Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1117635)

Thanks for the definition of legal standing. I had no idea--I just like to talk about legal matters with no working understanding of the operative terms.

Your premise is that no past owner of the card can legally sue-- he has no right to a day in court because he no longer owns the card. In my humble opinion, I believe that premise to be false. He can sue, but he likely will not prevail, at least under the facts as we know them, because he cannot prove at least one essential element of his claim (and there also may be affirmative defenses such as SOL). As in virtually any civil action, a Plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him damage and then attribute some amount to that damage. If you don't you lose, but that doesn't mean you were barred from asking in the first place because you lacked standing. Now if I tried to sue claiming that the whole fraud ordeal negatively impacted me and/or my collection in some measurable way then yes, I would agree that there is insufficient nexus between me and the alleged wrongdoers to provide standing.

A more interesting scenario presents if the buyer of a PSA 5 Wagner were to argue that he overpaid because the market was artificially inflated by the existence of an "8" that turned out to be bogus, or conversely, if the seller of that same PSA 5 argued that he could have sold for more had there been no 8 on the market because his would have been the highest graded. These people would have a colorable claim (if the facts were right and they could prove them) that they had a legally protectible stake or interest and thus have standing. They would probably lose on the standing issue, IMO, but it wouldn't shock me to see a lawyer at least advance the argument.

In sum, current ownership of property does not define exclusive standing in cases like this, again IMO. Had the owner previous to Kendrick sold it to him at a loss and could show that the fraud had something to do with that loss-- a tough row to hoe, no doubt-- then the fact that he no longer owns the card would not prevent him from suing on the basis of standing. Again, we're dealing in hypotheticals and I don;t foresee any lawsuits from past or current players in this melodrama, but stranger things have happened I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1117658)

I think all previous owners have standing to sue. And here, if you can prove any detriment whatsoever from the fraud, you are entitled to at least nominal damages, even if you can't prove entitlement to compensatory damages. Since its a tort action, nominal damages for fraud gets you to the jury on punis. Viola!!!

Originally Posted by travrosty (Post 1117672)

the woman who won the psa 8 wagner in the treat entertainment/walmart giveaway paid too much windfall taxes on the card when she won it, when in fact, her tax burden would have been much less had the card been properly graded by the people who purportedly gave it an 8 instead of an A to suit their own greedy interests. that is grounds for a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1117687)

I dunno Kenny. Given the Dfs I could see a lot of paper thrown around and hurdles tossed in the way, valid or not. Besides, given the upside and potential notoriety, wouldn't you want to tackle it yourself? :)

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1117685)

Peter,

I'm not wishing anything. I agree that it would be a difficult case. But I also think that some of the buyers could probably come up with something other than the purchase price which would get you to the jury. Buyer's fee on purchase then private sale, whatever. The capital gains tax issue for the one winner suggested above is an interesting thought.

If you get to the jury on punis then all bets are off. It probably wouldn't cost too much to try either. A couple of depositions and a summary judgment response. Give it to a young lawyer who needs courtroom time and let them run with it.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1117690)

That transaction took place before it was graded, I believe.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1117693)

So Jim Copeland pays 125K, sells for 461K less Sotheby's cut, and he has a fraud claim that gets him to a jury for punitive damages. OK. If you say so. :) Or Brian Siegel who bought for $1M plus and sold for $2M plus. Yeah, he would make an excellent fraud plaintiff.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1117697)

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not you could get a claim to the jury. IMO, you can. Now you are dodging that question and raising a completely different issue. You must be a defense lawyer. :)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1117698)

And in now saying it is a theoretical issue only you must be backpedaling from your initial post where you were much more enthusiastic. An appropriately chastened plaintiff's lawyer.:)

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1117690)

That transaction took place before it was graded, I believe.

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK (Post 1117783)

Mastro is a criminal. Doesn't matter one iota if the cards increased in value. He set out with an intent to defraud for personal gain. But he has a lot of money he has swindled people out of. He'll get a great defense and probably wind up at home wearing an ankle bracelet for a year. Some stupid, poor slob who has a bag of weed will rot for 20 years. Justice in this country is what you can afford.

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1115945)

Maybe, and if he did he might be right. I don't condone the fraud with the trimming but it's still the best looking Wags in the hobby. I am still undecided if I think it's value has held. It certainly might have. It's hard to say.....

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1117695)

No it was graded, Gretzky sold it to Walmart who then had a promotion.

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK (Post 1117783)

Mastro is a criminal. Doesn't matter one iota if the cards increased in value. He set out with an intent to defraud for personal gain. But he has a lot of money he has swindled people out of. He'll get a great defense and probably wind up at home wearing an ankle bracelet for a year. Some stupid, poor slob who has a bag of weed will rot for 20 years. Justice in this country is what you can afford.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1117820)

Thanks Peter. After I posted I was thinking maybe I was wrong. I know it sold raw in the Copeland Sale, so it must have been graded right after that. My error.

And thanks Rich also. My memory is not as crisp as it once was.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1117820)

Thanks Peter. After I posted I was thinking maybe I was wrong. I know it sold raw in the Copeland Sale, so it must have been graded right after that. My error.

And thanks Rich also. My memory is not as crisp as it once was.