Nevada Couple Wins $3.25 Million Judgment
from Fountaine Pajot
March 17 – Oakland
In the February issue of Latitude
38 we reported that Oakland attorney Ted Keech had filed
suit on behalf of Tahoe residents Peter Schlenzka and Julie Langhorne
over defects to the Marquesas 56 catamaran they purchased, and
then later for fraud. It’s a long story, and to get the background
you should read that February Sightings. Keech just sent us a
letter regarding the current status of the case, an abbreviated
version of which we’re printing here.
“The case went to trial on February
7, 2003, in Alameda County Superior Court. Fountaine Pajot, true
to its pre-trial announcement, did not show up. We put on the
evidence, and the court found that the boat had broken loose
in La Rochelle during a storm of hurricane force winds in late
December 1999 and sustained serious structural damage to the
port hull. The evidence showed that after the storm and before
the delivery voyage, Fountaine Pajot hauled the boat, removed
the mast, made repairs below the water line along the entire
length of the port side of the port hull and around the bow,
made repairs above the waterline on the port side of the port
hull, replaced the forward crossbeam, and later restepped the
mast. The mast was restepped just the day before the delivery
voyage started. Even if it was properly tuned then, the new rigging
stretched during the delivery voyage and caused the bottom of
the mast to wear away and crack where it pivoted on the mast
step.
“The court found that the two highest-ranking
people in the company, Jean François Fountaine and Eric
Breneel, had known about the storm, the damage and the repairs,
and yet never told the buyers. This means that while Peter was
repeatedly asking questions and requesting help, Fountaine Pajot’s
top executives were sitting back doing nothing, saying nothing,
even though they knew what was wrong with the boat and knew it
was their responsibility.
“The judge found that Fountaine Pajot
committed perjury in pre-trial discovery. We had repeatedly asked
Fountaine Pajot to describe what had happened to the boat. Breneel
and Fountaine repeatedly answered under oath, falsely contending
that Fountaine Pajot knew nothing about any damage to the boat.
When we confronted Fountaine Pajot with pictures of the storm
damage around La Rochelle and evidence that the boat had been
hauled for repairs between its first launching and the beginning
of the delivery voyage, Fountaine Pajot continued to claim ignorance
of any damage to the boat.
“The judge also found that Fountaine
Pajot’s decision not to attend the trial was an attempt to frustrate
plaintiffs’ right to recover punitive damages. Under California
law, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without showing
evidence of defendant’s net worth. Fountaine Pajot was under
a court order to produce its financial information on January
17, and on January 16 it stopped participating in the case to
avoid providing the information. We were able to get the information
anyway because in France the financial reports of even privately
held companies are public documents, and in fact, we got them
off the Web.
“In summary, the judge ruled that
Fountaine Pajot had defrauded Peter and Julie, endangered them
and their children, lied under oath to try to conceal it, and
pulled out of the lawsuit to try to frustrate their punitive
damage claim. The court’s judgment gave full restitution to plaintiffs
and punished Fountaine Pajot heavily for its misconduct before
and during the litigation. As a result, the judgment was much
larger than any amount that had ever been offered in settlement.”
That judgment was $3.25 million. Keech
said the couple would initially have been happy with about $20,000.
Before anyone rushes to final conclusions,
they need to remember that the above report is the plaintiffs’
attorney’s account of what happened in the case, a case in which
the defendants withdrew from active participation, apparently
to pursue another strategy. Although we have not been able to
get a statement from them at this time, it would not surprise
us if they had a different perspective on everything.
Although the couple were awarded $3.25
million by the California court, it’s going to be interesting
to see if they can ever collect the money – or if they ultimately
get stuck with considerable legal bills and a boat that’s been
sitting on the hard in the hot Florida sun for more than a year.
|