It's now official - Mastro trimmed hisT206 Wagner

[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