Simeone v. First Bank National Association

73 F.3d 184 (8th Cir. 1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P seeks damages against D and others for breach of contract and fraud stemming from an agreement by D to sell P 1920-1930 era vintage Mercedes-Benz automobiles and parts which had been repossessed from a defaulting loan customer. The vehicles included a one-of-a-kind 1929 Mercedes Benz SS Roadster, two 1930 era Mercedes Benz Roadsters (of which a total of 114 were ever manufactured), and a 1928 Mercedes Benz SSK (one of only 39 ever manufactured), which had been owned by the son of Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. There were thousands of loose parts, including shock absorbers, fenders, seat cushions and wheels, which were no longer manufactured and which were themselves extraordinarily rare. D entered into an agreement to sell the repossessed automobiles and parts for $400,000 to P, a self-described collector of vintage automobiles. P agreed to purchase the Quante Estate car and parts for $50,000. P paid 10% of the contract price as a downpayment. On the date set for the conveyance of title, Leland Gohlike, the debtor, obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the sale of the collateral. D refused P's proffered tender of the balance of the purchase price. Gohlike also instituted a civil action against D and its officers claiming a violation of due process and seeking $13,000,000 in damages. D then entered into negotiations with Gohlike and James Torseth, Gohlike's neighbor, to sell the automobiles and parts to Torseth in exchange for Gohlike's dismissal of his suit against D and a purchase price slightly in excess of P's. D subsequently sold the cars and parts to Torseth. Torseth later sold all of the cars and parts for $1,114,960, including $470,000 that P himself paid for the purchase of the 1929 Mercedes Benz SS Roadster. Two experts at trial testified that, because of their rarity, by late 1987 or early 1988 the vehicles and parts were worth over three million dollars. P sued D alleging breach of contract and fraud. A trial and appeal were held, and a remand was given in favor of P. An trial, the district court ruled as a matter of law that D's conduct did not constitute fraud. The jury awarded P $2,405,000 for breach of contract, including $585,000 in compensatory damages, $225,000 in incidental damages, and $1,595,000 in consequential damages, plus prejudgment interest. The jury also awarded $1.00 on the court-dismissed fraud claim. Everyone appealed.