375+ # 0384

What if he registered it in another state ?

 

There are plenty of stolen cars registered in other countries ,,,otherwise half Russian luxury cars would not be registered..( hope joking) ..if it were not possible to register cars once stolen, they would just sit in warehouses...except if broken up and sold in parts, and yes this happens even for classic cars.

In addition, nothing requires a race car to be registered, a lot if not majority of race cars are un registered and sold on a bill of sale. Even at the MM we see from time to time unregistered cars coming on a temporary plate ( even if regulations say the contrary).

Finally if unfortunately you hold long enough on stolen property, you may not be easily sell them ( remember the sale of the artifacts looted from the Winter palace in Beijing) but difficult to get them back, as evidenced by the Parthenon marbles ( the Elgin marbles) still in the UK while being asked by the Greeks for almost hundred years,,,to be returned where they belong to, ie Greece.

 

ownership lineage would have another aberration... it's not the registration or that a title is issued or the location by whom issued... it is about having a continuous lineage of uncontested owners executing valid transfers without any gaps or defect... the difficulty here is that the cart has gone before the horse, to use a cliche'... seller / broker are relying on ancillary documents to effect a sale endorsed by those yet to be determined as being valid to do so...

 

An interesting comparison !

Lord Elgin legitimately purchased the Parthenon Marbles from a reputable Greek dealer in 1801 with documented permission from The Sultan. The original owner (the Greeks) are shouting foul play suggesting that the supporting documentation is not authentic and they were stolen. An American (George Clooney) is supporting the Greeks in their claim and has public opinion on his side. The British Museum disagree on the basis that without Lord Elgins intervention the marbles would have perished a long time ago. The dispute is also governed by English Law but differs in that there is no indication that the Bonhams Antiquity Department are involved or that George has registered title in his name

 

As always we are grateful for your view

Based on OJ's intel I have found a Dr Jose A Zanotti Cavazzoni who is a Director of the Touring and Automobile Club of Paraguay (A South American equivalent of the Automobile Association). If correct, then no obvious connection to 0384AM or explanation for such a large payoff other than as you say "serious arm-twisitng" by Bonhams to avoid an eleventh hour abort.

The nagging question in my mind is, what effect did all this agrevation have on the resultant net proceeds ?

I can't help think that if all parties to the HOA hadn't fallen out and jointly promoted a sale, the result would have been far better all round and the timing would not have been dictated by external influences.

Kettle on

 

Don't forget that Ford, Lawson, Swater, and Gardner -- in the same instrument by which they agreed to waive and release *all* claims to #0384 -- also agreed to appoint Bonhams as the sole decision maker as to the force and effect of title all documents and the form of title to be delivered to the Buyer: "11. BC and OC Parties will surrender all existing registration documents, USA titles, Bill of Sales, and other conveyance documents they possess individually or jointly to be reviewed by Bonham’s as to the validity of which documents will be used in the conveyance to a new owner procured by Bonham’s for this Ferrari. (Heads of Agreement, March 12, 2013 -- http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143300471-post1598.html.)

 

Bonhams can review documents until hell freezes over. Bonhams, however, cannot determine their validity, that authority lies with the courts, especially while there is litigation going on to determine ownership. A true and valid owner does not exist yet, due to appeals in process. Ancillary documents are baseless and have no standing as there is no validation yet of those signing having authority to effect a transfer. ( if so, please list )

 

I think this is the easiest way of summarizing all that has taken place. Bonham's jumped the gun, BIG TIME.

 

Ok, so Bonhams paid Zanotti to ensure they was no 11th hour abort, maybe...... But then why accept any right that Zanotti had to stop (abort) the auction and not accord Joe Ford or KKL any comparable rights. On what basis could that decision possibly have been made? I would love to know what documentation or reasoning that Zanotti could possibly have had to impel Bonhams to comply. AFAIK nobody has been able to give any evidence of any link between this mysterious Zanotti and #0384 and yet someone with a real arguable linkage was ignored..... hmmmmmm. So much mystery they should possibly get Scooby doo on the case....

As for the elgin marbles, imo legality is only a arbiter of what is legal, it generally cant take any heed of what is morally correct. Here in New Zealand many parties, of all races, sold tattooed Maori heads legally to the British museums of the day and they are currently in the process of systemically repatriating them. While the British museums have purchased them legally and have full property rights to them, the Maori attach enormous spiritual signifigance to things like this. I personally believe that on occasion, where there is a significant spiritual or religious element the morally correct right trumps the legal right. Hell the Elgin marbles like the Maori heads and 0384AM might be cursed.

 

Hi Cheesey. My construction of this request is that I identify the persons who had authority to transfer ownership of #0384 to the Buyer at Bonhams' Goodwood auction on June 27, 2014. The term "authority" is ambiguous. From your other posts I take it that you focus unduly on the clerical role of a state agency -- the Ohio BMV -- and ignore the fact that it is the seller and the buyer of a motor vehicle who tell the clerks at this state agency what names and other information to enter on their pre-printed forms.

In any event, the persons who claimed to have an ownership interest as of June 27, 2014 were Swaters, Lawson, Ford, Gardner, and Zanotti. This group of five comprises all those who had "authority" to transfer ownership, however tenuous each party's claim to ownership might be in reality.

It is my understanding that each of these five persons appointed Bonhams to act as his or her agent to effect a transfer of his or her interest -- however tenuous -- to a Buyer at auction.

Regarding Swaters, Lawson, Ford, and Gardner, they made this appointment in the March 12, 2013 Heads of Agreement. As I mentioned a few posts up in the thread, Swaters, Lawson, Ford, and Gardner also gave to Bonhams the sole power to take custody of all title documents in the parties' possession, and to review these documents "as to the validity of which documents will be used in the conveyance to a new owner procured by Bonham’s [sic] for this Ferrari." (Quoting paragraph 11 of the HOA.)

Regarding Mr. Zanotti, his claim came flying in at the last minute, and the details are apparently unknown. Judging by subsequent developments, it appears that Mr. Zanotti also granted to Bonhams the authority to dispose of his ownership interest by means of the June 27 auction, in exchange for the payment to Zanotti of a guaranteed sum of money.

Edit: I did a word search of this thread for "Zanotti" and found July 26's Post #1417, by Joe Ford, in which he wrote this about the Zanotti deal:

"Ms. Swaters and Mr. Gardner, as vendors of the Car, authorized Bonhams to settle the Claim by paying the Settlement Sum to Sr. Zanotti (in £1 million installments payable on June 30 and before 31 July 2014 and deducting it from the Proceeds. [Elsewhere the letter defines the Settlement Sum to be £2 million.]"

It is my understanding that Bonhams has deposited in Court only the net proceeds of sale after deduction of the Zanotti payoff. In other words, Swaters and Gardner (and Lawson and Ford) don't get any of the money until the Court says so. This raises many questions regarding Zanotti. Did Bonhams release the money to Zanotti on schedule (£1 million on June 30 and £1 million on July 31)? Did Bonhams pay these installments from its own money? Has Zanotti been paid anything? My guesses are Yes, No, and Yes.

 

I agree. Avoiding a debate on the validity of appeal against the case being cancelled and transferred to London, OJ has a point on the sudden capitulation to a threat from Zanotti. £3m (OJ's figure) is almost a third of the cars value and a sizeable reduction to the net proceeds all round.

The rational decision would have been to delay the sale and sort it all out. Why they didn't is the $64 million question

 

Things are changing as we speak.

My information, which needs to be confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction, with proof of bank transfers (hence the "tracing" requested by Copley) is that:

1) On or about July 7, 2014 Bonhams paid Sr. Jose Zanotti Cvazzoni ("Zanotti") the first of the two agreed L1,000,000 installments from the proceeds of the "sale."

2) The second L1,000,000 installment has NOT been paid to Zanotti.

3) Bonhams has rescinded the Zanotti agreement.

4) Zanotti, within past few days, threatens Bonhams with a new lawsuit.

I still have not seen the full details of the Zanotti claim. Based on what I have seen as allegations of fact, I think it is 99.9% certain that the Zanotti claim will fail once analyzed. The provenance of 0384AM (Lot 320) is from the Ferrari factory to Kimberly to Hively to Kleve, and it is for a complete car with continuous photographic dcoumentation, and is thus as bulletproof as it gets. I do not see how anyone can seriously agree to pay out L2,000,000 on a challenge to such a pedigree, especially when you read what the challenge consists of, described below, as taken from Zanotti's attorney's letter dated June 24, 2014:

1) Zanotti defines his property ("Property") as parts to a Ferrari 375 Plus chassis and parts to a disassembled 4.9 liter engine, both stamped 0384AM.

2) On September 23, 2003, Zanotti bought his Property for $600,000 from Dr. Favero's ("Favero") "personal collection", as part of a $1,837,200 bundled purchase of part of the collection stored at Sala Baganza, via F. Maestri 26, Parma, Italy. The transaction was notarized on that date in Monetvideo, Uruguay.

3) Zanottis' attorney claims that he interviewed Favero and Favero claims: a) he helped Gendebien buy the Property in 1989, b) Gendebien then imported the Property into Genoa, Italy, on 16 or 17 June, 1989, c) Gendebien wrote the Ferrari factory on July 18, 1989 to help in the restoration but they did not reply and that letter allegedly had photographs of the Property, and d) Gendebien sold to Favero before his death in 1989.

4) The path of the Property is alleged to be from Mexico to Uruguay to Italy.

5) Zanotti's attorney claims that the Property was stolen from the warehouse in Parma between November 10, 2001 and March 12, 2004. Zanotti claims the warehouse owner moved the contents because of a planned demolition and redevelopment, but that the registered letters sent to Favero by the warehouse owner were not received. The theft was the subject of crminnal proceedings against the warehouse owner, who was never charged nor convicted of the theft of the Property.

Again, the above is from Zanotti's attorney's letter.

I think the subject matter is expert subject matter. The Ferrari community and Ferrari media did some discrediting of the claims about Soth American 375 Plus remnants in the early 1990's. Zanotti's attorney refers to complications in the paperwork coming out of Mexico.

Joe

*

 

In his post #1873, OJ posted a picture of the 375+ 0386AM with this cryptic comment:

The tractor's make is "SAME" and 0386 was wearing Paraguayan license plates...

The plot thickens!
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

what is the complete lineage of the Zanotti parts... where they were sold by Kleve and others in due course of business or was there additional interim theft involved as well which would affect the validity of the Zanotti claim ... if Zanotti ultimately is a valid parts owner, then he either should be compensated for his loss or the parts returned to him... compensation makes sense as it would leave parts in place and adds value to the restoration

 

The timeline of Zanotti's claim seems to be at odds with Marcel Massini's post #2 where he states "1989/1990 car completely reconstructed in Italy for Jacques Swaters and Philippe Lancksweert " http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/135955297-post2.html,

That parts (ie chassis) that Zanotti claims are missing were in a warehouse in Italy between 2001 and 2004, more than a decade after the car had been reconstructed, so hard to believe they are part of the car now.

If Zanotti's claim does include original parts from 0384, how did they become separated from the rest of the vehicle? - there is no record of Kleve selling a 375 chassis or engine parts ? more stolen goods?

The last minute claim smacks of opportunism, knowing that the vendor is most likely to settle so as not to delay the auction.....

M

 

Not forgetting that the British magazine Motorsport did an article in 2000 on a fabulous 375 Plus that was owned by Favero and Gendebien through the 1990s with varying claims of existence, at the start of the 1990s it was claimed to be #0384 but when that car showed up in Swaters collection they changed the claim to #0386. Further there was intrigue a plenty when the modern #0386AM was shown to be a fake due to its being completely and utterly destroyed 50 years earlier during the Mille Miglia and the real #0384 being in the possession of Swaters. Further the FIVA representative "Franco Lombardi" that "agreed" to give it an HTP had his authority to do so removed when it was investigated (did money change hands?). At the time Gendebien's reputation was damaged but Favero has always been involved in the restoration/ rebuild/ construction of replicas. I love the new claims that the car went through Mexico..... Why not claim it went via Mongolia. Here is the links to the media c2000

FROM FARINA TO GONZALEZ - A PLOTTED HISTORY | Motor Sport Magazine Archive

FIVA REPRESENTATIVE JAILED FOR EXTORTION | Motor Sport Magazine Archive

375 PLUS: TRUE OR FALSE? | Motor Sport Magazine Archive

So having read all of that, what do you think of the veracity of Zanotti's claims to own #0384, sorry #0386, sorry..........

 

+1

 

Good find on those articles. There are others. I hope the followers on this thread can dig them out. I recall an FML mention, a couple of Cavallino mentions, actual letter(s) from Frolian Gonzales, etc. The FBI even had stuff in their files, circa 1993, about the replicas, about Favero going by the alias Smit, about the sudden withdrawal of 0386AM from a vintage race, cancelled FIA papers, etc.

IMHO what we have is counterfeiters of classic cars trying to fill in what they thought were gaps in history, but in reality were only gaps in their own research.

There is even a Ferrari Chat thread started by, . . . indulge me for a second, . . . a German model who is photographed hanging around cars thought to belong to a banned user that also goes by the alias "onebugatti." This German model just happens to want to start her first thread on this very esoteric Ferrari topic. If you think a young German model knows enough to start such an esoteric thread about a few 1954 racing Ferrari's, well . . . .

The significance of the "CarsInFashion" thread,
with its auspicious "out of the blue" timing,
about an extremely estoteric subject matter
that leaves me pining,
will be revealed,
when I can stop this rhyming.

Recently I received a suspicious private message from Paraquat,
reproduced below,
that suspiciously calls me "Joey,"
rather than "Joe."
The significance of receiving
such a cryptic sign,
will be revealed,
all in due time.
But first, before that time,
I must find out why
the keys I press,
end up in rhyme.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Geez, just when I think this thread is petering out ...

 

Could be Bonhams in disguise !

 

What ever happened to Max Vito, I think personally he knows more than all you people put together......

 

Banned but not forgotten.

I wouldn't be to surprised if he's here under a new ID though.

 

Max was very entertaining, but no, just no. Will be interesting to see what Max part 2 is like, IMO, just when you thought it was safe to discuss #0384AM, dum dum dum dum dah......

 

That's a pretty bold statement for an unsubscibed rookie poster of one month's standing!

Have you read through all 2200 odd posts on the thread? While there are undeniably wafflers and axe grinders, some of the posters are respected experts in the Ferrari field.