales of many, many cars, often with multimillion dollar price tags. He's been doing it since the 1970's and has a stellar reputation. Private treaty sales are how most big ticket cars change hands IMHO.

    Guru had a contract with Ms. Kristi Kleve-Lawson since 2007 to recover and sell the stolen Ferrari. Once Ms. Lawson was sued, Guru knew the game had changed and knew Kristi needed specialized help. Guru knew Gardner and had heard about me through Gardner because I had successfully helped Gardner's European attorneys in a years long, complex classic car case in France involving a racing pre-war Bugatti and a pre-war Mercedes 500K. Gardner referred my name to Guru. Guru and Debc interviewed me and when satsified, Guru had the Lawsons call me.

    After more interview with the Lawsons, they let me review the docs. I agreed to come on board and to take a position, and thus the 2010.02.25 Sale and Option Agreements [Ex.10-11]. Remember, in the beginning, this is a crap shoot of a very uncertain outcome - it took very specialized knowledge to assess the pros and cons. It would take very specialized knowledge to "grow the pie" using a team of lawyers, and I believed I could do it. I saw enough value, with my involvement, to commit, and I did.

    Once I and Kristi reached the Sale and Option Agreements, I sought a financial backer. On 2010.02.28 I asked Gardner to come on board [Ex.12]. On 2010.03.02 I almost had my dad do the financing because Gardner was non-committal [Ex.15]. On 2010.03.02 I offered Gardner a partnership [Ex. 13]. Gardner refused to commit. On 2010.05.17 I offered Gardner a joint venture [Ex. 18]. Gardner refused to commit. My litigation cost projections were too much for Gardner [Ex. 18]. It was only AFTER we had locked in some gains and made progress in Ohio court that Gardner commited and agreed to fund "through trial, appeals, and beyond until physical recovery", and thus the 2011.01.31 Ford-Gardner Ferrari Financing Agreement [Ex.24]

    Gardner paid me the $75k, and I paid Kristi per my agreement with Kristi - Change #3 -the 70% to100% with 10% lien change [Ex. 10-11] (F Chat p74, post #1473). We all thought it was a done deal and I had even put the title in my name, until months later we learn that my attorney (Taft) had failed to get Judge's "Status Quo Order" approval of the 70% to 100% change as required by C#3 para. 3.7 - a condition precedent. So, for either of two reasons, 1) Judge Nadel's Order voiding C#3, or, 2) the failure of the condition precedent, the change to 100% did not occur as a matter of law. Of course, now, Gardner refuses to take the $75k back because the prize (or pie) is now big and tangible. But Gardner's refusal of the $75k is not going to be enough to change it back, and of course Gardner has done some bad things that more than offset the $75k since the time I put Gardner in default (F Chat p75, post 1499) - thus the Gardner vendetta [Ex. 69] (F Chat p62, post 1230).

    The above is all well documented in my deposition, document by document, exhibit by exhibit.

    Gardner's present lawsuit in Ohio is, IMHO, is simply a fraudulent grab for what Gardner lost when he defaulted.

    Joe

    *
     
  9. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    1,206
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    One aspect of importance is that, if the timeline of this appeal is similar to that of the appeal from Judge Nadel's first judgment dated August 19, 2013, the Swaters v. Lawson case will be on ice until February or March 2014. (The first Notice of Appeal was filed on September 19, 2013, and the Court of Appeals' opinion was issued on May 28, 2014.) I predict the result will be to reverse Judge Nadel's second judgment. This will put the parties right back where they were when they entered into the Heads of Agreement in the first place. Of course there has been a major change of circumstances, in that the non-party Bonhams has transferred to another non-party the possession of the physical things that were the objects of the litigation. But all the pre-existing disputes regarding the ownership of these physical things will again be at issue. These disputes must be settled by the parties, disposed of on the merits with motions for summary judgment, or disposed of with a trial. This process will require six months to a year. If the disposition is by motion or trial, another round of appeals is likely. This will add another eight months. All-in-all, I am guessing that final disposition of the parties' disputes -- other than by settlement -- will require 22 to 30 months.
     
  10. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Can you explain the relationship between the Ohio and London Court here ?

    Put simply, will the Ohio case need to wait until London rules on the Heads of Agreement before proceeding. I assume that if the HoA is upheld and the sale stands then Ohio no longer has a breach of contract claim to consider
     
  11. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Can you appeal the Court Order reversing the change in ownership % ?

    It may be a breach of the Status Quo but I cannot see how it effects a claim for breach of contract or why it cannot subsequently be changed

    Kim
     
  12. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    450
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    All below is IMHO:

    When the HOA was capable of being performed, then an Ohio court should wait on the London court because a party can show that if performed, the parties agreed to end the case. Now that the HOA cannot be performed, the party seeking a stay in Ohio court cannot make a showing of if performed, it would end the case.

    The remedy for anyone seeking damages for failure to perform the HOA lies in London, and the Ohio litigation continues because the parties never agreed that Ohio litigation should not continue if the HOA was not performed. The HOA is a simple side agreement with side remedies.

    I am told (and agree wholemindedly) by relaible London barristers and solicitors that the HOA did not contemplate a sale at any future auction other than the one the HOA expressly specified, so the HOA expired. Blame lies with those who litigated in the wrong forum - all had the opportunity to make a claim in London, especially Bonhams - all chose not to do so.


    It is too late to appeal that Order. With the subsequent vendetta and damage by Gardner, I do not see the parties reaching any such agreement to re-open the issue. That loss of the 100%w10%Lawsonlien to 70% change cost me as well.


    Here is the Ohio litigation that I thought I heard someone say was "all settled" LOL.

    Ohio

    Ohio trial court case A1001370: Swaters v Lawson – filed 2010.02.12 - ongoing
    Ohio trial court case A1306451: Gardner v Ford, Lawson – filed 2013.09.24 - ongoing
    Ohio trial court case A1404305: Ford, Lawson v Swaters, Gardner – filed 2014.07.23 - ongoing

    Ohio appeal court case C1300604: Appellant Lawson appeals 2013.08.19 Judgment in A1001370 - ended
    Ohio appeal court case C1300627: Appellant Ford appeals 2013.08.19 Judgment in A1001370 - ended
    (Appeal court consolidates C1300604 and C1300627 into C1300604; Appellants prevail on May 28, 2014)

    Ohio appeal court case C1400270: Appellant Lawson appeals 2014.05.14 Contempt Order in A1001370 - ongoing
    Ohio appeal court case C1400334: Appellant Ford appeals 2014.05.14 Contempt Order in A1001370 - ongoing
    Ohio appeal court case C1400361: Appellants Ford, Lawson appeal 2014.06.09 Judgment in A1001370 - ongoing
    (Appeal court consolidates C1400270, C1400334, and C1400361 into C1400270)

    A case does not end until appeals are exhausted.


    Joe


    *
     
  13. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    1,206
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    This is opinion only. I have not seen the Complaint filed by Jack and Florence Swaters on February 12, 2010, or the Counterclaim filed by Kristi Lawson on March 18, 2010, or Joe Ford's Counterclaim in Intervention filed by agreement on April 8, 2010, or the Crossclaim in Intervention filed with leave of court by Christopher Gardner on or before August 19, 2013. Therefore I do not even know what claims for relief each of the four parties is asserting, or against whom. But let's assume they all have to do with title to the Car, and the related parts and documents, that were mentioned in the Heads of Agreement. (Here's my transcription of the HoA.)The HoA was introduced into the narrative in March 2013, seeking to resolve all these claims by agreement (including those of Gardner, who was not yet a party to the lawsuit at that time).

    The London High Court's jurisdiction under the HoA consists of the following: "This Agreement shall be governed by English law and any dispute in relation to it will be determined by the High Court of Justice in London."

    Various "disputes in relation to" the HoA have arisen. They include Ford's claims that the HoA contemplated that Swaters would stipulate to lift the Agreed Status Quo Order, entered April 23, 2010, but she did not; that Swaters breached the HoA's agreement of transparency and open communication; and that these breaches excused all further performance by Ford and Lawson. They include Swaters's claims that Ford and Lawson did not perform their agreements to deliver parts and documents to Bonhams. It is also likely that Swaters will claim that the HoA included an implied provision that Bonhams had an open-ended agency to auction the Car, parts, and documents at a future auction, if the non-performance of a party caused Bonhams to be unable to perform an auction at the September 2013 Goodwood Revival.

    If Bonhams is a party to the London case, Bonhams is likely to claim this same implied extension of its agency. Bonhams also appears to contend that it did not need a judicial resolution of the Ford-Lawson Ohio title with the 70-30 split, in order to convey clear title at its auction in June 2014.

    Christopher Gardner might be a party as well, seeking an adjudication of his own "disputes in relation to" the HoA. I am sure there are other claims which fall under the heading "disputes in relation to" the HoA.

    However, it is unlikely that the resolution of these disputes in London will resolve all the claims asserted by the parties in the Swaters v. Lawson action. Again, it is my prediction that the Court of Appeals will throw these claims back to the Hamilton County Circuit Court. I will add the prediction that the Ohio Court will rule that the London Court's rulings on some of the "disputes in relation to" the HoA will be binding on the Ohio. However, I do not predict that it will rule that all the claims asserted in the Ohio Complaint and Counterclaims were disposed of. This issue will depend on the law of Ohio with respect to settlement agreements, particularly with respect to settlement agreements where each of the settling parties claims that other parties have failed to perform. One big wild card is, what will the Ohio Court do if the London Court rules that Bonhams' agency did extend beyond the conclusion of the September 2013 Goodwood Revival? Even if we were experts on the applicable Ohio law, we can't know the answer to this question until we know the London Court's ruling.

    But that's the basic division of labor. The Ohio courts must dispose of all the claims asserted in all the pleadings. The London Court must dispose only of "disputes in relation to" the HoA.

    Of course, if actions are filed in London on other theories -- e.g., the auction winner's rumored claims against Bonhams -- the London Court will not be subject to the HoA's limits on its jurisdiction.

    My final thought is that the claims arising from this car are getting too complicated to comment on with any kind of accuracy.
     
  14. dogday

    dogday Karting
    BANNED

    Aug 15, 2014
    60
     
  15. GBTR6

    GBTR6 Formula Junior

    Dec 29, 2011
    452
    Titletown, USA
    Full Name:
    Perry Rondou
    "It doesn't help to point at the remains of that Ferrari over there in the weeds, it doesn't exist"

    That there never were any remains in Ohio is an indefensible argument. Made to justify the theft.

    The people involved in the orchestrations of the theft and purchase are kidding themselves. This wasn't some Chebby Vega.

    Perry
     
  16. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 6, 2002
    79,143
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    Max Vito went to Monterrey, and he has not sobered up yet....from his last post.
     
  17. deeprivergarage

    deeprivergarage Formula Junior
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 3, 2009
    560
    S of Fort Worth
    Full Name:
    Jerry
    My $.02.

    Very interesting legal quick sand, but Enzo's attorney had it right.

    Jerry
    DRG

    (note signature)
     
  18. Pass

    Pass F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 29, 2008
    12,439
    Salida Colorado
    Full Name:
    Mark Passarelli
    Max Vito doesn't have permission from the courts to leave the state of AZ.. I think she is still on probation.
     
  19. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Thank you for your explanation and caveat. What I find interesting is the Bonhams proceeded with the sale after being put on notice by Ford and Lawson. They are an experienced and reputable auctioneer and would have taken advise before selling the car as the ramifications were obvious. As you say, It is difficult to comment without seeing the whole picture
     
  20. wrxmike

    wrxmike Moderator
    Moderator Owner

    Mar 20, 2004
    7,573
    Full Name:
    Mike
    Good observations, the aspect of the Bonhams auction process that I find interesting and that no one has explained so far is the following posted by OJ:

    As you say, Bonhams had been put on notice by Ford & Lawson before the auction and Bonhams appeared to disregard that, but when a new third party, (not previously mentioned in any documents in the case) suddenly issues a claim impugning the Car’s title and authenticity (the “Claim”),to Bonhams 24 hours before the auction, alarm bells should have been going off at the most senior levels at Bonhams. Faced with such a claim at short notice, I would have thought that and experienced and reputable auctioneer would not have proceeded with an auction at that time.

    Instead, a settlement for 2m is negotiated and the auction proceeds.

    Perhaps it's coincidence, but the timing of the Zanotti claim occoured at exactly the right time to put as much pressure as possible on Bonhams ? / Swaters ? / Gardner ? to settle quickly as they were committed to the auction going ahead the following day.

    So what claim exactly did Snr Zanotti have on the title? The name appears no-where previously, I find it hard to understand how someone can come from nowhere with enough conviction to negotiate a 2m settlement within 24 hours ? And out of whose pocket did the 2M settlement come from ? Was it Gardner, or Swaters, or Bonhams, or all of them ?

    The answers to those questions will no doubt shed more light on the reason(s) why Bonhams went ahead with the auction, but I suspect that won't be clear until the discovery stage of UK litigation.
     
  21. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,535
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    My follow-up points would be:

    1. What was the basis for Bonhams' belief that Lawson & Ford had no standing in the consignment at the time of the sale? One must reasonably assume that their legal counsel had a plausible rationale why Bonhams could act this way.

    2. On where the money for the 2M settlement came from. Sounds like this was advanced by Bonhams against the sale proceeds which would then be deducted from the disbursement.
     
  22. wrxmike

    wrxmike Moderator
    Moderator Owner

    Mar 20, 2004
    7,573
    Full Name:
    Mike
    Good points
    I wonder who's disbursement the 2m got taken out of after the sale ?
    Do you think that all parties shared the cost equally ?. To me that doesnt make sense, as Gardner / Swaters were not on the same side, and Bonhams was just the auctioneer.

    M
     
  23. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,535
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    My speculation is that the 2M would come straight off the top of the sale price with the split to the parties after that. That is unless one of the parties already was known to be colluding as part of the 2M claim.

    Look at some of the recent filings and notice that Gardner and Swaters are on the same side. Their interests have converged to some degree.
     
  24. WilyB

    WilyB F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 23, 2007
    4,104
    AZ
    And why an astute business man from OH with a very nice collection of old Ferrari would bid on that car and then, allegedly, sue Bonhams?

    A Chinese tycoon making an impulsive investment, I would understand, but the buyer and Copley had to know extensively 0384AM's history prior to the auction.
     
  25. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,535
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    We don't know what the bidder was told before the auction. There could have been assurances that it was all under control and also that Swaters and Gardner were the only legitimate consignors.

    We just don't know and those that do know these details are not talking here. Now if we could read the full filing made by the bidder that might give us some insight. If we could also see Bonhams responding filing then we might as be able to understand their logic of proceeding with the offering. Anyone able to access and post these?
     

Share This Page