https://www.foxnews.com/auto/court-t...ture-royalties
Printable View
Yes, I saw that too. Reviewing the settlement agreement again in post 3, I'm sure the Court decided that the contents of the Universal Agreement is within the scope of what DMC Texas controls (and/or barred claims against them) as part of the Settlement Agreement with the Estate. Like I said, to a layman reading the documents, they seemed to be within their lane.
No matter what side you want to take, a business needs a stable legal footing in which to operate. A recurring need to defend a litigation takes time, energy, and resources away from running and growing one's business, especially a small to medium sized one. Hopefully this decision provides that clarity for both parties.
What it comes down to is Sally found a lawyer that would take the case on a contingency and thought it was worth a try. It didn't cost her anything and there was potentially a lot to gain. What this does now is prevent any further legal harassment from her or any of JZD's heirs. DMCH is free to operate under the settlement agreement. It did cost DMCH a bunch to defend itself though. They may have a counterclaim for legal fees against Sally. Good luck with that even if they win, she probably doesn't have much to go after.
Something I've never been able to figure out - I thought JZD couldn't assert any claim over DMC's assets while he was alive because his creditors would have gone after him for any money he made from them. So why is his estate supposedly entitled to settlements after he's dead?
A very good question. An even better question is why the creditors aren't going after DMCH? On the theory that JZD should have gotten that money, then the creditors should be entitled to it. Now we are getting into esoteric law and I can't even guess at the correct answer. A creative lawyer could possibly come up with a case. Meanwhile, for the time being, the court has said DMC owns the Delorean trademark. Woe be to anyone who defies them, they now have good standing to defend their rights. It cost them plenty.
From a purely layman's perspective: I think it is in the language of the Universal Agreement (Exhibit B) that refers to heirs, assigns, etc. So I think that would have been the case except for the Settlement Agreement where it was agreed that DMC controls those particular rights.
I think the legal term for that is the statute of limitations on debt, etc., a concept that goes back to biblical times. It varies state to state, but it is only a handful of years (3-15?). So it would be long since expired. Because that is the case, no company would still have business records on an early 1980s debt, even if the company were still in business. I think that statute and laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act attempt to contain "creative lawyers".