Buyers Trapped in Feud with Sunseeker...

Doesn't really matter as there was no deal so no deal broken.

+1

Today, April 30th, is the day a court hearing is scheduled. Was it postponed? That's my bet. If I'm right, who postponed, the court, the plaintiff(s) or the defendant(s)? And why? I hope the Sun Sentinel reporter, Ron Hurtibise, gives us an update.

The hearing was to be held on Zoom so likely took place as Sunseeker had filed 88 pages of documents for it including their entire dealer agreement with Obey which is filed as confidential. The hearing was to dismiss the case against Sunseeker USA Sales Co., Inc. I'm sure it will be a few days before actual results of the hearing are published. I wouldn't expect an update from a reporter any sooner.

Thanks for the update!

---------- anything new ????

Notices of hearings, arguments over interrogatories. Lots of notices and motions last week.

A lot of repeated battle over what information Florida courts can require from Sunseeker. Garmin and Humphree introducted in discussions.

284 page affidavit on June 16.

Sunseeker USA's demand for a jury trial.

Even arguments over counting of interrogatories. 19 questions submitted and 14-19 not answered as it exceeded the allowed number of 30. Argument over whether some questions were 1 question or 8.

This is all a big smoke screen. The buyer is the one harmed here. He gave Obey inc $xxxx and they did not produce as contracted. Return the money and/or the state should have requested proof the buyers funds were on deposit in escrow as required. Any dispute between Sunseeker and Obey should not involve a consumer being damaged.

If the plaintiffs and defendants were poor this would have been settled way back when. In the end the lawyers will make more than all the boats involved are worth. I don't anticipate anything close to a quick resolution. Too much money to be made.

The lawyers always win. In the end we all seem to work for their benefit.

A technicality there. It's my understanding that Obey did not act as a broker but as a new boat dealer. Not subject to the broker laws involving escrow. Now that is a topic of issue in the case.

In addition, Obey didn't own the boat, Sunseeker says never paid them. That being the case, there is no reason for Sunseeker to turn the boat over to the buyer. The buyer's issue is then with Obey.

Not an unusual situation except you have Sunseeker USA and Sunseeker International. So, buyer contracts with Obey. Obey contracts with Sunseeker USA. Sunseeker USA contracts with Sunseeker International.

Sunseeker argues they weren't involved in a contract with the buyer. Obey argues that they'd paid enough for the boat based on applying warranty claims. Sunseeker argues Obey owed more money.

Typical A thinks they're buying from D, but really they're buying from B who is buying from C who is buying from D.

It will take a long time to resolve. You have all the parties involved and all sorts of filings on who is subject to FL courts and who was involved. All of that is before you even get to the actual case. It's crucial for the plaintiff to try to hold Sunseeker International responsible, to say they had a contract with them even though their purchase agreement was with Obey. Their main case is fraud and charging that neither Obey or Sunseeker informed them as to what was going on. Now, let's say for a moment they win against the Obey company. Unless that company can win their case against Sunseeker, they likely have no assets so the judgement is worthless, can't be cured. The plaintiff wins against Sunseeker likely only by a convincing fraud argument or a conspiracy, a RICO act ruling. They can't say they paid Sunseeker as they only paid Obey. Plus before even involving Sunseeker they must convince a court that Sunseeker does business in FL. Sunseeker International argues they don't. Sunseeker USA likely, like Obey's company, has no assets.

It's a very complicated legal case and I feel very bad for the buyer.

A technicality there. It's my understanding that Obey did not act as a broker but as a new boat dealer. Not subject to the broker laws involving escrow. Now that is a topic of issue in the case.

New boat buyers still have a purchase agreement that spells out the money flow and performance by the dealer. Florida is very sensitive to businesses mixing trust money with working regardless of the product. Windows, cars, gutters, boats... follow the money. No boat? Give back the funds. Simple

Yes, but it's not a simple crime like violation of realtors or brokers laws. It's a civil procedure unless fraud can be proven. There's no question Obey should refund the money. However, Obey (the company) isn't capable of refunding all the money and it takes more to make the individual or other companies liable. So, it's going to be a long court battle. If they end up with a jury trial, I wouldn't see that happening in 2020.

Here's the latest on the Turner Case and this is typical of what it going on.

4D20-1217/ORDERED that respondents' appendix to the response is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220(c), which was amended effective October 1, 2017, in that it was not properly indexed and consecutively paginated, beginning with the cover sheet as page 1, was
not paginated so that the page numbers displayed by the PDF reader exactly match the pagination of he index, and contains no bookmarks as required by Rule 9.220(c)(3). An amended appendix in compliance with Rule 9.220(c) shall be filed within two (2) days from the date of this order

On the suit by Marine Consulting (Obey) against Sunseeker, the only activity since August 2019 was a 2/17/20 Notice to Compel as part of discovery which is simply an agreement as to certain information to be provided.

On Velvet Beach's case, the last activity was 6/10/20 and it was a plaintiff motion for extension of time for service of process.

On Marine Consulting against MTU, the last activity was in October, an order extending time.

Then there's the suit by JPC Sea Holdings against Marine Consulting.

And the one by Peters and May and Marine Consulting with Peters and May trying to execute a foreign judgement.

There are currently seven active cases, all filed between 3/10/19 and 3/2/20.

Eventually this will all play out. Two years seems to be the history of cases in which Marine Consulting has been involved. I would hate to be any of the buyers who are plaintiffs. It's a lot of legal fees and time to get a possible judgement which they are unlikely to be able to collect on.

This is all fascinating and depressing. The Obey type of issue drives a person from buying a new boat.
Should a new boat buyer request releases from the manufacturer, transporter (Foreign manufactured boat) and Seller’s bank from the selling dealer. How does one get protected? Should a letter of credit be used to ensure all documents are in hand before funds are released? Thanks for the help on this subject..

Would recommend that your contract include language fully indemnifying you from claims brought by the builder or their suppliers and vendors. Perhaps there is a performance bond available in the market. Good to have legal support guiding you through this contracting phase.

It's difficult to find the answers. Letter of credit is one approach. Insurance of performance is another. I greatly prefer a contract and money exchange with the builder.

Due diligence, not just of the boat but of the broker and builder is very important. It's easy to do simple research like court records and if someone has many lawsuits, that's a pattern to avoid. Some people are much too familiar with the court systems. History repeats itself.

Right now, we're getting a build in Italy. Our contract is with the builder. We have someone there. We have an LC from an Italian Bank, fully supported by a deposit of the purchase price in that bank.

We owned a Sunseeker and likely would have built another in 2022, but this has soured us tremendously. While Obey was the party the buyer dealt with, there's a lot of evidence that Sunseeker was aware of how he was handling things and I do see moral obligations that they didn't fulfill, regardless of legalities. Today, I'm not comfortable with them. We hope to find another boat we like as well as their Manhattan 66.

There are performance bonds available depending on the builder and country but to have gotten one on this build with all the parties it ran through would have been very difficult.

Sunseeker was one of the few Euro builders that the forum collectively spoke positively about. I’m curious what the next option will be. Seems that Princess would be good in Florida with the Viking service but seems a lot of people believe it is a mediocre boat.

Maybe you buy Sunseeker in the UK.