ILNews

Ex-racer loses appeal on Porsche ownership

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its take on an ownership dispute over a classic 1979 Porsche on display at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation's Hall of Fame Museum.

Affirming now-senior U.S. Judge Larry McKinney in Indianapolis, the three-judge Circuit panel rejected the claims by a former racer who claimed that he'd loaned, not donated, the car and that it should be returned to him. The case is Reginald D. Whittington, Jr., v. Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation Inc, No. 08-3352.

Former driver Don Whittington - who comes from a racing family and had raced in five Indianapolis 500s and made many other high-profile races through the 1970s and '80s - sued IMS over the Kremer Racing Porsche 935 K3, which he'd driven to win the 1979 Le Mans 24-hour endurance race in France. Whittington delivered the car to the museum in the 1980s for display, but in 2004 he claimed the car should be returned because it was only on loan. The IMS refused to return the car because it had recorded the transaction as a donation in kind from Whittington and his brother Bill.

He sued for tortious conversion and replevin of the automobile, arguing in part that a conversation with former IMS grounds superintendent Charles Thompson, now deceased, had the authority to make that deal with him on behalf of the foundation. Though the car insurance was paid by the museum, various testimony and documents showed differing accounts about who the actual owner was through the years. Whittington hadn't maintained much contact with the foundation since the late '80s, when he pled guilty to federal money-laundering charges and spent 18 months in prison. At the time, he was connected to a scandal where many drivers financed their racing activities with drug-smuggling proceeds.

In 2008, Judge McKinney held a one-day bench trial and ruled against Whittington. He described the case largely a battle of witnesses who provided conflicting testimony, finding in favor of the IMS because Whittington failed to prove he owned the classic car.

The 7th Circuit agreed, pointing out that Judge McKinney made a salient and proper note of the fact that Whittington's post-transaction behavior was inconsistent with the car being on loan - mainly because he made no effort to communicate with the foundation between the 1980s and the 2004 demand.

The court decided Judge McKinney didn't clearly err in finding that Whittington failed to prove a property right for the vehicle, nor did the judge make a mistake in placing the burden of proof on Whittington as Indiana law requires. The court didn't address the donative intent, because Judge McKinney hadn't made any finding on that point.

"We are handicapped, as is Whittington, by the lack of documentation with respect to the nature of the transaction between him and the Foundation," Circuit Judge Michael Kanne wrote. "As observed by a member of this court at oral argument, the lesson for Whittington should be that an unwritten contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT