Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: New Lawsuit: DeLorean Estate v. DMCH

  1. #11
    EFI'd dn010's Avatar
    Join Date:  Jul 2011

    Location:  Florida: Pinellas County

    Posts:    1,606

    My VIN:    5003

    Club(s):   (DCF)

    Last edited by dn010; 10-16-2018 at 10:24 AM.
    -----Dan B.

  2. #12
    Not really banned Michael's Avatar
    Join Date:  May 2011

    Posts:    3,397

    That woman is a real piece of sh...er work.

  3. #13
    Senior Member DMC-81's Avatar
    Join Date:  Apr 2014

    Location:  Florida

    Posts:    1,752

    My VIN:    <2000

    Club(s):   (DCF)

    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.
    Dana

    1981 DeLorean DMC-12 (5 Speed, Gas Flap, Black Interior, Windshield Antenna, Dark Gray)
    Restored as "mostly correct, but with flaws corrected". Pictures and comments of my restoration are in the albums section on my profile.
    2006 Dodge Magnum R/T (D/D)
    2010 Camaro SS (Transformers Edition)

  4. #14
    Delorean Guru
    Join Date:  May 2011

    Location:  Northern NJ

    Posts:    6,727

    My VIN:    10757

    Club(s):   (DMA)

    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.
    David Teitelbaum

  5. #15
    Stupid Newbie DaraSue's Avatar
    Join Date:  Jul 2016

    Location:  The LC

    Posts:    854

    My VIN:    10907

    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?

  6. #16
    Delorean Guru
    Join Date:  May 2011

    Location:  Northern NJ

    Posts:    6,727

    My VIN:    10757

    Club(s):   (DMA)

    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.
    David Teitelbaum

  7. #17
    Senior Member DMC-81's Avatar
    Join Date:  Apr 2014

    Location:  Florida

    Posts:    1,752

    My VIN:    <2000

    Club(s):   (DCF)

    Quote Originally Posted by DaraSue View Post
    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?
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by David T View Post
    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.
    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".
    Dana

    1981 DeLorean DMC-12 (5 Speed, Gas Flap, Black Interior, Windshield Antenna, Dark Gray)
    Restored as "mostly correct, but with flaws corrected". Pictures and comments of my restoration are in the albums section on my profile.
    2006 Dodge Magnum R/T (D/D)
    2010 Camaro SS (Transformers Edition)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •