375+ # 0384

Enigma Kim's timeline reminded me that I had looked into the issue in the quote above, but had never posted about what I had found. The issue is, how could Judge Nadel respond to the May 28, 2014 ruling of the Court of Appeals -- reversing his August 2013 order to dismiss Swaters v. Lawson & Ford -- by dismissing the case a second time, on June 9, 2014. I was also not understanding the Court of Appeals' use of the term "Final Judgment" to characterize its ruling to reverse Judge Nadel's August 2013 order to dismiss. The answer is, that Ohio's rules of civil procedure provide that the entry of a Final Judgment in a case does in fact leave the trial court with sufficient jurisdiction to hear and decide such post-judgment applications as are necessary to enforce the judgment. At the same time, the dispositive effects of the judgment with respect to the parties' claims for relief and with respect to their conflicting factual scenarios remains undisturbed.

To reduce all the jargon to plain English, the current status of the case of Swaters v. Lawson & Ford (and now Gardner too) is that a Final Judgment has been entered in the Hamilton County Circuit Court, whereby the parties have waived and released all claims with respect to #0384, and whereby the parties have vested jurisdiction in the London Court to hear and decide all disputes arising under the parties' written waiver and release (aka the HoA). The appeal of Judge Nadel's June 9, 2014 second order to dismiss will be denied. At the same time, by operation of law the Hamilton County Court retains jurisdiction to hear and decide any mop up applications which might arise, after the London Court has acted.

This is the explanation for Judge Nadel's seemingly illogical June 9 order to dismiss. All he did was to enter judgment pursuant to the Court of Appeals' own "Final Judgment."

This being the case, IMHO any claim that Bonhams' representation in its catalog that "today . . . all relevant litigation [is] settled," is false, is going to fail. Although a good deal of time had passed between the signing of the HoA in March 2013 and the Goodwood auction in June 2014, and a good many trees had been killed to provide the paper for all the interim legal pleadings, it was never the case that the parties to Swaters v. Lawson & Ford (and Gardner too) had not settled their claims with respect to the ownership of the car, the parts, and the documents. Never.

 

Dear readplays,

I really thought we were getting somewhere until your last post. What is with all of the hostilities?
Every time I think we are just about to have a civil conversation, you start in on this, that, and the other.
Can’t we just address each other in a civil manner and just chat?

What is with you and your constant obsession with money?

On a brighter note, I would like to extend to you a very warm and sincere Thank-You for your the unearthing of discarded Ferrari parts to one of the most beautiful and rare automotive masterpieces ever constructed. The pieces of the car discovered by you during your automotive archeological excavation are a wonderful addition to the provenance of Ferrari #0384.
So …….Thank-You very much for that! We came so close to loosing this automotive masterpiece with such a wonderful race history.
Thank you again.

However, I am a bit disturbed by your post relating to the original post #2 located on page 1:
- Am-I to believe that you have been conversing with the gentleman that chronicles the histories of Ferrari’s?
Well, perhaps he should not be listening so closely to your interpretation of events.

Maybe you would like to forward this to him and have the current history amended:
1) In 1988/89 the remains of what was believed to be a Ferrari were sitting on a trailer for sale. The carcass was claimed to be stolen in 1986 but after an exhaustive search with all reporting agencies, it was NOT listed stolen anywhere in the US . The remains were being sold as: 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. The carcass was positively identified by a Ferrari historian.
2) The 4 defendants won in Federal Court and the trial's conclusion suspended the ability of the FBI to seize the remains of #0384.
The vehicle was deemed abandoned by the U.S. Courts and the purchase was deemed a good faith purchase.
3) The Atlanta trial results were sent to Belgium's Procureur du Roi, proving there was no wrong doing and subsequently released any and all holds on the Ferrari #0384.
(March 1990)
4) There were no underworld figures in the South of France (?) associated with #0384.
5) The restoration of the carcass did not start prior to mid 1990.


Let’s stay in touch, you have contributed a lot with your parts find and I only wish you had some of the early pictures to share.
That would be great.
Oh, just one more teeny weenie little thing and I only want to whisper this to you ……… so you don’t get hostile again.


Kleve NEVER went to France to buy Bugatti engines. The engines were sold as a part of the Harrah’s collection sale in the 1970’s.

 

Poking around on the Hamilton County Circuit Court web site just now, I found on the page for "Case Schedules" in the Lawson & Ford v. Swaters & Gardner case -- https://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=sched&casenumber=A1404305 -- that Judge Beth Meyers has set a hearing for dismissal for February 3, 2015. Is Judge Meyers about to become the *fourth* court to rule that the HoA continues to be effective, including its choice of venue/choice of law provision?

 

Thank you again for your opinion.

Your question was effectively the basis of the legal opinion given to Bonhams that all litigation had been settled. For obvious reasons, OJ is desperate to keep litigation alive in Ohio and avoid going to London. The "other site" states that Fords London solicitors have been directed to accept service of the Bonhams writ for direction that the sale was valid and for damages and I predict that this is where the disputes will be settled with the exception of the defective Ohio title that complicates Wexner's registration.

OJ quotes his favorite John Heywoods proverb " there's none so blind as those that will not see" and it is a great shame he did not heed his own advise or consider other of Heywoods famous quotations such as "not looking a gift horse in the mouth" nor " not seeing the wood for the trees"

 

Ocean Joe stated: “It is fact, the man who stole Kleve’s 1954 Ferrari 375 plus admitted it”.
- OK, so why did he testify in Federal Court that he did not think he did anything wrong.

The alleged theft complaint you posted actually says: 1955 Grand Prix racer 4.9 without VIN number and no mention of a 375 Plus and no title.
- OK, so why don’t you post the real police report (the one you keep referring to) and or supplement to support your statements.

In an interview with the BMV in Columbus Ohio, it was asked if a motor vehicle can be listed stolen without a VIN or a title.
- Answer, “Absolutely not.”

So, let’s be clear. You can list your bicycle, lawnmower, TV, computer, or Fido your doggie as stolen without a title or VIN number.
- Not your Motor Vehicle.

And for all you non- believers, and I’m sure you still exist…... here is a very simple test you can try at home.

Just dial your local police department from your home phone, tell the operator you had your car stolen, you don’t have a VIN number, and you don’t have proof of insurance, and then tell the operator you don’t have a title. Chances are, you will have a visit from a police officer at your house and they won’t be there to make a police report.

Ocean Joe stated: The man who stole the ‘alleged stolen’ Ferrari entered into a plea bargain with the US Government.
- Why don’t you elaborate on that one please?
- Tell us the terms of that agreement and how much jail time the perpetrators received. Especially now that you have claimed that someone was offering the junk at 1,000,000 back then. Really Ocean Joe ?

HERE IS A REAL FACT: The Kleve Junk Collection was condemned by the city as a health hazard, a danger to the children, an eyesore to the neighbors, and a nuisance by the authorities in May of 1988. Kleve was cited on numerous junk car violations and nuisance violations and CONVICTED on all counts.

The court ordered all the junk on the Kleve properties to be removed and disposed of. NOW THAT’S A FACT!

Answer: Technically the person/persons that removed the Ferrari remains in Ohio should have sent a clean-up invoice to Kleve, as the city did, for the removal and disposal of the discarded Ferrari carcass. The clean up was required by the courts and any junk removal could be looked upon as part of that clean-up. If Kleve did not pay the person/persons removing said junk, then the amount invoiced, along with transportation costs, storage costs, including the standard grace period, would result in a default.

Now how do we go about billing Kleve?

To: Karl Kleve
Living in the back of a Lincoln Mk IV
Cheviot, Ohio 45211


I often wonder why the hero/hero’s that rescued the remains of this super rare automotive icon, from being turned into bottle cap’s, did not hire a competent attorney/ attorneys to plea their case in a court of law.
The person/persons had sufficient funds for their defense from the sale of the abandoned Ferrari. They had 50 thousand reasons to do so.

What jury could convict the people who just saved a piece of automotive history and an extremely gorgeous work of art?
Actually, they all deserve metals of recognition, including readplays, for saving perhaps the rarest and the most important piece of automotive artifacts ever to be rescued.





Ocean Joe, Your trial transcript of P 312 :3-4 makes no sense at all.

Is it your contention that the story of the Ferrari 375 is broken down into 3 parts?

Part 1) The Ohio Mafia……….Why don’t you tell the readers what you think happened.

Part 2) The Atlanta Mafia…… They won the case in Federal court, let’s hear
your interpretation.

Part 3) The Belgium Mafia……. The car was exported then imported as #0384 so how do you spin that?

How is it that your dates keep changing as you post?
The theft was on January 24 as you claim, then you said they knew the VIN number on the 27th of January. Kleve states in his 10/28/1998 deposition, the car was stolen on 12/26/1988.

Question: Did you not listen to the deposition dated 10/28/1998?

Now your newly revised date is February 24, 1989 and Green Township Police documents show ‘AS EARLY AS’ February 15, 1989.

Question: Why are you so confused?

And my all time favorite may be the indictment dated March 9th 1989 and that document does not list the Ferrari VIN number on it at all.

Ocean Joe states: The FBI would not put the VIN on an indictment as to not alert the interested persons of an upcoming interview or an upcoming arrest.
- Whoa now! That document does not get seen by the suspect/ suspects prior to interviews or arrests.

Note: FYI, This is a Federal Law Enforcement Agency ( FBI) and THEY DON’T ASK PERMISSION TO ARREST YOU !
I am absolutely certain that they don’t call-up to tell the suspects THEY ARE ON THE WAY TO ARREST THEM !

Are you kidding??? - You can’t possibly believe what you wrote.

Final question: You have stated many times that you are NOT an attorney and you have not acted in that capacity. But then you label yourself as one in 2008. Please note the author description at the bottom of the attached document please. So would you please elaborate?
P.S. -What is a Bugattist and how are you qualified to be one?
- Did you get to stand on the Bugatti engines with BV and readplays?




April 3, 2008
Bugatti Dispute finally settled!
PRESS RELEASE
ANGERS , FRANCE - April 2, 2008.
The much anticipated decision from the High Court of Appeal in Angers , France was handed down on the biggest Bugatti legal battle in years. On March 18, 2008 The High Court of Appeal found that American businessman and car connoisseur Mr. Christopher Gardner......

Find here the complete court papers in French

...... Bugatti and classic car enthusiasts alike should take note: In the world of Bugatti, as well as all other car circles involving rare cars, one should be very careful in assessing the honesty and integrity of shops and restorers, even when those persons are assumed to be of high regard.
Stay tuned for the rest of the story in an upcoming three part expose of interest to all Bugattists and connoisseurs of rare and classic cars.

Joseph Ford III
Attorney and Bugattist
________________________________________

 

Seespotrun, claiming grievance because people are not willing to believe something completely removed from the claimed (and at least partially accepted) truth is one thing. But to then ***** and moan that Readplays has attested to his involvement and that doesn't square with your claims is another. Pot, kettle black anyone?. Readplays and others involved know what they did or didn't do and no amount of bluster from you or anyone else will change that, just like I am sure for your own reasons, you simply will not allow for any version of the truth other than your own.

BTW, everyone keeps asking who you are. And I mean everyone. I was speaking to my contacts at New York Times and Wall Street Journal and they said who is that Seespotrun. All I could say was I dont know............... Come on, put us all out of our "misery"

 

IMHO SeeSpotRun is none other than Guy Anderson, the man who admitted at the Nov 1989 trial to lying to the FBI in March 1989.

The Nov 1989 Anderson testimony, IMHO, contains other lies since it does not match the Anderson paperwork in Swaters' files. For example, Swaters had a 1989.02.22 Bill of Sale from Guy Anderson Worldwide Exchange to Michel Kruch L'Exception Automobile for "one 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus 0384AM", yet at trial Anderson claimed he merely "brokered" the car. [Ferrari Chat p. 13, post 247; p34, post 678] Note how the 1989.02.22 Bill of Sale accurately depicts one 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus VIN 0384AM but three days later on the 1989.02.25 Bill of Lading there is the deceptive declaration of the goods as "racing automobile parts" -- no mention of Ferrari, or 375 Plus or 0384AM. I wonder why? For a more recent example of an Anderson lie, ask SeeSpotRun to post ALL the Georgia registration documents.

Give it up Guy. You passed up your chance to do the right thing in early 1989, and again in Nov 1989, and again in 1999, and here you are, again, trying to deceive people. It's a different world now.

Joe

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

 

Joe, nothing unusual as both documents would have to be presented together on export and on arrival so the full picture would have been disclosed.

When you are shipping overseas, you are required to present a commercial invoice that identifies the buyer and gives an accurate description of the goods being shipped. You are also required to give a value of what is being exported for the assessment of custom duties. As you state, The Worldwide Exchange invoice "accurately depicts" this.

A Bill of Lading is simply the contract between the exporter (identified as Worldwide Exchange) of the goods and the carrier (American Transport Line) and the customer (identified as Exception Automobile) would need both the original invoice and the bill of lading as proof of ownership and in order to clear customs and take possession of the goods.

 

Kim

Do you do this on purpose?

You have ZERO idea much less proof of what docs were given in 1989 to export the stolen car from the US. I have the November 1989 testimony of the shipping agent as she described and testified about her shipping file and NOWHERE is there a Bill of Sale or statement of value.

At the 1989 trial only the Bill of Lading was produced -- AGAIN, no mention of any Bill of Sale. Zero, zip, nada.

Were it part of the trial, it would contradict Anderson's testimony that he merely brokered the car. The US Attorney prosecuting Anderson was ready to nail him for selling without a dealer license, thus his testimony that he merely brokered and DID NOT BUY. (Yet another Anderson lie IMHO.)

The fraudulently understated $4,500 price was not mentioned in the 1989 trial, likely because three men had just testified that a mysterious French buyer paid $50,000 in cash, and the FBI had obtained the cash wrappers that bundled the cash from the men who received it!

You have no proof that the $50,000 price was reported to Belgian customs on import. Provide it if you do. Swaters already provided Belgian import documents showing that the importer FALSELY (i.e. fraudulently) declared the value at $4,500.

So, Kim, you do a disservice to this board, and you spread false information, when you make such statements.

Please stop it.

Joe

*

 

That is a very enticing clue being offered up.

So, what does the Georgia license plate go to. It has an expiration of November 2014. Is it registered to 0384? Did someone title and register it in Georgia in November 2013? If so, who? That info will require someone from law enforcement or a P.I. to obtain it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Joe, I worked in an export finance company for a number of years and I know what documents are required to export goods and clear customs. They are the same all over the world. You need an original invoice and an original bill of lading to clear customs.

Do not put words into my mouth. I have not commented on the value nor the irregularities in this case (although it is certainly not uncommon for exporters to under declare a value for customs purposes).

Instead of being paranoid and constantly accusing me every time I point out the inconsistencies in your statements why not start answering some questions.

Is the rumour true that you are avoiding the service of the Bonhams writ and Gardners call for arbitration ? and why are you now counter claiming against Lawson ?

 

Absolutely Kim. I also worked in import/export for 25 or so years. As you say all you need is an original invoice and bill of lading/airwaybill to clear customs. It is up to customs to query any valuation on the invoice. If payment has already been made it is not that difficult to undervalue on a shipping invoice, though that might give some difficulty with a local tax authority at the shipper's end if investigated. More difficult is if payment is being made on a letter of credit when the shipping invoice becomes the all important document. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

Your persistant errors are a source of irritation.

You confuse export with import. Please provide me with your evidence about what documents were presented to US CUSTOMS in 1989 to accompany the EXPORT FROM THE USA of the "racing automobile parts." When you have that, I will respond.

Until then, I suggest you read the full 1989 Criminal Trial Transcript as to the shipping agent's testimony before you opine about what you think was done, or should have been done, or what customs did.

I can assure you that you are clueless as to what Anderson did as to the exporting of this stolen Ferrari in 1989. When I say clueless, I mean CLUELESS. The export was covered in detail at the criminal trial, and your unsubstantiated statements show you are willing to mislead this board. FYI - in 1989 the shipping agent pressed Anderson for the make, model, and VIN of whatever car he was shipping and Anderson refused to give it, telling her that he was merely shipping a bunch of parts, which were then assessed at a higher duty than a car, which Anderson said was fine. GOT IT?

Again, you mislead the board with your clueless claims and irrelevant "experience" -- what makes you think you can argue with the 1989 shipping witnesses that were under oath, with NO ax to grind? What is your motivation to do such a thing?

I do not have time to reply to the rumors. My UK attorneys are properly instructed, and the FL arbitration has already been initiated, though Gardner needs to have his attorney qualify with the FL bar.

The promised explosive new evidence and that filing will soon be made - in OHIO, and it will likely impact and shorten ALL the UK cases - it may even end them.

Joe

*

 

This picture attached explains enough about the fraudulent importation of #0384AM into Belguim for Kruch in 1989. How can importing something with a declared $4500 value that is advertised for sale at $800k - 1 million USD not be fraudulent? At the very least that is customs fraud. I further like that the "seller" wanted a non-refundable deposit in case his identity was disclosed.

My closing thought is that knowing this thread we will have unnamed posters declaring that the FBI were lying............ or worse.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, I do not understand why you are so offensive and why you choose to deliberately distort my post.

Read it again, slowly.

I am not debating the validity of the documentation and I have no evidence in my possession to do so. What Anderson did or not do has not been disputed by me and like your shipping agent witness, "I have no axe to grind".

What I was saying is that in order to export or import an item you are required to present both an original invoice and bill of lading together in order to clear customs. If this was done correctly then the description on your posted invoice would supplement and not be replaced by the description on your posted bill of lading.

Rather than waste your valuable time ranting at me, can I request you simply explain what documents you believe we're presented to the US customs when the car was exported and what documents you believe we're presented to Belgium customs when the car was imported ?

Kim

 

Thank you Francis.

At least someone understood the point I was trying to make

 

Very interesting Tim.

The question is who do you think was the mystery Belgium with possession of car trying to sell the car in April 1989 for $1m ?

Logic suggests it was the importer Kruch and it is no surprise that despite hawking it around the market he had no takers until the car was cleared by the authorities.

 

And anyway - that's business. Buy something for X and add a margin and sell it for X +. Although the figures quoted seem large, that is all it is. How is that so different from what certain factions are now seeking?

 

I also looked at the Ohio statute on certificates of title last week, and what I found is that, when the owner of a car exports it to another country, the owner must either file a statement that the export is temporary and that the car will be returned to Ohio, or turn over the certificate of title to the BMV for destruction. There is no third choice. Owners who have exported the car with no intention to bring it back are guilty of a *felony* if they do not deliver the certificate of title to the BMV for destruction.

To apply the statutory language to the case of #0384 is unusual, because the last Ohio owner of the car, Karl Kleve, was not an owner who exported his car. However, the way I would construe and apply the statute to #0384 is that Karl Kleve's ownership rights passed to Kristi Lawson and her sisters, and that when Kristi signed the HoA she did become an exporter of the stolen parts within the meaning of the statute. At the moment she signed the HoA, the Ohio certificate therefore ceased to exist with respect to the stolen parts. When she shipped the Ohio parts, later in the summer of 2013, there is no doubt that she became an exporter of this residue, as it were, of #0384, such that the Ohio certificate of title likewise ceased to exist with respect to the Ohio parts.

In other words, after the export of the Ohio parts the only remaining meaning -- or essence, if you will -- of the Ford/Lawson 70/30 certificate of title, is that of a scrap of paper that must be returned to the BMV for destruction. I would construe the statutory scheme even further such that, even though Ford and Lawson have not yet performed their statutory obligation to deliver this piece of paper to the BMV, it has no meaning, other than that of a piece of paper that must be destroyed.

I also recall reading in the statutes that the current owner of the car -- whether that is Wexner or Copley -- simply needs to apply for a new title and it will be issued. This being the case, I have to wonder what's all the fuss. Surely the London attorneys have researched and briefed the Ohio title issues by now, and have written their arguments that any claim that #0384 cannot be exported to the States and licensed in Ohio is false.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Joe Ford has some insight into the legalities, if we can pry him away from relitigating all the Kleve-Lawson ownership claims that he and Kristi Lawson waived and released in March 2013. All this angels dancing on the heads of pins stuff seems to be interesting to a number of participants in this thread. But their resolution requires findings with respect to which set of disputed facts one chooses to believe, and rulings with respect to the correct rules of law. In other words, their resolution requires a trial. But since all the claimants to ownership have waived and released their claims, that's never going to happen. That's why I would prefer more input, information, and opinion about the things that matter.

 

I would like to see justice for Karl Kleve. Justice wont negate what Swaters mere et fils, Anderson, Kruch, Gardiner, Daniels, Lanksweert and others have done over the years but it will at least compensate her for her loss. I have read all 128 pages/ 2544 posts at least twice and this thread began with the simple fact that #0384AM had been stolen from KK. Since then we have had claims that #0384AM never existed, claims that KK had been compensated, claims that KK never owned the car and more insults of KK's character than I have had hot dinners. But I have yet to read a concise explanation for anything other than KK owning the car, it being stolen and then turning up in JS collection.

As for December 2014, I think OJ may have been best to have accepted one of the deals but I am still totally cautious in that thought process due to the ever present CG action. It would appear that CG is only loosely bound by the HOA and it would be prescient to consider if we are holding him to the same standards we are holding OJ to? For example CG has agreed to having both KKL and OJ as signaturies to the HOa and yet he has taken action claiming that he owns 100% of the Ohio portion AND has told Bonhams (and FS?) that he owns 100% of the Ohio portion. How does that work. I only know what I have read on this thread and there has been plenty of postings from CG and OJ, none of which gave any proof for 100% claims on the Ohio moneys. If and we really dont know, if, CG is simply going to claim any and all moneys paid to either CG or KKL, then what does that mean for you? because for me personally that would mean no justice for KK....................

For me eventual closure must encompass some compensation for his heir, KKL, I perhaps foolishly would also like an apology from the swaters family but I wont hold my breath. Anyone have any other suggestions for what closure should look like?

 

This is confusing. I've sold a number of cars from Ohio to the EU and elsewhere. A vehicle cannot be exported without a title that matches the VIN. A bill of sale will only suffice for major components like chassis or body panels.

I've never heard about this statute requiring return and destruction of title, unless it reads that the destination country must return the title once they have finished with it? And when the title is surrendered for registration in the destination country, the owner loses all control over that document.

 

That is interesting. All I know is what the law says. Here's the link: Lawriter - ORC . Here is the relevant portion, subd. (B) of Ohio Statutes section 4505.21:

(B) No owner of a motor vehicle who exports or permits the export of the motor vehicle for permanent location outside of the United States shall do any of the following:

(1) Fail to surrender the certificate of title to the motor vehicle to the registrar prior to the date that the motor vehicle is delivered to any person for export;

(2) Knowingly fail to surrender the certificate of title to the motor vehicle to the registrar prior to the date that the motor vehicle is delivered to any person for export.

The reason for the inclusion of both a "knowing" form of failure to surrender and a "non-knowing" (aka strict liability) form of failure to surrender is that subsection (1) of subd. (D) excuses negligent but good faith failures to surrender: "Proof that the defendant acted in good faith and surrendered the certificate of title to the registrar within a reasonable time after delivery of the motor vehicle for export is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under division (B)(1) of this section."

The teeth of the title statute with respect to permanent exporters is set forth in subsection (2) of subd. (G): "Whoever violates division (B)(2) . . . of this section is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree."

I don't doubt your reporting, that custom and practice in the car export business is that the certificate of title leaves the country with the car. I can only speculate that "the registrar" (the Ohio BMV) has developed a method -- by regulation or by practice -- for reconciling the demands of the Ohio statute, that the certificate of title to a permanently exported car must be surrendered to the BMV for destruction, and the demands for documentation of the relevant customs agencies, both home and abroad.

 

Bill

I was a licensed car dealer in two states in a prior life so it is easier for me to read and grasp Ohio statutes.

First, titles are an ownership tracking system for property.

In Ohio, an owner registers his ownership and is given a certificate of title, the purpose of which is to help guard against theft. More recent, the title is a convenient and orderly method of acknowledging a security interest when financing is involved.

Cars are stolen all day long, and the fact that a title exists in a separate location form the car, and requires an owner to sign off on a sale, is a method to regulate and assure true conveyances, both FROM an owner and TO a seller.

In a sale to an out-of-state US owner, the system requires the owner/seller to sign off and to name the buyer, who takes BOTH the car and the title to a new state, turning the title in to that state who then issues a new title in that state. States (seller's state) require notification (some have forms) when such a sale occurs so they can clear their books of the title. "Open titles" with no "buyer" named are illegal in most states and immediately invalid.

As to the sale and export to a foriegn buyer, the seller still must sign off and identify the buyer. Ohio wants that buyer to turn in the title at that point in time so it can clear its records of the former Ohio owner's ownership and have a record of a new purchaser -- Ohio is NOT interested in tracking future ownership(s) of non-Ohio citizens.

I doubt many people follow this protocol. Swaters did not and his 1999 New York attorneys advised him he needed to hire an attorney to check out what to do about Ohio title law, export, import law, etc. I have that 1999 New York attorney letter -- Swaters has no excuse not to have acted properly IMHO. See below.

As to exporting, such as when we sent stuff to London under protest, there was no sale nor conveyance to any buyer nor to Bonhams, so the present Ohio Certificate of title is indeed VERY IMPORTANT and remains THE ONLY current, officially contested in court title (still current, and subject to that court challenge).

Challengers to the Ohio title will have to prove their claim (there was one in Georgia who opted not to make any challenge officially in any US or UK court, and one from Paraguay, who tried that last minute gauntlet ploy in London - Zanotti)

Vintage racers and concours contestants ship their cars across borders regularly, retaining title as you don't convey ownership unless the owner intends to convey ownership. Shipping in connection with a future anticipated sale is NOT a conveyance.

Per the HOA, we intended to convey ownership at the future closing. We specifically DID NOT sign the Bonhams standardized Terms and Conditions. The Power of Attorney we were ordered to sign on August 19, 2013 expired with the HOA, then were cancelled by us on Sept 24 and Feb 18, then were invalidated when we won the appeal which reversed the Aug 19 order since it was ILLEGALLY rendered by a court who had NO jurisdiction to do so.

Hope the above helps. IMHO, and this is no secret, the current Ohio title in Ford and Lawson's name is so far THE ONLY title standing, and I predict it will survive all challenges.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thank you for the informative reply. With a recognition that custom and practice may deviate from the plain language of the statutory scheme, and the further recognition that everything I have to say about Ohio title law is based on a quick read-through of the statutory scheme -- Lawriter - ORC -- and on no review of the relevant case law or BMV regulations, it remains the case that the Ohio statute on certificates of title does not make a distinction between exports for subsequent sale abroad, and exports for any other purpose. Rather, subsection (3) of subd. (c) of section 4505.21 defines "export" as follows:

"'Export' means the shipping or transportation of a motor vehicle from any point inside the United States to a point outside of the United States. 'Export' does not include operating the motor vehicle by means of its own power or that of a motor vehicle drawing or towing it unless the purpose of the owner is to avoid compliance with division (B) or (C) of this section."

Note that this statutory definition expressly refers to the requirements set forth in subd. (B), imposed on every owner who permanently exports a vehicle, that "No owner of a motor vehicle who exports or permits the export of the motor vehicle for permanent location outside of the United States shall . . . [para.] Fail to surrender the certificate of title to the motor vehicle to the registrar prior to the date that the motor vehicle is delivered to any person for export."

Nor does the statute make any distinction between an owner who exports a vehicle for resale of her own free will, or one who exports a vehicle for resale pursuant to a court order. In fact, the statutory scheme includes a section dedicated to dealing with involuntary sales. That would be section 4505.10, entitled "Certificate of title when ownership changed by operation of law." Subd. (A) of section 4505.10 provides in part as follows:

"In the event of the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle by operation of law, as upon inheritance, devise, bequest, order in bankruptcy, insolvency, replevin, or execution sale, a motor vehicle is sold to satisfy storage or repair charges, or repossession . . . , a clerk of a court of common pleas, upon the surrender of the prior certificate of title or the manufacturer's or importer's certificate, or, when that is not possible, upon presentation of satisfactory proof to the clerk of ownership and rights of possession to the motor vehicle, and upon . . . presentation of an application for certificate of title, may issue to the applicant a certificate of title to the motor vehicle."

As you might guess, subd. (A) of section 4505.10 is the basis of my opinion that Copley-Wexner are free to apply for a new Ohio title at will. The claims to ownership which formerly belonged to Ford and Lawson were transferred to Copley-Wexner by operation of law. Pursuant to subd. (A) of section 4505.10, Copley-Wexner therefore need only appear before a clerk of court to present "satisfactory proof . . . of ownership and rights of possession to the motor vehicle," and the clerk may issue a new certificate of title to them, forthwith.

 

As I read it, Ford and Lawson are the owners, and no owner undertook or permitted any such export for permanent (or temporary) location outside the states. Applying the facts to the Ohio law means no surrender is required.

Further, surrendering a title under such curcumstances does not negate, void, or diminish ownership. It is merely the state of Ohio trying to track property within its borders, and not waste resources tracking property outside its borders that has been PERMANENTLY exported.

Ownership (i.e. title to property) as opposed to a Certificate of Title (a state sanctioned paper representation of ownership) are different things. Here, chain of title (ownership) tracks and is confirmed by the Ohio tracking system (recordation of that chain of title via Certificates.) The former ("title" i.e. "ownership") is substance while the latter ("title" i.e. certificate) is intended to track and to represent the former. Here, we have an unbroken title (ownership) claim that can be traced back to 1958 - that is quite strong, and it is reinforced by Ohio titles. Physical possession is a separate issue from ownership.

I agree, it can be confusing.

Joe

*