It's now official - Mastro trimmed hisT206 Wagner

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

First, be careful using the term standing. They may not have an ultimately successful claim for which relief may be granted, but as prior owners of the card who would in some fashion argue that they were impacted by the fraud, they would likely have standing. True they would have to prove damage to sustain the claim, but depending on how they framed their pleadings they should beat any standing claim as such.

As for your assertion that only Mr. Kendrick suffered harm, how is that so unless and until he can show it is worth less than what he paid for it--otherwise he too has a profit (or net zero), and what evidence would you propose he use to show that?

Standing :The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

No previous owner has legally protectible stake. Feel free to further develop your argument.

The difference between Kendrick and the other owners is that he has not yet sold the card. The prior owners made a profit. Kendrick's financial fate, on the card, is uncertain. In order to prove a harm Kendrick could probably obtain appraisals from auction houses. He would demonstrate a harm by showing that the appraised value of the trimmed card is below the appraised value of the PSA 8. I am addressing the merits of the claim just how it may be proven.