375+ # 0384

Swaters v. Lawson - Decision

March 11, 2015
View attachment Swaters v. Lawson_Judgment Entry and Decision in App Nos. C140270, C140334 and C140361.pdf

 

OK. So you expect the Ferrari community to believe that. OK. But then you post:

OK. That is completely contrary to what you claim earlier. You have no credibility.

When you get some (and you can't buy it, not even with stolen money), then you can post a question. Until then, Goodbye. You already know I am not stupid. Neither is the Ferrari community nor the US courts, nor the UK courts, as you will soon learn.

No, all YOU write is nothing but a diversion, as if repeating it will make it true. Again, this Ferrari community is not that stupid.

Surrogates to parrot the Gardner narrative, like a cuckoo . . . that reminds me . . . cue the music . . .

…an absurd little bird
Is popping out to say, "Cuckoo"
Cuckoo, cuckoo,
Regretfully they tell us cuckoo, cuckoo,
But firmly they compel us
To say, "Goodbye", to you

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu

Adieu, adieu, to you (MBZGurl) and you (Reproman) and you (Metalfinder)

and you (Onebugatti) and you (Paraquat) and you (Dogday)

any you (Flobert) and you (Max Vito) and you (OldRacer)

and you (Ferrari Smoke) and you (EarlyFerrari) and you (Wamajama)

and you (Chrikky) . . .

(yikes, it's whack-a-mole, like the broken record that they are, LOL)

Joe

*

 

Looks like Joe/KKL won on all points.
Waiting for London now......

 

I entirely agree with you mate. IF Cynthia/ Mona/ Mbzgurl et al wants to take the high road then she should do that, in fact she could start her journey by telling us who she is because love him or hate him, we know who Joe is, we have no idea who she is. That question cannot be bullying.........

 

Points yes but I do not see Ford/Lawson being consigned to litigate in London as a win. Joe was understandably desperate to avoid it, as it will be a long process and someone with deep pockets will have to fund it as it is very very expensive.

The appeal decision makes sense insofar as everything is stayed in Ohio pending a decision by the London Court. Joe tried to argue his fraud claim in Ohio and failed so the battle will be determined in London along with the rest of the litigation.

A consistently unanswered question is what Joe sees as the timeline. Both he and Lawson will be running up bills fighting in London before the Gardner case against them is settled and they find out what percentage they are actually fighting for.

 

Kim

Litigation of HOA disputes in London is the correct venue as JF/KL argued since mid 2013. Recently disclosed facts make the HOA dispute to now be about whether fraud and misrepresentation were used to lure Lawson and Ford into signing, etc.

Ohio ownership litigation is interrupted, but, very important to us, is the recognition at the appellate level that ownership litigation remains in Ohio.

There is a hearing in London in a few days (Mar. 19th) to consolidate before a single Judge (to avoid inconsistent outcomes if tried by several Judges) the Copley/Wexner "Buyer Rescission" action, the Bonhams "Stakeholder" action, and the Bonhams "HOA breach" action. Bonhams wanted to also combine into that mix the Zanotti action, but we see no gain in judicial efficiency since Zanotti seeks to enforce his settlement agreement (not his ownership claims, which were replaced by the settlement agreement), which LOL, Bonhams seeks to rescind on the basis of fraud.

Ohio A1001370 and A1306451 are both stayed as of now, while the Florida arbitration is ongoing. I think the arbitration will end first, but Wexner's case may end quickly too.

But you have to respect the fact that Ford/Lawson have won BOTH appeals C1300604 and C140270 (and since both were consolidated appeal cases, it means we won C1300627, C1300604, C140270, C140334, C140361, plus won the dismissal of Gardner's attempted appeal C140762). I think that shows that Ford/Lawson have consistently been correct in assessing the legal issues.

Otherwise, more twists and turns . . . twists and turns (and yes, more legal bills, but that "other site" addressed that).

Joe

*

 

You have to question the motivations of anyone who chooses to remain anonymous.

 

The dishonesty of your spin is frightful. But fortunately the litigation is narrowing to two proceedings, a consolidated action in London and an arbitration in Florida. The Florida hearing is set for August, and hearings and trial in London are not yet calendared. The fact that you refuse to engage on the controlling legal issues doesn't leave much to talk about on this thread, other than the endless punch-drunk clinch with Guy Anderson over whether Kleve's car parts were abandoned, impounded, or stolen.

However, in another likely-to-be futile attempt to steer you back from the realm of fiction, a few comments:

While it is true that you and Lawson relied on the HOA's forum selection clause to avoid your duties to perform the HOA's substantive provisions, it is also true that the two of you avoided service and avoided making appearances in the current London proceedings as long as you possibly could.

It is also true that Florence Swaters correctly perceived that she would never be able to get, from a London court, the timely orders she needed to force you and Lawson to perform the things you agreed to perform when you signed the HOA, with anything like the expedition required to pull off a Goodwood sale in September 2013 (or ever). She therefore got the orders she needed from Judge Nadel. Who was the winner of that transaction? What is the present location of the Ohio parts and documents, and the Ohio certificates of title and other memoranda of ownership? What I have heard is that they ended up in the possession and control of your enemies Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner, and that these three exchanged your property for a large sum of cash. And who controls that money? Not you, not Lawson. At least Charlie Sheen enjoyed the babes and the drugs with his "winning." What have you got? A small cheering section (table for four?) on an online message board and a six-figure bill for attorney fees. Anything else?

What the Court of Appeals actually wrote in its opinion (copy attached) was that ". . . Swaters . . . filed a complaint in 2010 . . . alleging that her father had purchased in good faith the chassis of a vintage Ferrari that had been reported stolen in Ohio from Karl Kleve. . . . Swaters' complaint alleged that her father, Jacques Swaters, and Kleve had settled all ownership issues concerning the Ferrari, and sought possession of all parts to the Ferrari."

In other words, in the Swaters v. Lawson case, Swaters is requesting an adjudication of ownership issues.

Next the Court wrote, "Lawson, as a beneficiary of her father's estate, filed a counterclaim against Swaters. Lawson challenged the settlement that had been reached between her father and Jacques Swaters, and she requested that the court declare her the rightful owner of the Ferrari."

In other words, in the Swaters v. Lawson case, Lawson is requesting an adjudication of ownership issues.

What happened to these requests? "The parties executed a document titled 'Heads of Agreement' in March of 2013. As we recognized in our earlier decision, the purpose of the document was to 'extinguish all claims and counterclaims' concerning the Ferrari."

What are these "claims and counterclaims," that the parties to the HOA agreed to extinguish? That would be the parties' requests for an adjudication of ownership issues. What was the status of these requests prior to the March 11 issuance of the Court of Appeals' opinion? "[O]n June 9, 2014, [Judge Nadel] issued an order entering final judgment in the action, stating that it was doing so pursuant to this court's May 28, 2014 opinion."

A copy of Judge Nadel's order is attached. The Court of Appeals pretty much quoted it in full: that "FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in this action." Your appeal from the judgment consisted entirely of an attack on these seven words.

What did you get for all the trouble? Even after final judgment is entered in any civil action, the trial court retains on-going jurisdiction to manage post-judgment requests, e.g., an application for a writ of execution, or a Rule 60(B) motion to attack the judgment. Prior to the Court of Appeals' March 11 opinion, this much residual jurisdiction remained available to you and Lawson. However, with the Court's order to stay all further proceedings in Swaters v. Lawson, you lost it. Winning by losing? I guess this is how you and your cheering section would describe it. Anyone else would call it a loss.

As for the ownership issues, they are now under the exclusive jurisdiction of the London court. As the Court of Appeals put it,

"By entering into the Heads of Agreement, which purported to extinguish all claims and counterclaims in this action, the parties have essentially prevented the trial court from taking any further action. The Heads of Agreement provided that the High Court of Justice in London would govern any disputes arising under the agreement. Ford and Lawson are currently contesting the validity of the Heads of Agreement. If that agreement is found by the London court to be valid and enforceable, its terms require eventual dismissal of the underlying action in this case."

Essentially, if the London court denies the Ford-Lawson challenges to the HOA -- if the London court finds that Bonhams' authority to auction the car, and to determine the form of title to give to the buyer, continued to be in effect after September 2013, and if the London court denies the Ford-Lawson contention that Swaters and Bonhams had a duty to inform Ford and Lawson of their agreement that the September 2013 sale should be postponed if this would increase the proceeds of sale -- then the only thing left for the Ohio court to do is to enter the dismissal of the parties' requests for an adjudication of ownership issues. In other words, the case will return to the status it had on March 10, the day before the Court of Appeals issued its ruling.

If the London court makes the opposite ruling on either of the Ford-Lawson challenges, then the question will arise, what is the remedy? I have posed this question numerous times, and you have never acknowledged it, much less answered it. This suggests either that you and your pathetic attorneys have not researched the issue, or that legal research has led to unfavorable conclusions.

The Court of Appeals writes that the remedy would be, that "the parties are free to proceed in Hamilton County on the underlying claims": i.e., the ownership issues. This is what real lawyers call dicta. Dicta is when an appellate court includes in a written opinion a statement that is not part of the chain of reasoning leading from the facts to the result in the case before it. Regarding this particular dicta, in fact the Ohio Court of Appeals has no control over what the London court decides to adopt as the correct remedy, if it finds either that the June 2014 auction fell outside the terms of the HOA, or that Swaters and Bonhams are guilty of fraud in the inducement. In fact, the terms of the stay that the Court of Appeals has entered implicitly recognizes this: that "A certified entry from the London court is necessary to trigger further action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas."

It is highly unlikely, on the facts of this case, that any court would hit the Reset button and try to unwind all the transactions which have taken place in the name of performing the HOA. You consistently bray that the most unlikely result is the only possible result. But you never cite any law in support of this. When you are asking a court to grant the nuclear option, you better be ready to show that controlling law leaves no other option open to the court. You and your pathetic attorneys are spending all these hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing your tails, and requiring your counterparts to do likewise, with no knowledge or authority whatsoever of how it is going to turn out.

This is winning? It sounds more like malpractice to me. At a minimum winning means a positive balance of benefits over costs. But you define it to be "winning," to spend thousands of dollars on a motion to compel the delivery to you of a single photograph of an old car. It's "winning" to spend tens of thousands to convert a case in which a "Final Judgment" was entered, but in which there remained residual jurisdiction to litigate your claim of fraud in the inducement, into a case where the parties' claims are "reinstated," but are subject to a blanket stay which can only be lifted pursuant to rules of law of which you are ignorant, administered by a court an ocean away? If you say so.

What is the basis of this prediction regarding Wexner? When a case is consolidated the default situation is that all the parties' complaints and cross-complaints will be tried at the same time. A successful motion for summary judgment can cull the field, but a successful MSJ requires the moving party to show that there is not one triable issue as to every fact he would be required to prove at trial. This is not possible with Wexner's claims. Unless the court bifurcates the Wexner trial -- highly unlikely, given the duplication of effort and evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results -- he is in for the long haul. Don't any of you clowns know any law?

Again, winning by losing. It is stunning that you and Lawson started with a situation where you were in possession of the Ohio parts and a facial claim to ownership of Swaters' car, to a situation where you have shipped your property out of the country, you have released your claims to Swaters' car, you have been frozen out of the sale of the car and parts, and you have watched helplessly while the proceeds of sale were kept out of your reach. You have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to travel from Point A to Point B, and you call it "winning." Again, if you say so.

 

Joey,
This is it. The final act.
You have 17 months ahead in London, and then the clock sets back to March 2013, only if....you win in London, and totally prove the HOA was not valid.

Then, you have Gardner and the executioner to face in the Florida Arbitration.

Then, you have the fraud suit in Ohio waiting for you and Ms. Lawson.

Then, you and Kristine have Karl's dementia, Mark Daniels payments to Kleve/Lawson, and fraudulent Ohio Titles, concealed documents, plus....you still haven't filed any taxes since 2009.

Also, what about the fraud charges on both your sons? Who'd do that to their own sons!

Your entire scheme to use Ohio to extort money is an off record settlement. If you fail, winning has its rewards.

I send you this 'kiss' goodbye anyway!

See you in London.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ok.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

And that informs in what manner?

 

Joe, Mr Wexner joining in litigation sounds like wishful thinking to me as I can see no merit in him doing so, although I can see the big attraction for you.

Let's just assume that Mr Wexner can afford to leave his money with Bonhams and the car is worth what you claim. The smart move for Mr Wexner is not to spend unnecessary money on lawyers but to agree a stay of his litigation against Bonhams and await the outcome of their costly fight against you to determine the validity of the HoA.

There are two possible outcomes in London and on the face of it, both appear to be a win win for Mr Wexner.

A. If you win and the litigation returns to Ohio then Wexner crystallises his claim against Bonhams and gets his money back plus damages.

B. If you lose then the stayed litigation in Ohio together with your dodgy title disappear and Wexner gets a beautiful car, without any stigma, at a knock down price.

Bill has made some interesting observations on the appeal. Putting all of the Ohio "residual litigation" into one neat box under the direction of a London Court may not be such good news after all.

 

Ok, every time you post I will ask again, who are you Mbzgurl....... I have lots of spare time and it could be a fun game to continuously ask.............

 

David~

Ok. OK.....!!!!!!!
My Grandmother and my Mother told me when I was a young child, "Women are more attractive when they are mysterious!"

Timmmmmmy~
You're cute....But, Stop asking!

This is all you get, you guys. Go with it, because, this is just all in fun.
After all, I'm just as curious as anyone else is on this thread about the Joe Frod case.
For God's sake! It's a Chat site! Not Court!
YES! That is a real picture of me. I am NOT Christopher Gardner. Never met him in my life.
There are many posters on this thread who know me and respect me.
Enough is enough!

Jeeeezzzzus you guys! I have an AVATAR. Can't you see? That's me in the Bugatti. Swear to God.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting that the last two pictures you have posted are of two different women.

 

Let Joe tell you who the blonde blowing the kiss is.

 

Who am I ?

Where is the 0394AM evidence? Huh????

I am not one of your minority table of four supporters of the "main man" that evades the simplest questions, and never ever answers anyone who calls him out.

This thread is about the Ferrari 375 plus. It's not about who Mbzgurl is.

This is what happens when you wander out into cyberland with a scam artist-psychopath-indigent, who has literally never driven a Ferrari (nor owned one) or practiced law legally, doesn't even have a Bank account, doesn't pay taxes, yet cons someone in the Ferrari community. That community consists of those (us) who have something in common with Ferrari, not some whack job that is engaged in what is now a well documented fraud.

Unlike you, Timmmmmy, having all the time in the world on your hands during your working hours for the public sector in your government job, I guess this Chat site is better than a porn site for you....and tells us something about you and your contribution as a tax payer of New Zealand.

So, the valid question and issue is this;

We all want to see one shred of hard-core evidence that 0384AM was re-numbered. One document, one photo, one official piece of proof.

On that evidence, I will retire.

Ask your best Buddy (who you know so well) to post it. You're at his table daily exchanging emails with him on the governments nickel.........

He's already filed YOUR email exchanges into his court filings. Need me to post them?
They are a lot more interesting than who I am.

 

How wonderful that you replied. Well lets begin, for a start Enigma has hardly been a fan of Ocean Joe but maybe you don't actually read what people post, so I will let that one go. It is a very complete post, oh wait 2 post's from you in reply to my question and they are sort of getting towards what is actually bullying towards me, but hey will let this go because I enjoy reading your posts. But why the anger, I haven't done anything wrong, I just politely asked who you are, mystery lady. Btw, why the anger about OJ, all of this "he is a fraudster" is a bit vulgar and also an obvious reply would be what is your connection and how do you know anything about OJ. Was it in regards to the derelict 300SL? or was it the 600 deal and did you buy the car from Chris Gardner?

Again I humbly, politely and simply ask you one simple question, who are you?

I will also advise I don't either work for the government nor do I have any business or other interests with anyone connected to this thread or #0384AM. But I am interested in the thread and all of the people that do have connections to this car.

 

Now where did you get that impression !!!!

I applaud Joe's tenacity and contribution to the thread, its just his methods and use of FCHAT, I am critical of.

Given that you have questioned my motives and suggested some sort of shenanigans on my part in the past, it is only fair I ask you to comment on MBZGURLS post.

This way we all know were we stand.

 

Kim

You really don't understand what is going on, or what is being attempted, in the various cases. I admit that it can be complicated.

Copley/ Wexner ALREADY AGREED weeks ago to the consolidation, which was and is in his interests, if you grasp what is going on. If Copley/ Wexner prove Bonhams/ Swaters/ Gardner fraud, as I think they will, it provides compelling, relevant momentum for the remainder of disputes. Having a single Judge familiar with all issues helps that. As to Copley/ Wexner, Bonhams will lose their $1,600,000 commission plus be out of pocket their attorney fees and those of Wexner -- my estimate, over $1,000,000, plus I think Bonhams reputation will suffer due to their actions because under no circumstance was Bonhams justified in making misrepresentations to bidders, and then to take their money and make them sue in Court to get a refund. I think that is an abuse of process. The Ince letter of 2014.06.26 could not be more clear and more prescient (p61, post 1210; p115, post 2293; again below) -- it was not the first such warning letter that Bonhams simply chose to ignore and conceal from the bidding public as to an auction that NEVER was authorized by all of those concerned.

I think the appeal decision that just came out WINS Wexner's case, and proves what we told Bonhams, i.e. that Case A1001370's ownership litigation was still pending, and that a "Final Judgment" is not FINAL until appeals are exhausted (and now we have UK cases pending too).

As to Zanotti, I think Zanotti will be allowed to keep his $1,500,000 and maybe not get his second $1,500,000. This is because regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of Zanotti's ownership claims and of the fraud which Bonhams detected, Bonhams still subsequently opted to settle. There was no trick by Zanotti since Bonhams was aware and signed, and then DAYS LATER, Bonhams paid Zanotti $1,500,000. (That does not mean I think Zanotti's ownership claim had one scintilla of validity, which I believe it does not. It only means I think Bonhams agreed to replace Zanotti ownership claims, regardless of merit, with a settlement, and thus are bound by it.)

There are far more outcomes than the two outcomes you list. I think you need a legal background (not a bias) to identify and to grasp the dynamics at work.

The UK litigation as to HOA issues is the proper consequence of the HOA, starting with issue #1 - did Bonhams and Swaters have a side agreement not to perform the HOA and to not tell Ford/Lawson about the side agreement to induce JF/KL to sign it? I think Bonhams and Swaters will lose on this issue.

We just have to let the system do its thing. I intend to post developments as they develop to keep the Ferrari community informed.

The above analysis and projection is of course all in my humble opinion - "IMHO".

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dear Chris,

I knew it was you.

You offer your advice and projections as to the upcoming court events. Let me reflect on this for a minute.


2015.03.11 Ford/Lawson win appeal in cases C140270, C140334, and C140361 (2014.06.09 Final Judgment Order reversed, Ford/Lawson ownership claims reinstated, then stayed pending HOA dispute outcome)
2015.03.03 Order Staying ALL the Case, Sending Incomplete Discovery to Arbitration (Ford sought arbitration; now, discovery goes to arb as well)
2015.02.04 Ford/Lawson win Motion to Dismiss Gardner's appeal, which is dismissed, i.e. a win for Ford/Lawson as to case C1400762
2014.12.30 Order Granting Lawson's Motion to Compel VIN (against Gardner)
2014.12.10 Order Granting Lawson's Motion to Compel Photo of Delahaye (against Gardner)
2014.12.10 Order Granting Gardner's Motion to Correct Prior Order (attorneys eyes only for certain docs; compelling Gardner comply with Orders of 2014.11.03 and 2014.11.13)
2014.11.13 Order Granting Ford's Motions to Compel Discovery (Gardner MUST produce bank records, Bonhams emails, Zanotti emails, response supplements - against Gardner)
2014.11.06 Order Granting Ford's Motion to Compel Discovery (multiple matters, against Gardner)
2014.09.08 Order Granting Ford's Motion to refer to Arbitration (against Gardner)
2014.08.20 Order Amending Preliminary Injunction (qualifies para 1, 2; eliminates para 3, grants most of what Ford sought)
2014.05.28 Ford/Lawson win appeal in cases C1300627, C1300604 (2013.08.19 Final Judgment Order reversed, Ford/Lawson ownership claims reinstated).

After reflecting on the above, I will stick with my present advisors an suggest it is you who need better advisors.

And as to that kiss, I, as kissee, received that kiss long ago from the kisser.

I have the Bill of Sale and the complete, unbroken chain of titles to prove it, up to the most current Florida title. Your attorney Haas even approved of the kisser's Title when he was down here in Boca.

So please do not go telling Bonhams the kiss is yours, or that you have the Bill of Sale, or that Bonhams can auction it.

ROFLMAO

Joe

*

 

As for the claims by mbzgurl related to 0394:

It has been a while and I am not going to expend the effort to go search again but in Swatters website giving there version of the story they clearly claimed that they were calling the car 0394. Their story included how they had used Sabena airlines metallurgy department to read the frame stamping and concluded that it could be 0394.

So, based upon that if you wish to split hairs it is accurate to say that Swatters did not re-stamp the frame. That does not set aside the fact that other paperwork, as shown by Guy Anderson, clearly shows 0384.

Jeff

 

Joe, I agree there are numerous outcomes from the many claims and cross claiming in London and Ohio on top of the likely scenarios that would follow the arbitration in Florida. To prove my total lack of bias I have given you my observation on simplified outcome of you winning or losing.

I can understand why you are wishing Mr Wexner to fund your litigation against Bonham but you need to educate me as to why this is "in his interests" to do so.

He may well have ALREADY AGREED weeks ago but the situation has materially changed now everything in Ohio as been stayed. What interest does Mr Wexner have in Bonhams commission other than knowing that Bonhams will fight him all the way to keep it and their reputation.

If you are reading this Mr Wexner, my strong advise is do not waste your money paying London solicitors and expensive QC's to review and respond to litigation that has nothing to do with you. Do not get involved in other peoples arguements and let Bonhams and Joe have their battle over Zanotti, fraud in the inducement and the validity of the HoA and when they are finished and the London Court issue their decision, settle with the winner.

If Joe wins, Bonhams case collapses and you get a large cheque.

If Bonhams wins, you get 0384AM at a discount thanks to OJ's antics before the auction

 

Joe, can you give me further details as it is only three stops on the underground and it would be interesting to sit in the public galley.

K

 

I will be there with you Kim.