Joe Ford's reaction: "Fraud in the inducement? What fraud in the inducement? The March 2013 Swaters-Bonhams email exchange regarding a delay in the auction date, if to do so would increase the proceeds, was good faith prudence. The HoA expired by its own terms in September 2013? Who told you that?"
exactly... the Judge can rule until hell freezes over, the decisions apply only locally in the ( UK ) courts jurisdiction... the Ohio court ( and litigants ) has not released jurisdiction and leaves a defect in ownership, which another court cannot close without total consent / release from ALL ( Ohio )parties... which, as is being said , "the car remains stolen" ... stolen property cannot be transferred ANYWHERE...
Nothing the Brits say has mattered since 1776 should you try to register a car in the US that still comes up as stolen in the US. The pathetic renumbering JS did don't mean **** in the US. Les lives in Ohio and until clear US title is given to him with the proper non fraudulent vin number the idea that he could import much less register this car in the US remains silly.
Thanks, guys!! These legal posts have my head swimming, glad I have not lost the plot line, in all of that! Drive on....
Sorry, I meant to grab cheesey's post, with my quote command..... Damn square keyboard buttons! Mr. G, Surely Les was aware of the clouded title issues, and was seeking this model at a "market discount" to a comparable "clean" car?? Care to comment on that aspect? Of course, this WAS the only example on the market, so not like he could actively price shop. Still, it was sold at a considerable discount to the market, in my mind... You make me laugh.....thanks!!!
AFAIK Les was told that there was no reason the car could not be imported to the US and registered in Ohio without a problem. That is either true or it isn't. The rest is wanking.
A few days back I nearly made a post on the news of the latest Ohio legal charade that would have sarcastically said "Oh, Justice Flaux is going to love that one." I almost feel bad for Joe at this point. >8^) ER
Court 28 hearing before Justice Flaux. Four Queens Councilors (very expensive) each with two junior Barristers (expensive) and two clerks (cheap at £200 per hour) Christopher Gardner was there representing himself. The hearing opened with a discussion on Jurisdiction and an initial opening statement from Justice Flaux that he believed the case should be heard in London principally because Ford/Lawson had already submitted to the Jurisdiction of London in the Bonhams Stakeholder case of July 2014 and that any notice to change expired then after 14 days. Quite simply, you cannot agree then complain about it six months later. He also stated that the Stakeholder case raised issues regarding the title and were accepted by them. Apparently, Ford/Lawson are counter claiming 100% ownership of 0384AM to be delivered to the USA and this cannot be done without determining the question of title in England first. There then followed two hours of submission from Joes new lawyer, Mr Richard, who Justice Flaux described as being parachuted in only on Wednesday. What happened to the last set of Joes lawyers is a mystery although one of the opposing council did say they had done a runner. Richards tried very hard to argue that London should only deal with the validity of the HoA and leave the determination of the title to the Ohio Court. He made all of the arguments set out in the Ohio injunction plus others such as Ford/Lawson wanting to sell in 2013 as the believed they would get more money. He also made Justice Flaux smile when he tried to convince him his client was ready to go in Ohio and that transferring it there would be a speedier and quicker solution. Each of the opposing QCs stood up to oppose the application and to argue against Mr Richards, who looked very bruised and battered by the end of it but Justice Faux commended his efforts on what he described as a hopeless claim from the start and that he was in a difficult situation from the start trying to make bricks without straw Justice Flaux summed up the application after observing that if title was proved to be with Swaters then Ford/Lawson would be shooting themselves in the foot by claiming the HoA was invalid as they would end up with nothing. He concluded that Ford/Lawson seeking an injunction in Ohio to tie the hands of Swaters and Gardner was a devise to tie their hands by using he back door to interfere with the London Court case by creating a conflict between the two Courts. He considered this to be a vexatious claim and ordered an Anti Suit Injunction against Ford/Lawson with punitive (criminal) penalties against them for any future attempt to interfere with the London Court case (excluding the Gardner/Ford arbitration). Mr Richard asked for undertakings instead but Justice Flaux was having none of it and costs were awarded against them amounting to £40,000 making what was seen as a futile and misguided action somewhat expensive. The afternoon session dealt with how the numerous claims would be dealt with by the Court. Mr Richard (Ford/Lawsons Barrister) tried in vain to get the validity of the HoA tried first and this was objected to by all of the other parties. Mr Richard repeated the Ford claims of fraud and falsification of the 1999 settlement agreement and issues with Belgium Law on the original purchase by Swaters but these were all dismissed by Justice Flaux citing that the conclusions in the forensic report were unequivocal and his client has had many months to dispute this and obtain their own report. Furthermore, he noted that the car has been out of the USA for over 25 years with no legal action instigated to return it and that if Ford was confident in his claim in Ohio he should be equally as confident to argue his case in a London Court. Justice Flaux concluded that the determination of who owns the car first will make the subsequent trial to sort out the validity of the HOA and claims by all parties much simpler. If Swaters owns the car then she can convey valid title to Wexner without any problems. The main trail date of 12 to 16 days was set for January 2016. Zanottis Barrister then suggested that his client may have a claim that he was the true owner of 0384AM and requested to inspect the car. This was rejected as a blatant attempt to gain advantage by questioning the authenticity of the car (0384AM or 0394AM) rather than determine the actual issue of does the car sold by Bonhams contain parts belonging to Zanotti. Gardner then stated that he was the owner of the parts by virtue that it was he that originally sent Ford, with money, to buy the parts from Lawson and that he self dealt and came back with a signed contract to buy the car instead. He was confident that the arbitration in August would find in his favour. Judge Flaux stated that in that eventuality Gardner and Swaters would need to come to an agreement over a sale of the parts that were included in the auction if it was determined that they were not included in the 1999 Settlement Agreement. In conclusion, Gardner has his arbitration in August to determine if he or Ford have a right to the sale proceeds. The preliminary hearing to determine who owns the title to 0384AM will be heard as soon as October this year. The main trial to settle all of the claims and counter claims will be dealt with in January next year. We can now all speculate on the various permutations of outcomes but I will start with my opinion that based upon what I have heard and given all of the unsubstantiated claims made by Joe he will have a lot to do to overturn the validity of the 1999 Settlement agreement. Kim
+1 Good to get the latest breaking news along with your perspective..... A shame IMO, that Kleve himself was not there, to pursue the theft recovery...as improvements to worldwide communication occured, that might have led to a face to face, among the principals. We all run out of time, of course....
With this quote of my post of April 29 I am going to help myself to an "I told you so." The Ford-Lawson super lawyers should have made it express in every paper they filed that Ford and Lawson were specially-appearing only, accepting London jurisdiction strictly limited to the adjudication of "dispute in relation to" the HoA. Enigma Kim's report indicates that they failed to do so when they filed their response to Bonhams' case, and also blew a 14-day deadline for filing a motion for an order to define the London court's jurisdiction, a deadline which commenced running with the filing of the response to Bonhams. Now the new Ford-Lawson super lawyer has evidently filed a frivolous motion to escape the consequences of the previous attorneys' malpractice, and Ford and Lawson are hit with a bill for £40,000 ($61,000). According to other posts to this thread that's four years income for Joe Ford. Pathetic, just pathetic. I wonder if this is enforceable immediately of if everyone runs a tab with the final accounting deferred to the conclusion of all proceedings.
Fords barrister raised the application of Belgium law in today's hearing in the context that the original purchase in 1989 may be invalid. This was dismissed as irrelevant as no challenge was ever made to test this in a Belgium Court and the current case is to determine the original Ohio title which effectively predates Belgium.
I told you so and schadenfreude are acceptable Each party submitted an estimate of costs in dealing with Fords application and Justice Flaux determined what was reasonable. Wexner and Bonhams got £8,000 each and Swaters the balance because they were dealing with the action both sides of the Atlantic. Payment is due on the date of judgement and interest accrued thereafter. The balance of the cost estimate that was not granted is carried over into the main claim. What is "grotesque" to use the word repeated by Justice Flaux, is the estimated £1.7m of legal costs that have been racked up in the UK so far. Most of today's hearing was about Joes ridiculous application that required an army of expensive lawyers to attend. What I still find surprising is how Joe has managed to persuade someone to fund this escapade although this may change with today's outcome
True but thankfully only ever true in Belgium In the UK, like the U.S. you can only ever acquire the same title rights as the seller
True. It is also a shame Jacques Swaters is not still around as together with Kleve we could have found out what really happened and who ended up with the $625,000 paid for the 1999 Settlement
Jim, the claim that Jacques Swaters renumbered the car to 0394AM in order to conceal it, is a self perpetuating myth originally created by Joe with no evidence to support it. The original sales invoice to Lanchsweert and Swaters and every other document I have seen, clearly state the correct number and only a month after the car was purchased, Lanchsweert was openly writing to Kleve about 0384AM. I can be critical of Swaters for getting involved with a stolen car but my principal reason I continue post, is that I dislike the blatant and cynical way that Joe has attacked the late Jacques Swaters simply for financial gain. Justice Flaux told Ford/Lawsons barrister that his client had been "driving Forence Swaters mad for over ten years and she only gave you money to get rid of you" but by ordering a preliminary hearing on the title we may find out what actually happened between Kleve and Swaters and the money paid under the 1999 Settlement Agreement. Joe has succesfully cast Swaters as the villan using hearsay and IMHO but he now has to produce creditable evidence if he is to prove his case. Kim PS: Will we ever see 0846 this side of the pond ? Image Unavailable, Please Login
Re PS 0846 has been at the Historic Targa Florio Twice and has been invited back for the 100TH Anniversary next June which we're considering based on our racing schedule. I took her for a very long drive today through the back roads. 0854 will be at Quail this summer. Cheers
AFAIK Bonhams made the clear statement to Les that there was no reason that it couldn't be brought back to and registered in Ohio. I assume they believed that statement was true based on a settlement that they believed was in effect at the time of the auction. Whether or not that settlement was in effect at the time of the Auction is now before the courts. Personally I doubt that this car will ever return to Ohio and be registered there unless there is a FULL settlement with ALL parties and the cloud over the title and the Theft report in the US are rescinded. Having been involved in a lawsuit that has gone on for over 12 years involving billions of dollars in awarded damages and multi national corporations as Lead I personally doubt that this one will end soon or happily for anyone.
