Who Owns the $3.6 Million Ferrari?

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Extreme due diligence must always be excercised when buying any car, especially so when they are this valuable.

 

Let me see if I got this one straight. He is suing the company who bought the car from his relative who forged a title but not suing the relative???

Tell me that doesn't sound like a set-up.

 

If the bank had a lien on it that was never satisfied wouldn't they still own it? Appears to be fraud on the relatives part? At any rate, sounds like all of the parties were in on it some how and due to increased values this is surfacing now.

 

I'm glad someone figured that story out.. I couldn't make heads or tails of it..

 

If you click on the icon on the lower right of the article you can see the complaint.

Interesting that Family Classic Cars(San Juan Capistrano) were the dealer that sold the car initially for the $3.6MM. The relative, Rhein, appears to be the shady party as he not only obtained a bogus title and sold the car, he also was the one to also dupe the bank into allowing Rod not to make the $3MM payments due on maturity date, claiming he had a buyer. Montana Classic Cars are the ones that ultimately bought the car for $1.95MM based on a phony title that did not show any liens. My guess is Rhein cooked up the scheme with Rod being the willing or unasuming money guy/entity. The car is then resold to Montana(October 7, 2011) and Rhein pockets the $1.95MM on the sale.(or gives it back to Rod?) Rod buys the note back from the bank(February 7, 2012) and thus claims ownership of the vehicle. Why would Rod buy the note back on a car that had been resold and not in his possession,(after all he must talk to his relative) unless the purpose is to unwind what Rhein had done and get the car back? Seems like Rhein cooked up the bogus sale and now Rod wants it unwound. I'd be curious what Rod paid the bank for the note? Seeing as the bank were the one's that lent the money, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was cooked up to defraud the bank and now get the car back since technically it's worth a lot more?(depending on what he paid for the note etc.) If you're paying that kind of scratch for a car you'd think you'd dig into the title a little deeper(a call to the appropriate DMV to check on liens(even prior) and follow up call to make sure they've indeed been satisfied) plus you have the car in your possession before paying off a lien. Just my opinion.....

 

And what is the last bit about "damages for conversion" about?

 

Since Montana is holding on to the car the costs of it not being in his possession. Can't sell it, show it etc.

 

WHO finances a multi-million dollar Ferrari????????

 

"All it's going to take to get you into this baby today is $62,522 a month including interest... and get this GREAT new coffee cup for FREE!"



Jedi

 

The intention was to flip the car.(OPM - other people's money)

I noticed this Rhein guy of Tulsa, OK is currently in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. He's been in the collector car business in the past and has or has had a collection himself. If Rod bought the interest in the car from Grand Bank(also in Tulsa, OK) then why wouldn't they be able to also furnish Rod with a clean title? In which case he could claim the car stolen and get it back that way? Grand Bank had the right to immediate possession of the vehicle and instead of getting it back just assigned interest to Rod. Seems like Rod is trying to get the car back and at the same time protect his supposed relative, Rhein? The fact that Rhein and Grand Bank are in Tulsa, Grand Bank rolls over on their interest and pursuing getting the physical car back and Rod going easy on Rhein, seems kinda suspect and fishy? The issue isn't who owns the car as much as who should be going to jail?