Joe, I am afraid I do not have access to the financier/attorney documents you refer to and wish me to post. The only documents I can see are those posted on this site and elsewhere. On the other site there is a transcript of a later Court hearing on the 14th November 2013 with Judge Martin ( i think posted before) where he is critical of your conduct in Court and for using documents stolen from Gardner when you "acted as an attorney" and that "from the evidence in this case is it was a client/adviser relationship. That means it's a master/servant relationship". But I appreciate this is the basis of the dispute between you and why it is all going to arbitration Back to your other points. So what you are saying is, and forgive any impression of bias and scepticism : Because Swaters did not agree with your interpretation of the HoA produced one month after the HOA you are entitled to wreck the sale process Although you were already in Court in Ohio, the only option open to Swaters to get you to ship the parts would have been to issue proceedings and service notice on you in a UK Court, which you would have course willingly accepted, and have the matter heard and concluded before the September 2013 deadline. Otherwise, as far as value is concerned I would have agreed with your estimate in July 2013. Personally, I do not see it doubling in value to $25m in under a year as you have claimed but like a lot of contributors to the Vintage Market thread, what do I know ? Image Unavailable, Please Login
You are incorrect. You do have access to those docs. Haas April 18, 2013 proposed Order is at Ferrari Chat Post p.119 post 2378 and again at p.129 post 2561. Jones May 14, 2013 proposed Order is at p.119 post 2379. A preliminary injunction hearing is a special type of hearing where the purpose of it, and any official outcomes are PRELIMINARY and TEMPORARY as the Court intends to actually decide the issues at a later date. There WAS NO ORDER THAT FOUND client/advisor or master/servant. I note you post the 2013.11.14 Hearing Transcript and it is deliberately mislabeled as if a "Ruling" (by Max or Reproman of Gardner). It is not a "Ruling," it is a mere "transcript." Do you see how you have been mislead? Do you see how you repeat the misleading item and the end up misleading the board? No. Kim, for the last time, I already said what I am saying, to you and in writing. Why must you twist it? The Ohio Appellate Court agreed with me, i.e. If you have a problem enforcing or interpreting the HOA, go to London and get it fixed. The fact that our attorney and the Swaters' attorney proposed those two orders (Ap. 18 and May 14, 2013) and then Swaters refused to sign either means SHE had the problem, so SHE chose to "wreck" the HOA as written and agreed. Not once did she come out at the time of the dispute and reveal the secret agreement with Bonhams. Is that acting in good faith? Is Bonhams acting as a fiduciary or as a party in good faith? The answer is "NO." Her (and my) option, if enforcement were sought, were to go to London and make an application for an order. If time is of the essence, maybe the application is an emergency application. All those outcomes are speculative. IMHO, the take away is that Swaters did not want to enforce the HOA as written, thus SHE made no application to do so. On 2013.07.15 I gave my OPINION of value as $12 -$16,000,000. Sales immediately after that time show my OPINION to be conservative, especially since around that time Bardinon's 375 Plus car (the only true comparable) was rumored to be asking $30,000,000. On 2014.06.27 Bonhams knocked down a hammer price of basically $16,000,000 plus premium for basically a total price that a buyer will pay for Lot 320 as $18,000,000 in that circumstance. I value the spare replica engine (2nd engine) at about $200-400,000, so lets say the total 2014.06.27 sale is $17,500,000. It is my view that the sale was under less than a "best price" auction circumstance because some but not all knew of the ongoing litigation, some but not all believed Bonhams as to the status of the litigation, and some but not all had assuarnces from Bonhams. So I do not think anything "doubled in value" -- there was only ONE sale under a less than "best price" setting. Apparently, my OPINION of value was a little too low, and had about a year of appreciation to factor in. Joe *
If you were in Joe's shoes and you knew that your payday was most certainly dependent on Stay-Pay-Dismiss being enacted, what would you do? Simply give the car away for promises from people that they will act ethically? Like it or not Joe had every reason and every right to demand guaranteed payment for his share of proceeds.
Reproman, why dont you post a photo of yourself at Amelia, provide a bit of colour to the thread and possibly settle the argument as to who you really are? JUST SAYING.
I am sorry but with 2,729 posts in this thread it is difficult remembering yet alone finding all of the relevant posts but thank you for the re-direction. Joe, you have made this point many times and I purposely referred to the comment as a hearing and not an order. For me, the benefit of the hearing transcripts posted elsewhere is that they show both sides of the attorney arguments and the Judges comments based on all of the evidence presented to him. Consequently, we can all gain a better understanding on what is going on than from reading only what you post on this thread. You may consider the Judges comments to be misleading and that I have been mislead but it is unfair to suggest I am misleading the Board by simply repeating the Judges comments and posting the entire hearing. Otherwise, with the latest "secret deal" claim, I confess to be totally lost as to what is going to happen with all of these actions and how you see this playing out. You helpfully posted a summary of where all the cases and appeals were a couple of months ago and it would be great if you can update it. K
Fair comment. Like Joe and given the magnitude of the payout, I would want to ensure my money is guaranteed before I gave up my claim. However, the problem here and in any sales contract is "who bears the risk" Joe or the buyer ? In 99.9% of contracts there is no risk as they involve the simultaneous release of funds on the passing of a title for the protection of both the buyer and the seller. In this case, OJ is asking that the claims are not dismissed until he has received his money and therein lies your problem. The Gardner/Ford dispute is going to arbitration and Judge Martin commented that the trial could take years to complete. Are you suggesting that Mr Wexner, having paid his money, has to wait a couple of years until he can get his hands on his beautiful car ?
considering all the BS we have seen by the various participants, one would become concerned about what is done in a normal course of business... there is plenty to show concern about the proceeds of sale could be exposed to hi-jack by clever mechanizations... it is not any different than demanding cash or collected funds in a normal transaction before title passes... in this case there are several parties that need to be paid as they release their portion of claim to title... it is a benefit to the purchaser as well , as he can receive clear release of title from each participant to form a sale of the entire car without further claims... it no different than a normal closing on a piece of real estate with multiple lien holders and / or owners. It is good business practice... especially with the amount of sale and the BS to date leading to a lack of trust Wexner's beef is with Bonhams for not having a clear capacity to transfer a clear title in a timely manor. The burden is on Bonhams for creating a sale lacking the ability to transfer title. The length of time to produce goes to Bonhams' deficiency in all matters leading to a sale
I never said it would be easy nor involve compromise. Look, quite simply if Mr Gardner and Miss Swaters were absolutely serious about the selling, the could simply have agreed to actually commute the HOA into an actual contract with details of how each party would get paid and how much. For example it could have been stated 40% for OJ, 10% for KKL or whatever and however. I wouldnt want to sell or buy anything owned by a partnership until the dispersal of funds had been decided because this could drag on for years with appeals and counter appeals and thats assuming that every party acts ethically. Selling it under the HOA was only half way there with its agreement that ALL parties would work together and its ideas as to how and who would get paid. We all know that Bonhams had a conflict of interest and a financial stake in this consignment and so were hardly likely to be fair. My theory would be that they should have pulled the consignment and gotten back to litigation to decide the ownership back in late 2013. Anything else is conjecture
+1 How can anyone sell anything when they cant legally expediate the transfer of ownership within a reasonable period of time?
This discussion has gone off the rails. Bonhams did not sell anything. The sellers at Goodwood in June 2014 were Swaters and Gardner. Under the March 2013 HoA Ford, Lawson, Gardner and Swaters agreed to liquidate the claims they were asserting in the Swaters v Lawson case in exchange for an auction sale of the car, parts, and papers, and the distribution of the proceeds. They gave Bonhams authority to receive all certificates of title and bills of sale and to decide unilaterally the form of the written memorandum of ownership that it would deliver to the buyer at auction. This is what did happen. An auction sale did occur, and Copley as agent for Wexner won that auction and paid the bid plus commission to Bonhams. According to the terms of the form contracts included at the back of Bonhams' catalog for the Goodwood June 2014 auction, Copley-Wexner were obligated to pick up the car at Goodwood and take it into their custody. No one has ever indicated that this did not happen. Nor has anyone ever indicated that Bonhams has not done what the parties asked Bonhams to do in the HoA, with respect to the delivery to the auction winner of a written memorandum of ownership in such form as Bonhams unilaterally decided to deliver. In the Swaters v. Lawson case, Swaters alleged that she owned the Car and the Ohio Parts. She liquidated this claim. She does not own this claim any longer. In the Swaters v. Lawson case, Ford and Lawson alleged that they owned the Car and the Ohio Parts. They liquidated this claim. They do not own this claim any longer. All that any of these three presently owns is a contingent interest that, if the proceeds of sale are not paid out to them, then they are not obligated to dismiss the Swaters v. Lawson case. What happens next, if they are not obligated to dismiss the Swaters v. Lawson case, I do not know. But I am highly confident that the unwinding of the sale and the return to the status quo ante of March 2013 is not one of the options. Many readers would do themselves a favor if they would maintain the distinction between the ownership rights that a party has to the Car and/or the Ohio Parts, and the various pieces of paper that are referred to as Certificates of Title.
True if you just happen to live in Ohio but you can also look at this another way. Wexner purchased a car with a title in the EEC where he acquired it under EEC rules. Bonhams delivered a clear EEC title without deficiency under EEC rules. I do not know how it works in the USA but I cannot see what is stopping Wexner challenging the validity of the current and questionable OMV title. Read the 11.14.13 hearing and comments from Judge Martin. "In other words, I'm not granting equitable relief to set the title aside except to say that Mr. Ford's admitted that it's grossly defective. And that's a fraud on Judge Nadel, but that case is up in the court of appeals, so Judge Nadel has limited jurisdiction. That's a fraud on the public because these are public documents. The reason we have public auto titles and public real estate records is so the public knows, because it's deemed andagreed by everybody since the early 1900's when we had cars and since the beginning of this republic that titles in automobiles and real estate matter"
Wrong... for EEC rules to apply and be effective, a title must be true and correct when it lands under EEC jurisdiction... a transaction in dispute landed in the UK with no clear lineage to ownership... the Ohio courts erred and were eager to rid themselves of a problem. As long as there are open claims in Ohio, EEC has no role, it cannot issue a title / determine ownership to any property with a clouded in dispute lineage.
you are correct in that Bonhams did NOT sell the car as they did not own the car, auction houses facilitate a sale... Bonhams in their haste to rid themselves of a problem and recover funds advanced to parties claiming interest in the car were eager to advance or force a sale, while they did not have the necessary documentation to effect a valid transfer. Inability to effect a timely, true and correct transfer from a sale is a fraud. If all documentation was true and correct why are we still talking about this.
I have to disagree with you Cheesey as title and ownership are two different things. Although we all agree there is an "ownership" dispute between the parties, there has been a 25 year clear lineage of ownership in Belgium since Swaters/Lancksweert purchased the Belgium "title" to the car from a Belgium motor dealer in 1990. Swaters has a bill of sale from the dealer and a settlement agreement executed in 1999 that entitles them to have their "effective" title registered within the EEC. The EEC title has never been challenged and was the only title that Swaters had to transfer to Mr Wexner on the sale. We may agree with OJ's belief that the settlement agreement is invalid and that the car remains the property of Karl Kleve but lets not forget that this has still to be decided on by the Court and the dispute is now transferred to London. Until this changes, the "defective" Ohio BMV has no bearing on what has been transfered but as we agree, it does have an impact on Mr Wexners ability to register the car in his home town.
I was visiting "The Other Site" just now to retrieve a copy of the Rule 60(b) motion of Lawson and Ford, that they apparently intend to file in the Swaters v. Lawson case. (I say "intend to file" because, as the January 27 screen shot attached below indicates, the Lawson-Ford Rule 60(b) motion has not yet been filed, even though one of the supporting affidavits is dated January 21.) What did I find but a motion to remand to the trial court the appeal from Judge Nadel's June 9, 2014, Entry of the Court of Appeals' Final Judgment dated May 28, 2014. A copy is attached. Apparently the trial court will not accept the Rule 60(b) motion for filing, on the ground that the mandate in the action is with the Court of Appeals. this explains why the motion has not yet been filed in the trial court. The thing of interest with respect to this appellate court motion to remand is that if granted it will knock off calendar the March 3 oral argument in the appeal from Judge Nadel's June 9 Entry. The Other Site also has a posted up a copy of a transcript of the January 20 hearing on Judge Martin's tentative ruling to deny production of about 600 pages of documents from Gardner to Lawson and Ford. Although Joe Ford will no doubt deny that Judge Martin's words mean what they say, here is what Judge Martin said would be his findings of fact, based on his personal review of all 600 pages: THE COURT: Look, what they were trying to do -- and this is where this case comes into a row -- what they are trying to do and what Bonhams is trying to do, I guess, and what Gardner's trying to do is, you all signed an agreement to have all this stuff done. It's called the Heads of Agreement. In one of your multiple pieces of litigation in this case -- and I didn't ask for this case; I seriously question at times what the point of it is -- but in this case you signed an agreement to ship all this stuff over there and go from there. If they are going to sell the car, if they are going to get top dollar, somebody has to be listed as the owner. All have contested who the owner of the car is, and I think validly so. I have seen -- to say there's a question of fact about that is an understatement. [Gardner's attorney] Zach came in yesterday, Friday, and took a little shot and said, well, you decided this and you shouldn't have said that and so on and so forth; the same complaints in a different way that I am getting from you all. The fact of the matter is that those issues will be resolved at some point in time. Bonhams' interest in this case was in getting top dollar for the car. To get top dollar for the car you have to have as clear a title as you can, whether that title is valid or it's not. All right. You all asked me to review it. I've reviewed it. If you have specific documents that you think I made a mistake on, then file something that says, look, with regard to these documents I want you to look at it again, and I will do so, okay? MR. RINEAR: Okay. THE COURT: But as I looked at it at the time, I didn't see a whole lot -- your client -- if I had a view from this thing, I would say Ford's in over -- if I had to draw a conclusion about his case solely on these documents, I would say Ford's in over his head; he's making a play that he doesn't really know how to make; this is a big -- his big score; as opposed to just taking a piece, Ford's trying to parlay this whole thing into the big score he's dreamed of his entire life. If I had to judge this case solely on these documents, that doesn't -- that's irrelevant to me. That's -- their feelings about that are irrelevant to the case, okay. It just is. MR. RINEAR: But what the problem is -- THE COURT: The fact of the matter is these are issues that will be litigated between the two of you in arbitration. That frankly can't happen soon enough. MR. RINEAR: The problem is, Judge, I understand what you're saying, just from a review of these documents, but there are hundreds if not thousands of other documents that they just haven't produced that we believe would clearly show you a total opposite view of that; that what Bonhams and Gardner were doing, their whole purpose, was to cut Kristi and Joe out, not to get the best price for this vehicle. THE COURT: I did not get that sense in any sense of the word from Bonhams. Bonhams is interested in doing one thing, which is making money. The way they make money is to get top dollar for what they sell. And to get top dollar, they needed to develop some sort of chain of title. MR. RINEAR: No, no, no. THE COURT: No, listen to me -- that was clean. Bonhams' position, I would guess, and I don't know this for a fact, and this is, again, part of the problem of being in litigation with multinational corporations, not in federal court, but in state court, where my jurisdiction is limited. My guess is Bonhams is saying, we're going to get $15 million for this car. How that $15 million gets distributed after we get our take, we could care less. We really could care less. You all litigate that until the year 2025, if you like. MR. RINEAR: But Bonhams' obligation under the Heads of Agreement, and all parties -- there's five signatories there, one of them have to treat each other in good faith, and the evidence is, from those documents and many others that we know exist, Bonhams, Gardner, and Swaters conspired -- THE COURT: Swaters isn't even in my case. I mean, the ridiculousness of what I'm called to do on this case, sometimes it becomes obvious to me, okay. Swaters isn't in this case. None of you have brought Swaters into this case. MR. SMITH: Swaters is in this case. Bonhams made a secret deal with Swaters to renege on the HOA before we signed it. THE COURT: How do I know that? MR. SMITH: Because I'm telling you that, and that's -- THE COURT: (Laughing.) Well, I believe it. MR. SMITH: That's the point. That's the point. How can you decide what is relevant when you don't know what we know? MR. RINEAR: The problem, Judge, is this is discovery, and discovery is very broad. THE COURT: It's no problem. If you think I made a mistake with regard to specific documents, specific threads of information, point that out to me, I'll take a look at it. I don't have my ego invested in this case. *end of quote* Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes, but we should only focus on the rulings... HAHA!! Quoted and bolded for all sorts of emphasis: Poor Joey... cue the sad trombone. >8^) ER
titles / ownership must be clear ALL the way back to origin... a jurisdiction cannot come into the middle of things and issue a clear title / ownership... especially since the ownership issues remain in dispute and challenged since negotiations to effect a sale with Kleve. To say there is a ownership lineage in Belgium for 25 years is meaningless, it is based on nothing. Belgium's determination is based on defective documents which are not supported by ownership lineage and remains challenged. An intermediate ownership could be determined from the lack of proper documentation only after a quiet period during which no claims are presented. In this case no such quiet period exists, ownership / transfer has been challenged since Kleve. Any discontinuous lineage is subject to challenge. Especially if theft or fraud is involved, there are no limitations on theft. There is case law by the thousands dealing on this.
I think it depends upon the jurisdiction. There are statutes of limitation / laches / prescription which often depend on a determination of good faith or bad faith. Fraud is an exception. What I find interesting is that there does not appear to be any evidence of a prior title (pre 1989) or other indicia of ownership (excluding the Kleve bill of sale) between 1956 and 1989. This looks like an $18,000,000. dispute over a well done re-creation.
You are correct, and for additional reasons that you may not even know. Do not forget that on September 2, 1999, Swaters' business agent Phillipe Lancksweert voluntarily signed and notarized his recital that represented and acknowledged that Karl Kleve was the owner of 0384AM. THEN Swaters ratified Lancksweert's signed and notarized recital, also in writing!!! To top that off Swaters' forensic document expert says that the September 2, 1999 document was NOT altered after Lancksweert signed it -- it was altered before Lancksweert signed it. I will be munching on popcorm if any other Belgian steps into ANY Court to refute that. So anyone, including Bonhams, who says that Swaters owned 0384AM since his 1990 POSSESSION is wrong according to the EVIDENCE. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
Here's some funny stuff, like a quiz show. See if you can guess who made these representations to Judge Martin, in opposition to another party's request in a post-September 2013 timeframe that Judge Martin order the issuance of a new, "reformed" Ohio certificate of title: "The very same title issues that Plaintiff addresse in his Motion to Reform Title were before Judge Nadel in the Underlying Action. Judge Nadel issued an Order addressing the disposition of the title issues, which has not been appealed. Therefore it is final and binding." "In addition, Judge Nadel ordered that ' ... any action, suit or proceeding brought by any party to this action to construe, to interpret or to enforce the Heads of Agreement, or any provision of it, must be brought and prosecuted in the High Court of Justice In London, England.'" "There is no question but that Judge Nadel had knowledge of the title issues regarding the Ferrari, and dealt with them in the Underlying Action. A review of the docket and journal entries in the Underlying Action establishes this beyond question." "Here, Judge Nadel heard and decided the issues involving the title to the Ferrari. He ordered the title documents to be transmitted to Bonhams in London, England, along with powers of attorney by Ford and Lawson. He placed the onus on Bonhams to take whatever steps are necessary to transfer clean title to the purchaser of this vehicle." "Under the current order by Judge Nadel, the title to the Ferrari is secure, and upon sale the vehicle will have a clean and transferable title." Hint: the proponent of these statements is a Ferrari Chat member and has posted to this thread more than once. Hint #2: the proponent appears to have had a change of heart since he submitted these representations to Judge Martin.
There you go focusing on the things that were said in court again. That's a sure fire way to disrupt the running narrative here. What a disservice you are doing to the FChat readers... >8^) ER
Bill, You are incorrect. The Motion to Vacate (case A1001370) WAS filed on Jan 22, 2013 in case A1001370. The clerk (digital dept) erroneously put the entire document under seal when only the Swaters-Bonhams emails were supposed to be under seal. Thus the doc is now off the docket while the correction is being made. I expect it will be put back on shortly once the sealed portion is separately isolated and digitized. Sometimes there are four or five day delays in getting the stuff posted by the clerk (digital dept). Don't ask me why because I do not know. The Motion to Vacate (without the sealed portion) is an attachment to the 30pp Motion to Remand (case C140270) thus you can actually find both on that "Other Site." Otherwise, focus on the Orders as they are the ONLY conclusions of law or fact. Judge Martin clearly stated that his impressions were based on one party's submitted docs, and Attorney Smith reminded the Judge that he lacked case knowledge to even make such a call, while Attorney Rinear reminded the Judge that the scope of the review was to see if the redactions were privileged or not, and that no other aspect or issue had been raised much less briefed and debated. On another note, as to you next post, it is real easy to go off into the weeds trying to analyze lawyer arguments as if it is the same as sworn witness testimony. If I am incorrect, then you would see trillions of Motions for Summary Judgments citing lawyer argument as evidence -- the reason you do not is because lawyer argument is not sworn testimony by a witness with personal knowledge. You are not the only one to have made that mistake, as evidenced by the preceeding post. If you track my affidavits since 2010 you will see that my position has been, and remains, consistent. Factor in the newly discovered Bonhams-Swaters secret side agreement and I think it renders as moot all the other paths of prior HOA analysis. If on September 2, 1999 Swaters admits "Kleve is the owner of the herein referenced automobile [Ferrari 375 Plus ... 0384AM]", and then the Swaters' forensic document expert proves that Swaters' lynchin "1999 Settlement" documents are forgeries, then how can Swaters claim to be an owner of 0384AM? The HOA paragraph 4 required that "Bonhams, BC, and OC Parties will all work closely together to resolve all problems relating to the Car's history and ownership and present a detailed and transparent account of the Car's ownership from new." Do you think Bonhams or Swaters complied with HOA paragraph 4 when you read the Lot 320 description and compare it to signed and notarized statements? I do not -- and I now know why -- because of the Bonhams-Swaters secret agreement. Now you know the REAL significance of the current Ohio title that lists Kleve and Ford as owners. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
Joe, it is entirely understandable that Lancksweert would state in his recital that Kleve owned the car after all it was this ownership he was paying for under the terms of the settlement agreement. No great revelation here.
Joe, this false and simplistic mantra is also repeated by your attorneys and consistantly denied by the other side. Read the conclusion in your post of the forensic report as no such conclusion was made and it is a distortion to the truth to dismiss the 1999 settlement agreement as a forgery. K http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143521378-post2485.html
