Napolis and cwebb, I think whether the property itself would be returned is going to depend on whether there is a reciprocity treaty between the US and the country in which the car is. Either BEL or I, from what I gather. Otherwise, whatever is adjudicated is moot as the OH court has no power to compel or specific authority over another sovereign nation. If the car, however, ever enters a territory that does have a treaty, the car can be seized subject to the court's order. CW
"In general, the enforceability in Italy of final judgments of U.S. courts would not require retrial in Italy, subject to the decision of the competent court of appeal ascertaining the existence of the above mentioned requirements and subject to challenge by the other party"
While I haven't followed this thread as closely as I ought, the car is currently in I, then? I seem to recall a story some time ago about several 60's F1 "replicas" built by a UK bunch. The factory, even though it "supported" the effort by providing detailed blueprints ordered the seizure and destruction (IIRC) of these cars, one of which was owned by an American. The car was elsewhere, maybe, but if the car ever went to I, it was subject to the court ordered I seizure. But, my memory is pretty fuzzy, and subject to correction. Anyone? Does this ring a bell? Does anyone recall the facts and the outcome? CW
Then couldnt Ferrari totally piss everyone off and simply rename it 375 Plus #0394 ??????? sort of a up yours moment BUT it would get around all laws and statutes again................................ On a more serious note, the car has extremely diminished value if it cannot be sold into the USA, when you consider that is where 50% of the potential purchasers are. And even if the ownership is sorted I still think the overall smell of everything might have an effect. The only truly non - smelly resolution could be to sell the car, share royalties and have everyone drop their claims. Just one mans opinion T
You seem to repeatedly ignore the ownership of the title in your summaries as above; I would think that "the bodywork and other ancillary parts and legal title" have more than a minimal effect on value! But Swaters has brought the issue to the US, for a US ruling, by filing this suit in the US court. What, then, does it matter what the law is in non-US jurisdictions? Or are you suggesting that should the decision in the US court go against him, that Swaters intends to ignore the US ruling that he specifically sought? I'm not a lawyer by any means, but find this fascinating reading. As has been questioned about some of the other participants in this thread, the apparent bias to your posts has me wondering what your interests are in this case?
1. If the Judge rules in favor of the kleve heirs against Swaters, Swater must comply and fly the car back to Ohio. If he ignores that order, well , he will be held accountable with contempt. 2. Ferrari Classiche told me they had NOTHING to do with the replica chassis plates ( 0394 and 0384 ). They had in their files a photo of the original plate, taken from an FBI photo in 1989! They told me that 0394 never existed and is a false number. The showed me archives on race cars of the 1950's that are incredibley detailed and orderly, and those have always been there for anyone to review.The 0394 number will never be used as a chassis number on a Ferrari again. 3. The judge ordered the car not to move from Maranello, and for all work to cease on it. I saw sections of the chassis's exposed for testing. I took pictures. I saw the number stamped on the chassis, it was 0384 - and I discussed with them issues of metallugy on the number. The car was there for the installation of the original motor, found in the USA last year. The seller of that motor had an agreement with Kleve to sell Kleve the engine when Kleve recovered his stolen car - Kleve couldn't recover it, died and last year Swater bought the engine claiming he had bought the car from Kleve. Hence the engine owner sold it on that pretense to Swaters. I promise photos this week of the ''never burned'' parts, and techinical photos. Does anyone have a photo of the 0394 chassis plate that was used when the car was raced? Or any application forms for the car as 0394am during races in the earlz 2000's ? I have a strong opinion, but will stick to the truth until all the truth is on the table.
The setting: Sometime in 2001, two years after the alleged Swaters and partner Sep '99 settlement. Kleve, now 87 years old, knows he may not be around much longer. Kleve contacts FBI Special Agent Ken Crook, you can read it for yourself. Kleve has been telling his daughters that one day he will get the car or the "approximately $3 million" - per daughters affidavit. Kleve, "we have the title" as in April of 2001, Kleve obtained a duplicate Title from the Ohio DMV since he could not find his prior copy. Kleve, we can just get it "with a tow truck. we have the title." This, from a former car builder, car enthusiast, atomic scientist, Manhattan Project participant, now in his 87th year. If you found this in your father's estate documents, after the years of ordeal chasing 0384AM, only to watch it get renumbered, then restored, then openly displayed "out of the closet" far away in Belgium by Lancksweert, Swaters partner, denying from your children their due inheritance, well . . . put yourself in Kleve's shoes. This is one of several similar Kleve estate documents that show what is going on in Kleve's last years. The car should be returned. If Swaters and partner acted in good faith, reimburse Swaters and he is not out of pocket. If Swaters and partner acted in bad faith, then treat partnership like all bad faith possessors of stolen property. Swaters can get reimbursement from his partner Lancksweert. Renumbering to 0394AM, AFTER Belgian officials had seized as 0384AM, AFTER Belgian officials inexplicably release as 0384AM, AFTER the Belgian dealer then sold as 0384AM, . . . inexcusable. A Ferrari dealer can't find the build sheet for one of six cars to confirm serial number, for ten years, . . . inexcusable, not credible. Lancksweert, Swaters' partner, pays Kleve's private investigator direct with $225,000, in New York City, rather than in Ohio, to Kleve . . . downright suspicious. Now it is all making sense. Mr. Swaters - the gentleman, the legend . . . make it right. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just out of interest, has anyone else tried to access the lodged documents in this case through the Hamilton County Court, Clerk of Court's website. I did so because I would prefer to form my opinion from ALL the documentation rather than what Ocean Joe decides to selectively leak to us. As far as I can make out the court documents are "locked" due to "Document may contain sensitive information". Yet Ocean Joe continues to post a selection of them on here. I am not taking any side in this discussion - it's just that I like to form my own opinion using all possible information available. This does all assume that I have identified the correct case, A1001370. But I doubt there are two cases going on between the parties involved.
Fair point. The total court file is now about four inches thick, but of that, only about 1/2" are exhibits or affidavits supplied by the parties to the litigation. FYI - I already posted Swaters best docs - the alleged settlement and the alleged checks used as payment and performance of his settlement obligation. What one must realize, if the payment is not made per Swaters' version of the alleged settlement, then what else matters? If the very settlement that Swaters seeks to enforce, with the checks he claims constitute payment, show the wrong party was paid, then what else matters? This is assuming the checks even cleared, which may not be the case. You can have a one mile high pile of docs, but at the end of the day, you need to focus on the relevant issue as to the claim - contract (or not), payment (or not), thus performance (or not). There are other pure arguments of law being made, such as that Swaters waited too long to attack thus the Probate Court judgment which awarded title and parts to heirs stands and is final. Another argument of law is that Swaters' Ohio title was invalidly assigned, thus is invalid by law. (i.e. Kleve never signed the back, and his private investigator who did sign the back lacked authority to sign and did not fill in the price or buyer's name, thus by law, an invalid assigment.) Thus, the judge can say that the law ends the matter, regardless of the settlement and checks. Then Swaters simply proceeds on his unjust enrichment claim to try to at least get reimbursed. There is only one case, and you do have the correct case number. If you are an attorney you can probably access it all. In fact, to make sense of the whole pile, you would need to be an attorney LOL.
It would appear that Mark Daniels/National Search Services was partners with Kleve back at the time Philippe Lancksweert made those payments. If Mark Daniels/NSS didn't share funds with Kleeve in a manner consistent with their partnership agreement, that would seem to be an internal matter which should be litigated between the Kleeve estate and Mark Daniels/NSS. Furthermore, I find it quite curious that Swaters would go to the trouble (and take the associated risk) of being a Plaintiff in a U.S.-based "Quiet Title" action if he didn't strictly adhere to the letter of the Settlement Agreement entered into with Kleeve back in the day.
"Another argument of law is that Swaters' Ohio title was invalidly assigned, thus is invalid by law. (i.e. Kleve never signed the back, and his private investigator who did sign the back lacked authority to sign and did not fill in the price or buyer's name, thus by law, an invalid assigment.) " - Ocean Joe So Swaters has an Ohio title that was signed by a representative of Kleve and Kleve had a replacement title because "he couldn't find the original." (I bet you could easily find a million titles without the price or buyers name on them by the way.)
Partnership? You may want to first look up the meaning and the legal prerequisites. Not even Swaters alleges partnership between Kleve / Daniels. It's rather straightforward hire as agent with pay on contingent basis. Nothing curious here, if you know about Swaters, who has systemically been selling off dealership, cars, memorabilia, archives, etc. Problem with selling this formerly stolen car, a high profile theft, of which one never even had the whole car, and where one avoided ever setting foot in Ohio to truly resolve claims with admitted known Owner, is now coming home to roost.
I know who Mark Daniels is. He is/was a professional bounty hunter of collectible cars with questionable ownership, and works on a contingency basis (he's compensated for his efforts if/when the car is returned to the party(s) he's working with who allege ownership). I'm not sure of the legal prerequisites for "partnership." However, to my way of thinking this joining of interests wherein he stands to reap a financial benefit depending on the outcome, makes him a type of partner (if not someone with a vested financial interest in the object which has a disputed ownership). That's why I'm saying that if Kleeve was shorted around the time the Cashier's Checks were given by to Mark Daniels, then perhaps the Kleeve Estate's beef is with Daniels.
If that turns out to be the case, then the replacement/duplicate Ohio Title would be rendered invalid.
Not so fast. Kleve thought it lost. Duplicate title is valid until lost title is recovered. Turns out that investigator Daniels had original, that's a theft, or a breach of trust, not curable nor valid no matter who gets it next. But focus on what matters - did investigator Daniels have authority to transfer title. To transfer title by signing back of title, you better have the ORIGINAL of a specific power of attorney to do that act, or it is null. I ask that members of this board stick to what they know, or ask direct relevant questions; otherwise there are too many tangent, goofy posts to reply to. Also, no date on when decision is out.
Boy oh boy, it's starting to sound more and more like the Kleeve Estate's beef (remedy) REALLY, REALLY resides with Daniels....
But your own document agreement in the opening recitals says that Daniels is/does have the power-of-atty executed by Kleve. Seeing that in the agreement would typically make the buyer assume that Daniels does have authority to sign the title.
Well you may think these points goofy but the fact is Kleve didn't know where the original title was and he had given it to Daniels? Hmm, he is so focused on getting this car back but he forgot he gave the title to the investigator? So Swatters has the original title - given to him by Daniels. The thing is you parcel out these salient details and then say only focus on what you want us to focus on.
Joe, Direct and relevant Question: Does the "Kleve" side of the case have any signed agreement in its file or does the only signed agreement reside in the "Swaters" side of the case file? Also, at what point was it discovered that Daniels still had the signed title? Back in 1999+/- or in the examination of the current case in 2010? Law Question for any Lawyers out there: Can a power-of-atty document be part of a larger agreement with multiple points, Or does a power-of-atty document need to be its own separate document? Thanks
While as a bystander I find all of this fascinating I still wonder why (some of) the parties involved feel the need to make their case(s) here.
It's going to be a real shame if Swaters has to light the car on fire, stomp it out, park it in a weed filled vacant lot and throw the matching engine out into the woods. What a mess.
