It's now official - Mastro trimmed hisT206 Wagner

[nolemmings]

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.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Sorry to get so heated about this one. I think it is frustration from work bleeding over.

I like the argument about the purchaser of the PSA 5. Who knows.

[nolemmings]

Another two cents. To the poster who asked whether Kendrick would have to show that any loss or diminished value was not attributed to other market conditions I would answer yes. The Plt must (nearly) always show that the damage he claims was caused by Df's conduct, although the evidence needed and the degree of certainty can be contested issues. However, I think there is a good argument that in this case, the Wagner card lives in its own market--that the hobby generally and the overall economy do not have much impact on driving its sales, for the buyer pool consists largely of people who have no great concern about such factors.

Lawyers are often very creative, although maybe not this one. Even if the card has appreciated, particularly if only by some small amount, I could see someone asserting that Kendrick has suffered damage by the now confirmed statements that his Wagner card was trimmed. The argument could be made that the card historically ALWAYS sells for at least x% more upon resale, and that if it doesn't now: 1) it's because of the fraud and 2) the difference is Kendrick's damages-- he should have made more profit. Don't get me wrong, I see this as a tough one and damages cannot be deemed speculative, but I make the point only to show that the more creative ones out there could probably stir up something. Moreover, I also believe that if he can prove any compensatory damages he could also ask for punitive damages-which greatly expands the stakes.

Granted, Kendrick has expressed no interest in selling or concern about this latest Mastro news, and there may be PR and personal reasons why he will just leave this alone, but it's sometimes fun for us on the outside to ponder the possibilities.

[nolemmings]

Sorry to get so heated about this one. I think it is frustration from work bleeding over.

No problem. I hear ya, and have been known to be a bit irritable myself (this just in).

[Kenny Cole]

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!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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!!!

And if wishes were horses...

[Kenny Cole]

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.

[nolemmings]

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.

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

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.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by travrosty

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

it was graded by 1991 because it was exhibited at the 91 national in anaheim and it was in its psa holder. i saw it there behind the velvet rope.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

Right, Gretzky and McNall had it graded. Walmart bought it next for a promotion but the woman who won the promotion had to sell because of the taxes and Gidwitz won it at auction.

Kenny, Walmart would be a good client, maybe they are interested in pursuing a fraud claim.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

Barry: That card was graded by 1991 -- and I know this because I was quoted in New York Magazine about what I would think this card would sell for. Trust me, my guess was less than half of what the final selling price was. But the woman who won that card won that card circa 1995-96 and that was after 1991 and thus the card was graded when she won that card. Just an FYI for the timeline.

And that is not because I have such a great memory, instead I was writing one of my rambling columns for Sports Collectors Daily and googled Rich Klein Beckett analyst and that quote popped up.

Regards
Rich