Federal judge gives green light to trial

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled a lawsuit can proceed to trial over a "very fast, and valuable, race car."

The Not for Publication opinion issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder is Reginald D. "Don" Whittington Jr. v. Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation a.k.a. Hall of Fame Museum, No. 1:06-cv-0333-JDT-TAB.

Judge Tinder denied motions for summary judgment and determined that a trial is the only likely way to resolve this dispute involving the ownership of a famous Porsche 935 used in the French car race that is considered the Indianapolis 500 of endurance racing.

In 1979, the driver racing team of brother Don and Bill Whittington and German driver Klaus Ludwig won the 24 Hours of Le Mans that is raced in France each year on a circuit that combines racetrack and closed public roads. This litigation focuses on the ownership of the Whittingtons' 935 K-3 racecar, which both parties disagree whether it was donated or loaned to the IMS Museum of History in the early 1980s.

After giving the car to the IMS, Don Whittington raced for several years before dissolving the brothers' racing company, spending time in prison for tax conspiracy, and eventually asking in August 2004 for the Porsche to be returned so he could show it at a vintage car event in Florida. The IMS Foundation - which had maintained, insured for $375,000, and periodically displayed the car for more than 20 years - declined to return the Porsche it classified as a donation. This suit was filed in February 2006.

In Judge Tinder's ruling, he notes that neither party can point to written records establishing the nature of the ownership transfer - "the history of the Porsche 935 K-3 is little more than a story of handshake deals," the judge wrote.

As a result, he denied Whittington's motion for summary judgment on claims of conversion and replevin, and also denied the Foundation's motions for summary judgment on statute of limitations and laches grounds.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.