I got my law degree from a box of Cracker Jacks and my undergrad came from a fortune cookie. All this talk of food is making me hungry..........mmmmm Cracker Jacks. (think Homer Simpson) However this turns out I have a feeling we are going to see some fireworks. Somebody start the popcorn and get me a chair!! mmmmmmmmmm Popcorn............
In Ohio, you can get a duplicate title pretty easily. It is possible to get a dup after selling a car if the buyer doesn't process the title into their name right away, which will void the original. Seller did that to me once... Even if taken to another state, the issuing agency is supposed to notify the originating state that the title has been transferred, etc, so any attempts to get a duplicate will be refused. That said, who knows what Kleve talked the DMV into, or if he had a sympathetic friend there, etc, when he got the duplicate. But I think all that matters is that he had the title when he filed the theft case in the 80's, otherwise it would have not gone forward if he couldn't prove ownership.
Did you get the little yellow submarine with your law degree too? One thing is certain, the lawyers are going to make a ton of $ arguing over all these points!
Well some of the following points have been brought up but let me restate anyway. We have a guy who values his car at 2.5 million yet allows it to lay around outside in pieces. Who "can't find the title" - how many of you guys think you would 'loose' the title to a car you felt was worth 2.5 mill? Has an agent that has received somewhere between 200,000 and $600,000 for a car WITHOUT AN ENGINE. Who is this agent anyway? If Klieve felt the car was stolen why was there any negotiation as to a price for any of these parts? This attorney who now has an interest in the car blithely tells us Kleve can't find the original title, and tells us nothing about who this Daniels fellow is. We are supposed to take Kleve's point of view on this whole affair but he is obviously somewhat off and irrational. Funny how I am sure you will say he is rational when it came to his claims about this theft. Instead of suing why wouldn't Swaters just buy back these missing pieces from the widow, this suit won't be free and might equal the cost of the pieces, but instead he sued. Maybe he felt he was wronged when he paid Kleve for these pieces of a car when it turned out Kleve didn't give him all the pieces he had? I have had negotiations with people all over the world to license music and have encountered all sorts of situations. In some cases this whole series of events could have been part of a negotiation or sellers remorse. If as you say there never was a Ferrari serial number 0394AM then renumbering the car that wouldn't have fooled anyone who had some knowledge. Anyway I am sure this discussion will be good practice for when you do eventually end up in court.
Please correct me if I am wrong, But I think Swaters did try to buy the parts and "clear title" (at least in the US) for $625K back in 1999. At least Swaters has canceled checks for that amount written to Kleve and/or his agent, Daniels. I think the current suit by Swaters is that the Kleve heirs were going to sell/auction the remaining parts here in the US and Swaters was suing to stop/prevent that from happening as he wants those parts. I am not sure if this suit is separate from Kleve's heirs trying to sue or counter sue Swaters for a car they say is stolen and that Kleve states he did not see any of the $625K from the settlement reached in 1999. We just need to hear from Daniels and we could get all this wrapped up by dinner. Good Luck.....
Ah ok. My impression was the -settelment- happened after Kleve couldn't get the car back but that he knew Swatters had it and had negotiated over many years. I wonder about the chain of events around this theft. Some thieves in Ohio break into a yard and steal a bunch of cracked up car parts. What thieves would know there was value there and knowing that have a way to get that value. Theft for hire? Also if Kleve didn't get the money promised why didn't he sue?
OK, you are wrong. 1) There is only one suit, filed by Jacques and Florence Swaters, on Feb 12, 2010. PERIOD 2) The Kleve heirs and John Doe #1 (me) counterclaimed. PERIOD 3) Swaters claims he has a Sept 99 contract for $625k; claims he has two cancelled checks, one for $400k and one for $225k -- those are mere "claims" until the Court rules on them. 4) Swaters has failed to produce the back of the $225k check, and bank specialist says the back of the $400k check does NOT show it cleared through issuing bank. 5) Regardless of status of checks, they DO NOT COMPLY with the Swaters' contract required method of payment. (It is not a personal check from Swaters own account, or his partners. It is a complex New York check drawn on an offshore Swiss account, and it looks at this time that the $400k check did not even clear!) 6) Other irregularities with the alleged Sept 99 contract to be revealed shortly. 7) Remember the source of the claims - one side is involved with renumbering 0384AM to a phony 0394AM number that never was a Ferrari. I would respectfully request that commentators refrain from wild speculation and from postulating theories which have no basis or source in fact. I am trying to keep the Ferrari community informed, so I ask that you do more listening than posting. Thanks
OK..... But if we don't post, then we have to sit long periods of time with nothing to do but stare at our computer screens waiting for it to beep at us. This way is much more fun and it keeps the topic at the top of the list. Seriously though, none of us have a vested interest in this case so it is no different than a group of people siting at a dinner party gossiping about their neighbor who might be having an affair. Its what people do. However, you DO have a vested interest in this case so I can see that wild speculation can be frustrating same as if you were the neighbor being talked about at the same dinner party you were attending. Let us know how it turns out. (but now that you have piqued our interest, you are required to make daily updates so we can feel like we are still moving it along) Later Charlie
It's getting very confusing, and bits and pieces of info are over steering even before we get into the hairpin! Let's try to keep it factual, based on real time evidence not just theory. It's hard to believe that Jacques would be involved in something smelly, even if Belgium law of the 1980's -early 90's protected people harboring stolen property. EEC legal codes cabashed some of those possession laws . SO much is not known and really it's hard to imagine that anyone can get all the facts as Kleeve is dead and the car is now in the $9M range- a big payoff for someone . If it was a heist, and the stolen gold was passed on, I'd like to see the banking documents on who paid who, and if the money really changed hands and wasn't another round of number changing. I can't believe that after paying $625k that Jacques left the all those parts and vin plate out of the settlement - whew....so many details to this. Any chance of posting a clear summary of JUST FACTS, I mean by that document based information, like that Congressman's letter, etc?
I don't know how it is in Ohio, but here in Cal. one can go on-line, get the case number, and then review all the documents filed. Of course that only gives one the title of the documents, but for a small fee one can then order copies of selected documents. That still wouldn't answer many questions, however, as these documents are nothing more than allegations; the proven facts may be something else entirely. I would only add that Swaters is one of the oldest and most respected Ferrari dealers on the planet. Stay tuned. Ciao, and ciao-FM.
An incomparable web of intrigue and mystery! I can hardly wait for the final chapter... I wonder if we'll get to find out who 'Ocean Joe' really is? Alright Joe, I'll refrain from speculating and postulating, and just keep on reading as long as you make sure we get the whole story in the end! Your humble reader, -Tad
Yes, please don't speculate on any other scenarios than the one which OJ wants us to believe. >8^) ER
I would like to buy the movie rights. I think they are likely worth more than the Ferrari. A tangled Web of criminals, underworld figures, an atomic bomb scientist, retired Ferrari drivers, Interpol, FBI, police, swiss accounts, altered documents, suspicious agents , liars, thugs, switched VIN numbers, a working nurse inheriting the world most expensive Stolen car attacked for fraud in her hometown by a 84 year old multi-millionaire legendary Ferrari dealer caught up in the last race of his life with rogues, lawyers, partners, international law and media , the Ferrari chat hired as the jury and Ferrari SpA in the middle of the stew from the start! Wow. Where is HB Halicki when you need him?? I already have the title '' The Last 60 seconds'' . I'll call Nicky Cage today, and if he can't do it, Sean Penn is on auto-redial. Think this is one for Big-Dog Productions? Someone call Jay tonight and cut me in if he's not still tangled in that Duesenburg ordeal!
Thanks. I realize too that if I say anything untrue, then you can bet that opposing counsel will drag me before the Judge . . . A recap of facts: 1) Florence and Jacques filed suit in Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Case No A1001370, on February 12, 2010. 2) Kristi Kleve-Lawson (sole claimant heir) and John Doe - Joseph Ford (i.e. me) counterclaimed. 3) The Court file is now about 3 inches thick. 4) The Court Ordered, and the Parties agreed, to a Status Quo Order, entered on April 23, 2010, that "freezes" all cars, parts, and docs such that nothing can be moved, or sold, or encumbered, prohibiting doing anything that disturbs the status quo, "until a final determination of claims and ownership rights is made by this Court." 5) The Ferrari Market Letter just completed an article on this matter. I think it comes out this upcoming week. I have not seen it yet but I know they actually reviewed docs. The good thing is that all parties are in one jurisdiction to resolve the matter * legally * once and for all. Ocean Joe
I know Jacques. I had a hard time getting out of this 375AM Ferrari also! This was the offical press release I got for an event.... Zaventem, Belgium, 17 27 January 2002 The relationship between Jacques Swaters and Ferrari started in 1952, when his Ecurie Francorchamps racing team took delivery of a 500 F2 model, his first Ferrari. You never forget your first car, and certainly not your first Ferrari, especially when it provides you with a Grand Prix victory! Thus the yellow 500 F2, chassis # 0208, holds a special place in his multitude of Ferrari memories. It was also the car in which he had one of his most memorable drives, and it wasnt on a circuit! He drove it from the factory in Maranello 1000km overnight, without lights or any road equipment, all the way back to Belgium, so that the team could compete in the GP des Frontieres. This initial purchase led to the factory requesting him to represent them at the 1953 Brussels Salon, as their commercial director couldnt make it and they already had a car on the way for display. From little acorns mighty oaks grow, and as they say the rest is history, Ecurie Francorchamps went on to become one of the best known and most respected private Ferrari racing teams, entering races world-wide from the fifties through to the end of the seventies. In parallel Jacques Swaters built up a successful commercial business, Garage Francorchamps, as the Ferrari concessionaire for Benelux, which continues in this role today as part of the Inchcape Group. Thus 2002 marks the 50th anniversary of a continuous association with Ferrari, which was celebrated by an exhibition called 50 Anni di Passione, at the headquarters showroom in Zaventem. This ran in parallel with the Brussels Salon between 17 27 January, and the showroom was completely remodelled to give the impression of being on a motor show stand. Temporary timber walls were installed within the glass faced showroom, and the windows were covered with heavy black drapes to block out all natural light, to provide a completely closed environment, completed by a reception foyer which was erected around the main entrance. The effect was completed by carefully managed lighting, together with a display of twenty historically significant pictures around the walls. Apart from the full range of current Ferrari production cars, which were displayed in one area of the showroom, there was the 375 Plus, chassis # 0394AM, from Jacques Swaters personal collection, a 360 Challenge car raced under the Garage Francorchamps banner during 2001, and an example of the FIA GT championship class winning 360 GT. Within the new car display area there was also an example of the recently announced Maserati Spyder, heralding a new liaison, as Garage Francorchamps will become the Benelux concessionaire for Maserati from the beginning of February 2002. As a prelude to the public opening of the exhibition there was a press conference at lunchtime on 14 January, with a champagne reception held during the evening for invited guests. This proved very popular, with over 720 people attending during the course of the evening. The boutique situated at the far end of the showroom was constantly busy, mainly with people interested in the new range of Fila for Ferrari clothing and the new book about the 50 year association with Ferrari. This is called Garage Francorchamps Ferrari 50 Anni di Passione, and is available in soft-back form at 24 Euros, or you can buy the same edition in a silver box with prints of the twenty pictures displayed in the exhibition for 60 Euros, the latter being a 500 copy limited edition. The cover of the book is also reproduced as an event poster. More >>> Cars On Display Model Colour Chassis # F399 F1 Red SSC 6 375 Plus Red/Blue 0394AM 360 GT Red-Blue-Green-White/Red 119349 360 Challenge Red-Silver stripe/Red 122899 456M GT Nuovo Nero Daytona Met/Black 126264 550 Maranello Argento/Black 126528 360 Modena Red/Black 126626 360 Modena* Titanio/Black 126704 360 Spider Argento/Dark Blue 126714 Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thank you for confirming that your client is, in fact, looking for a windfall -- the delta between the value of the hulk that was stolen and value of the completely restored car (with its original engine, purchased separately by the current owner). The bodywork and other ancillary parts that you client retains have a minimal effect on value.
jjmcd, If the car (chassis) was stolen and the matter was not resolved by other means then it (and the other stolen bits) belong to the heirs of the original owner. The cost of the restoration/reproduction is likely in the $300K - $500K range. In my opinion, if the heirs win, they should get the chassis, old body panels and other misc bits originally stolen as well as damages for their troubles. Mr. Swatters will then be free to fabricate the pieces he had to return and have the complete replica, known as 394, that he originally claimed to have. If this were to occur, where do you think the value would lie? You can buy a fantastic GTO replica for $300K - $500K; for the same amount you can take the pile of original parts and the returned stolen bits and have them restored to new condition. Personally, I'd take the pile of original parts and the returned stolen bits. Thus, I disagree with you - in today's society, the majority of the value is in the original historically significant parts; i.e the 'hulk' if it remained in as stolen condition would have the majority of the value of the restored car. We will have see how the case unfolds to learn who the rightful owner of the 'hulk' is! Regards, Art S.
Art, The law that you're citing (requiring a BFP to return possession of stolen goods) is the US rule. As I noted in my previous post, the rule in some non-US jurisdictions is different. Ocean Joe (apparently the Kleve daughter's attorney) is obviously going to argue that the US rule applies and Swaters' attorneys are obviously going to argue that Swaters was a BFP and the non-US rule applies. Which rule actually applies will be determined using applicable international law principles. The whole argument really goes to measurement of damages. There are a number of different ways to measure them. According to Ocean Joe, the Kleve daughter is entitled to retake possession of the car, since the car is "stolen goods", which effectively means that she gets the full value of the currently-restored car. IMHO, there is an unjust enrichment aspect to Kleve benefiting from all of the restoration work undertaken by Swaters to turn the hulk back into a concours-level fully-operational race car (especially if she gets the car's original engine, which was separately purchased by Swaters and wasn't with the hulk when it was stolen). Maybe that is counteracted by bad faith on Swaters' part if he knew that it was stolen. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in between, given Kleve's acknowledged "eccentricities" and the various shady "brokers" involved back in the 1980s and early 1990s. Another measure of damages would be that Kleve is entitled to payment by Swaters for the value of the hulk. That "value" could be the hulk's current value (i.e., 2010) (which, as you noted, mostly consists of its historical value as #0384). Alternatively, the "value" could be the value of the hulk as of the time it was stolen back in the 1980s. Given the huge run-up in the value of 1950s racing Ferraris, I would expect that the current value is much larger than the 1980s value. Another line of argument that Swaters' counsel could pursue (or maybe already is pursuing) is that the $650k settlement agreement constituted a waiver of the claim to title of the car, even if less than all of the agreed-upon settlement payment was actually paid by Swaters. If that is the case, Kleve would only be entitled to money damages from Swaters -- i.e., the amount not actually paid under the settlement agreement, NOT return of the car. In any event, it's all positioning for the inevitable settlement negotiation process, as Kleve's daughter and her attorney Ocean Joe (who is likely working on contingency for 30-40% of the recovery, given the Kleve daughter's financial situation) don't really want the car (they want money) and Swaters wants the car. If Kleve/Ocean Joe can get past summary judgment, the amount that Swaters will be willing to pay to settle the case will be much larger. It would be interesting to see how it all turns out although, if the case is settled, there will likely be a confidentiality requirement, so we'll never learn the details. Regards, John
According to FML, there was a 0394, and it was also a 375 Plus. I don't know what their source is, and have no way to verify it. There is some explanation as well as to how the 0384 and 0394 were both possibilities. Like the rest of the audience, I curiously await an outcome. Since I doubt this gets resolved soon, it's kind of like for the next book in a series...
naparsei, As with any history form, it is always being revised. Yes, the Ferrari Market Letter/Gerald Roush once thought that 0394 AM was the car driven by Jim Kimberly and others. But as more facts come to light, that history changes. That is why my father was always hesitant to republish old articles from the FML about certain models or specific Ferraris because what he knew in the past decade was vastly different than what he knew when he wrote about these cars in the 1970s and 1980s. I will make no statement to the legality of what is being argued by the Kleve heir or the Swaters family. But I did attempt to recreate the history of the car as best as I could from the documents filed in the case in the latest FML. Chris Roush
Chris, Thanks for the clarification. I, like everyone else in the community, was sorry to hear about your dad. He was a massive resource. If the last couple of issues are any indication, it seems likely your goal is to honor his legacy while improving an already great product. I enjoyed the article - it added another perspective to what is going on here @ FCHAT. Alex
I have been reading this thread with interest as it has developed, and what had been posted until now did not add up for me. I couldn't see how both parties were making such divergent claims. I've now read Chris Roush's clear & succint article in FML which adds a lot of detail missing from this thread and makes everything much clearer to me. Would Chris be willing to have the article posted in this thread? Will
