# Sevadjian v. Duntov Motor Company, LLC

> United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · November 28, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10462508

## Case

- **Court:** United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** November 28, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10462508

## Opinion text

CE BANKRO
Ss SERS . ON CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
BY &' = 2d, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
iS Qe
a ay ATT 2) THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON
Sy eS ay a & THE COURT’S DOCKET
WorsTRIC>
The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Signed November 28, 2023 WA / | Wy □
United States Bankruptcy Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
IN RE: §
§
DUNTOV MOTOR COMPANY, LLC, § CASE No. 21-40348-Mxm-11
§
DEBTOR. § CHAPTER 11
§
§
ALAN SEVADJIAN, §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § ADVERSARY No. 21-04030-MxXM
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, = §
§
DEFENDANT. §
§
CONSOLIDATED WITH §
§
FRANCK MR. RADENNE, §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
AND §

JOHN FRANKLIN COOLEY, JR., §
§
INTERVENOR, §
§
V. §
§
DUNTOV MOTOR COMPANY, LLC; §
ALAN SEVADJIAN; AND EDWRD SEVADJIAN, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION
[Relates to ECF No. 10]

The Court conducted a multi-day trial on (i) the Complaint1 filed by Mr. Franck Radenne
(“Mr. Radenne” or “Plaintiff”), (ii) the Intervention2 filed by Mr. John Franklin Cooley, Jr. (“Mr.
Cooley” or “Intervenor”), and (iii) the Counterclaims3 filed by Duntov Motor Company, LLC
(“Duntov”), Mr. Alan Sevadjian (“Alan”), and Mr. Edward Sevadjian (“Edward”) (Duntov, Alan
and Edward, together, the “Defendants”).4
This litigation centers around a project to build a vintage 1968 Corvette race car that would
both (i) qualify for racing in the Federation Internationale de L’Automobile (the “FIA”) European
historic racing circuit, and (ii) be street legal and licensed for driving on public roads throughout
Europe. The disputes in this litigation were many, but principally center around (i) the 1968
Corvette’s Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), (ii) the year the Corvette’s frame—the initial
component used to begin the project—was manufactured by General Motors, and (iii) how long it
took to complete the project to build the vintage 1968 Corvette.

1 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10 (the “Complaint”).
2 Intervenor John Franklin Cooley, Jr.’s First Amended Petition in Intervention, ECF No. 4-45 (the “Intervention”).
3 Defendants’ Third Amended Answer & Counterclaim Against Franck Radenne, ECF No. 4-24 (the
“Counterclaims”).
4 Although the Court would prefer to define all the individuals identified in this Memorandum Opinion by their
given surnames, to avoid confusion, the Court decided to define Alan and Edward by their first names only. The
Court intends no disrespect to any of the parties by using the first names of only Alan and Edward.
The Court reviewed and considered the pleadings and briefings filed in this adversary
proceeding, the testimony of witnesses, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and the arguments of
counsel. This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law,5 as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, made applicable in this adversary
proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1334(b) and 157(a) and the standing order of reference in this district. This adversary proceeding
constitutes core proceedings over which the Court has statutory and constitutional authority to
enter final orders and judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (I), (J), and (O). Even
if this Court would not otherwise have the authority to enter a final judgment, all the parties have
consented to the Court’s issuance of a final judgment in this proceeding.6 Venue is proper pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
II. BACKGROUND FACTS7

A. Mr. Radenne Begins His Pursuit to Acquire a Vintage Corvette for Both (i) Racing in
the FIA European Historic Racing Circuit, and (ii) Driving on Public Roads
Throughout Europe
Plaintiff, Mr. Radenne, is a citizen of France and a vintage racing enthusiast and driver.8
In late 2017,9 Mr. Radenne began his quest to buy a reconstructed and modified vintage Corvette

5 Any findings of fact that should be more appropriately be characterized as a conclusion of law should be regarded
as such, and vice versa.
6 ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 3 (Duntov), ECF No. 9 at 3, ¶ 4 (Mr. Radenne, Alan, and Edward each consented to this Court
entering final orders on the record during the status conference held June 10, 2021 [ECF No. 14]); although Mr.
Cooley failed to file his statement required by Bankruptcy Rule 9027(g)(3), Mr. Cooley’s participation in this
litigation constitutes the necessary consent, as further evidenced by the Joint Pretrial Order [ECF No. 190].
7 Citations to (i) Plaintiff’s Exhibits will be “R-Exhibit Number,” (ii) Intervenor’s Exhibits will be “C-Exhibit
Number,” and (iii) Defendants’ Exhibits will be “D-Exhibit Number” Citations to witnesses’ testimony will be to the
applicable ECF Number, with pinpoint citations to page and line numbers.
8 ECF No. 190 at pg. 5, ¶ 4.A.
9 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 12, lines 22–25; pg. 14, line 1.
that would (i) qualify for racing in the FIA European historic racing circuit and (ii) be street legal
and licensed for driving on public roads throughout Europe.10 Mr. Radenne initially thought he
would like to find a reconstructed and modified vintage 1969 Corvette because he was born in
1969.11 But, Mr. Radenne ultimately decided to purchase a modified vintage 1968 Corvette race
car.

Based on his research, Mr. Radenne determined that his best option was to find a business
located in the United States that could reconstruct and modify a vintage Corvette because “[t]here
were many, many cheap Corvettes, street legal Corvettes, in the U.S.”12 Eventually, Mr. Radenne
discovered Duntov through internet searches.13 He ultimately decided to contact the Defendants
because they “specialized in classic Corvette restoration[,]”14 and they also performed
“modification of Corvettes for racing and they were racing themselves.”15 Additionally, the fact
that Duntov held a GM product license, provided Duntov with “a sign of credibility.”16
B. Background and History of Duntov, Alan, and Edward
Defendant, Mr. Alan Sevadjian, is also a Corvette and racing enthusiast. Alan attended his
first race in 1956, and he acquired his first Corvette in 1963.17 After serving in the United States

Navy, Alan became involved in vintage Corvette racing in 1979, and he has been involved with
building vintage Corvettes and racing ever since.18

10 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 11, lines 5–10.
11 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 11, lines 5–6.
12 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 13, lines 10–11.
13 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 15, lines 1–2.
14 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 15, lines 15–16.
15 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 15, lines 20–21.
16 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 15, lines 23–24.
17 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 93, lines 6–10.
18 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 93, lines 11–14 and pg. 95, lines 1–4.
Alan, along with two investing partners, formed Duntov. Alan was the operations partner,
whereas the two investing partners were not active in the daily operations of Duntov.19 Over time,
the two investing partners’ interest in Duntov “waned,” and at some point, Alan acquired his
partners’ interests, resulting in Alan owning 100% of Duntov.20
Alan named Duntov Motor Company after a Russian engineer named Zora Arkus-Duntov.

General Motors hired Mr. Arkus-Duntov in the mid-1950s, and “he became the Corvette
champion”21 within General Motors. Alan testified that Mr. Arkus-Duntov “[s]aved the brand from
extinction in the mid-50s and is just the most famous guy . . . in that era of Corvettes. He was the
first General Motors Corvette product manager, senior engineer, and he passed away in the early
90s.”22 Alan believed that “it would be really cool if we could associate ourselves with his
name.”23 So, Alan “went to Detroit and asked his . . . widow if we could use his name and we
made a deal that I would contribute to the National Corvette Museum for sales of the cars that we
were building. And she granted us the use of the family name.”24
On or around March 2008, Alan resigned as the managing member of Duntov and

transferred his 100% ownership interest in Duntov—two thirds ownership interest to his son,
Defendant Edward Sevadjian, and one-third ownership interest to Mr. John Farnsworth.25 After
conveying his 100% ownership interest to Edward and Mr. Farnsworth, Alan resigned as a
managing member of Duntov, but he remained with Duntov as a “dad advisor” until Duntov was
sold in 2022.26 At no time, however, did Alan have a written employee agreement with Duntov

19 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 101, line 15 through pg. 102, line 5.
20 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 101, line 19 through pg. 102, line 7.
21 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 98, lines 18–19.
22 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 98, lines 20–24.
23 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 99, lines 1–2.
24 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 99 lines 2–6.
25 D-14; ECF No. 218, pg. 23, lines 2–10.
26 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 60, lines 9–15.
that outlined his duties and responsibilities.27 Further, Alan did not receive a regular salary with
Duntov, nor did Alan and Duntov have a written agreement documenting Alan’s compensation
arrangement with Duntov. Rather, over the years, Duntov periodically paid Alan, as needed, to
enable Alan to pay his living expenses.28 It was not until after Duntov filed its bankruptcy case
that Duntov began paying Alan a regular salary.29

Defendant, Edward Sevadjian, like his father Alan, was also a life-long Corvette and racing
enthusiast. Edward began racing competitively when he was 8 years old in cart racing, and he
eventually obtained several pro racing licenses and began racing Corvettes in 2005. Edward also
has been a race driving instructor.
Edward and Mr. Farnsworth were both managing members of Duntov from March 2008
until Mr. Farnsworth passed away in 2021.30 After Mr. Farnsworth passed, Edward became the
sole managing member of Duntov, and he acquired Mr. Farnsworth’s one-third ownership interest,
resulting in Edward owning 100% of Duntov.31 Beginning March 2008, as the managing member
of Duntov, Edward was responsible for overseeing Duntov’s (i) racing activities, (ii) the car build

and mechanics’ work in the shop, (iii) finances, and (iv) other day-to-day operations and
responsibilities of Duntov.32
In 2009, General Motors conveyed to Duntov a license to build certain “restomod” vintage
Corvettes for General Motors.33 In addition to assembling and building vintage Corvettes, Duntov
also began manufacturing parts for vintage Corvette race cars—including suspension components,
brakes, steering, and all the specialty items that are required to convert an old remade Corvette

27 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 60 at lines 18–23.
28 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 60, line 24 through pg. 61, line 23.
29 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 61, line 24 through pg. 62, line 5.
30 Testimony of Mr. Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 24, lines 1–3.
31 Testimony of Mr. Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 45, lines 15–23.
32 Testimony of Mr. Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 24, lines 4–14.
33 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 96, lines 4–15 and pg. 97, lines 1–9.
into a competitive racing Corvette.34 It was these types of qualities, experience, and services of
which Mr. Radenne sought in a business to build a vintage 1968 Corvette race car.
C. Mr. Radenne Contacts Duntov and They Ultimately Execute a “Bill of Sale”
On April 22, 2018, Mr. Radenne first contacted Duntov by email, stating:
I would be interested to get a rough estimation of the budget necessary for
the transformation of a Corvette C3 in order to participate in FIA historic
racing in Europe.
If I bring to Duntov a 1969 350 convertible, a race engine and I get most of
the parts from you (transmission, clutch, breaks, roll-cage, lights,
suspension, body extension, etc.), what would be approximate labor budget
to prepare the chassis (welding for rigidity + paint), get most of the
components installed (running stage) and get the car painted??35
On May 2, 2018, Alan replied to Mr. Radenne’s April 22 email stating:
In recent years we have built over a dozen cars like the one you have
described. Building a car from scratch typically takes us between 1000 and
1500 hours, depending on the car.
Do you have a car in mind that you would be shipping to us?
We have a 69 Corvette with a title in stock with a Duntov built roll cage
already installed. It was a project we started a few years ago, but the owner
got sick, abandoned the project, and transferred ownership to us rather than
pay his bill. That would be a great place to start – you wouldn’t have to ship
us a car. . . . We had over $25,000 in the project before it was abandoned.
You could start with this car for $10,000. It is on a storage lift now. If you
would like, I will have it moved down so it can be photographed.36
Over the next few weeks, the parties exchanged several emails, including an email dated
May 16, 2018, wherein Alan attached, among others, the following pictures of the Corvette frame,

34 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221, pg. 99, lines 7–14.
35 R-43, pg. 474.
36 R-43, pg. DM000467 (emphasis added).
installed front-end fiberglass, and installed Duntov built roll cage (together, the “Duntov
Frame’’)*’ that he had referenced in his May 2, 2018, email:

k “uy ‘i fj |
oll ‘na
1] i w | a
i fy ry 7 4) = i | i
- 4 J ‘idl eT ie
a
Pe Lng 1 4 □ 7 1
+ plese | | f
i ee
on il | 7 !
Sa 6 ee
\ A lye aT ty ha 3g ! i
" tr : ; i
it =\,
' a a ce
_ F i
□□ al - *

we ent

= 7 □ y~* a = et □□
i] A J _“ = 4 Re, ™ ?
Pn Ny ae
fe J i, mo se, = : ee
□ =: ae = a
= □□□ 4 4
ie : we a has meal
ee ig i . + "i Se
□□ =. ar wee
1 * ef Pe la Po. se
ee a. 1 inte,
. aa 7 . an * as a a = ‘a > a 4
Praag ni, i 1 yd 4 “a i 4 i : □
□□□ a alee i ESR □

37 R-153, pgs. RADENNE 000092-094; see also D-5. The Duntov Frame is the grey frame in each of the pictures.
The white and blue vehicle next to the Duntov Frame is not part of the 1968 Corvette or relevant to this litigation.

i 4 a < ie a A a = ey, ri
eae A) 7 agg FL wei mer ie

at □□ —— a ~~
be | — eA

ar = ar 5
| No make KN
wa.
3 M4 iA ss a
ee a ae

>! ‘968 Pag Cee ope 6 Oe
) ; a er,

The Duntov Frame was the initial component that was ultimately used to build the 1968
Corvette that is the subject of this dispute. In addition to the Duntov Frame, Alan represented to
Mr. Radenne that Duntov also had in its possession a front-end body section that went with the
Duntov Frame, but it was not mounted on the Duntov Frame or included in the above pictures.38
Alan noted further that the 1968 Corvette could be built as either a roadster (convertible) or

coupe.39
During his testimony, Mr. Radenne admitted that he understood that, when building the
type of Corvette race car he was seeking to purchase, the finished Corvette would include many
parts and components from years other than 1968, and that was acceptable to him “[a]s long as
[the parts or components] are approved by the FIA, they are within the bracket and they are the
same specifications. Yes.”40
How Duntov came into possession of the Duntov Frame and the year the Duntov Frame
was originally manufactured by General Motors are significant disputed issues that will be more
fully addressed infra in Sections II.D. and II.F. of this Memorandum Opinion.

On May 30, 2018, Mr. Radenne sent a follow-up email to Alan stating, in part, “I still
haven’t got a chance to talk with my French FIA contact. . . . I (sic) get back to you right after I
have my conversation with FFSA.”41 On June 5, 2018, Mr. Radenne sent a follow-up email to
Alan summarizing several issues and specifications that would be required by the FIA to proceed
with the project. One such requirement was the “[n]eed to make sure that VIN is visible also on

38 R-153, pgs. RADENNE 000084–085.
39 R-153, pg. RADENNE 000085.
40 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 133, lines 2–8.
41 R-77, pg. RADENNE 000123.
the rear side of the chassis.”42 Over the next couple of days, Mr. Radenne exchanged emails and
had a telephone conversation with Alan about the potential project.43
Mr. Radenne decided to proceed with the project to build a vintage 1968 Corvette race car
and to purchase the Duntov Frame for $10,000 as a starting point. Therefore, on June 8, 2018,
Alan sent a proposed Bill of Sale to Mr. Radenne (the “Initial Draft Bill of Sale”).44 The Initial

Draft Bill of Sale incorporated Mr. Radenne’s proposed purchase of the Duntov Frame (for
$10,000) along with a list of initial parts, for an initial down payment of $29,553.92,45 to be paid
up front to begin the project. The Initial Draft Bill of Sale also provided a detailed listing of the
anticipated labor and additional parts and materials that would be necessary to complete the project
to build the vehicle for an additional cost of $74,506.48 to be invoiced as the project progressed.46
Accordingly, the projected purchase price for a completed “68 Corvette, VIN
1946785422741, complete and street legal with state inspection sticker, license plate, role cage,
race prepared in primer” (less paint) was initially expected to total $104,060.40.47 Finally, many
parts listed in the Initial Draft Bill of Sale were non-original and non-1968 Corvette parts. The

overwhelming credible evidence clearly established that the project to custom build the 1968
Corvette race car detailed in the Initial Bill of Sale was intended by Mr. Radenne and the
Defendants to be a “parts car” and not an original restoration.
The Initial Bill of Sale described the vehicle to be built as a “1968 Corvette VIN
19467854222741.”48 When Mr. Radenne received the Initial Draft Bill of Sale, he was concerned
that the VIN referenced in the Initial Draft Bill of Sale was not correct. Each digit of a VIN has a

42 R-77, pg. RADENNE 000121; see also testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 38, lines 9–25.
43 R-77, pg. RADENNE 000118–120.
44 D-6, pgs. 1–3.
45 D-6, pgs. 1–3.
46 D-6, pg. DM000007.
47 D-6, pg. DM000007 (emphasis in original).
48 D-6, pgs. 1–2.
particular purpose, and in this case, the 4th, 6th, and 7th digits of the VIN are particularly relevant
in this dispute. As previously noted, the VIN is a significant disputed issue that will be more fully
addressed throughout this Memorandum Opinion.
Initially, Mr. Radenne observed that the 7th digit of the VIN referenced in the Draft Bill of
Sale was the number “5” as opposed to the letter “S.”49 Mr. Radenne knew that the 7th digit of a

Corvette VIN should have been the letter “S” as opposed to the number “5” because the 7th digit
of a VIN for a General Motors manufactured Corvette is a letter indicating the city where the car
was manufactured. At that time, General Motors manufactured Corvettes only in St. Louis,
Missouri, which is why Mr. Radenne expected the 7th digit of the VIN to be the letter “S” as
opposed to the number “5”.50 Therefore, Mr. Radenne sent a reply email on June 20, 2018, asking
Alan “[a]bout the contract, may I ask you to review the VIN code since it looks strange? . . . I
believe a ‘S’ has been mistaken as a ‘5’”51
Later that day, Alan replied stating “Good eye! That was my fault entirely. You are correct,
the ‘5’ in the middle was supposed to be an ‘S’, and there were was (sic) an extra ‘2’ in the middle
of the sequence #.”52 Alan confirmed further that “[t]he car has to match the title and the bill of

sale for everything to work.”53 Alan also attached a revised Bill of Sale (the “Final Bill of Sale”)
revising the VIN for the Duntov Frame as 194678S422741.54 Later that same day, Mr. Radenne
sent another follow-up email requesting Alan to “confirm the address of your bank . . . [and] . . .

49 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 50, line 7 through pg. 51, line 4.
50 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220, pg. 50, line 7 through pg. 51, line 4; see also testimony of Mr. Mackay,
ECF No. 211, pg. 18, lines 13–15.
51 D-6, pgs. RADENNE 000111–112.
52 D-6, pg. RADENNE 000112.
53 D-6, pg. RADENNE 000112; see also testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 31, lines 1–19.
54 D-6, pgs. RADENNE 000006–008 (page 2 of the Final Bill of Sale, however, did not correct the VIN – D-6, pg.
DM 000007).
[c]an you also confirm the presence of the VIN on the back of the chassis.” To which, Alan
immediately replied “Yes, confirming both.”55
The above email exchanges are a primary focus of Mr. Radenne in this litigation. These
email exchanges, however, should not be analyzed and interpreted in isolation. Rather, they must
be analyzed and considered in context with all the communications that took place between Mr.

Radenne and the Defendants throughout their entire business relationship to arrive at a proper
interpretation and conclusion regarding these specific emails.
On June 21, 2018, Mr. Radenne signed and returned the Final Bill of Sale (see next page)
to Duntov, and the project to build the 1968 Corvette commenced.56

[remainder of page intentionally left blank]

55 D-6, pg. RADENNE 000111; R-77, pg. RADENNE 000111; see also testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No.
221 at pg. 31, lines 1–11.
56 D-6, pgs. RADENNE 000111; RADENNE 000125; and DM000006–008.
7 Duntov Motor Company, LLC oe
ey, ° ” i ae
je ‘
Ncube RFOoLGE
email: alan@duntovmotors.com Phone: (972) 243-3838 FAX: (972) 243-3828 7
Bill of Sale
& June, 2018
Seiler: Buyer:
Duntov Motor Company, LLC Franck Radenne
13906-C Denton Drive France
Farmers Branch, TX 75234 radennef@yahoo.com
_ COO er
Description of Vehicle:
1968 Corvette VIN 1946788422741, in primer as per the attached specifications
Price as specified on the enclosed sheet: $29,553.92
Terms: Payable by bank wire, instructions enclosed
Warranty:
Buyer acknowledges THERE IS NO WARRANTY ON THE VEHICLE, and the SELLER
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
Duntov Motor Company, LLC Franck Radenne .
fo
pt 2 Lo
(Len : bee nlp 7 ei
et
Alan Sevadjian = ae oh
os Ls

RADENNE 000125

68 Corvette, VIN 1946785422741, complete and street legal with state inspection sticker, license plate,
roll cage, race prepared frame, in primer. Added 6/9/18 - Spare set of wheels, No Charge
‘\intouched car as it sits in the Duntov shop 10,000.00
| dear body section and top (roadster with removable top or T-Top coupe) 2,200.00
Hoad, inner fenders, and door handless 1,440.00
Total for the car with Complete Body 13,640.00
Duntov Catalog Parts:
RSO22: Rear Set Single Adjustable Duntov Racing Shocks (priced as car set for discount) 409.00
R020: Duntov F41 7-Leaf Steel Spring - Substitute racing spring at no addittanal charge 229.00
| RO54 Long Bolt Spring Bolt Kit 68.00
| NPN: Balanced driveshaft 450.00
| NPN: Stock Aluminum Bellhousing 150.00
NPN: Zbar, rods, clutch fork and throw out bearing 300.00
RS444: Duntov Racing Trailing Arm Assembly with Parking Brake 2,466.00
RS460: Duntov Racing Strut Rod Set 649.00
RS540: Car Set of Bump Steer Black Assemblies 243.00
RE200; Substitute for Tilton Clutch Assembly (for FIA) 760.00
NPN: New Duntov M22 Racing Transmission 2,850.00
RD9S50; Aluminum Front Diff Mount 54.00
RF300: Axle Set of Stock L88 Flares 550.00
RF60O: L88 Headlight Kit 990.00
RD130 Racing Diff 2,785.00
F010 Front End Assy 2,070.00
Add for Substitute Spherical Bearing Upper A-Arms 551.00
Add for Substitute Spherical Bearing Lower A-Arms 383.00
Add for Substitute Racing Front Hubs 90.00
Add for Substitute single adjustable front shocks 316.00
DO8S 3" Half Shaft Assemblies (x2) 438.00
$020 69-82 Steering Gear Box 249,00
RS520 Duntov Racing Big Block Drag Link 452.00
$100 63-82 Manual Steering Pitman Arm 99,00
RO40 63-77 2.25" rear Spring Mount Plate Kit 64.00
D105 63-77 Loaded Xmbr 419.00
Total 18,084.00
Less 12% (2,170.08)
NET Initial List of Duntov Parts 15,913.92
Total for the car and Original List of Parts 29,553.92
Labor & Materials to Complete the Car (less paint) (Amaunt Paid)
Labor to remove forward section of roll cage, remount internal front crash bar, repair firewall 1,200.00
Stock type pedal assembly 500.00
FIA approved fuel cell and electric fuel pump 2,000.00
Radiator and radiator core support & mounting brackets 1,200.00
FIA spec legal FIA 427 iron block dry sump engine with orig Chev iron block, New Chevrolet alum heads 20,000.00
Dry sump system - tank, pump, filters, lines, etc. 5,000.00
Mounted ceramic coated off the shelf headers and side pipes 1,700.00
Labor and Materials to paint frame firewall, etc 2,000.00
Labor to mount the body, mount the doors 7,000.00
Labor and materials to mount the flares, headlights, prepare the body and paint in primer 8,000.00
Unrestored frant and rear bumpers , fabricated bumper mounting brackets 1,450.00
Mounted front grills and grill molding (15 pieces) 1,725.00
Labor to install the parts, wire the car, install fuel, oil and brake lines, fab bumper brackets 7,425.00
The other axle set of L88 Flares (we only spec'd out one set originally) 550.00
(1) axle set Delco J-56 brakes (less 12%), Duntov Part # RB117 1,315.60
(1) axle set Delco single pin brakes (less 12%), Duntov Part # 8033 298.32
(1) axle set single pin racing brake pads (to match front), Duntoy Part # RB164 177.76
Car set vented rotors (less 12%) RB152 294,80
Windshield, windshield wipers, steering column w/ turn indicators, horn, steering wheel 2,275.00
Engine Oil cooler 360.00
Electric fan (for the street), radiator expansion tank, hoses, belts 420.00
Used street car seats for export, with new 1968 style seat belts 900.00
Interior aluminum work, back deck, dash + Corvette dash pad and console 3,340.00
Gauges, tail lights, rain light, battery, cables, switches, MSD, coil, alternator, etc. 3,515.00
Fuel and hydraulic lines, master cylinder, hydraulic fluid, bleed the brakes 1,060.00
Used American Racing wheels and 4-cycle old Hoosier Racing Tires 800.00
Sub Total for Labor & Materials to Complete the Cor {less paint) 74,506.48
Total Labor, Originally Quoted and Additional Materials 74,506.48
Total for the Street Legal Race-ready 68 Corvette, with Texas State Inspection Sticker 104,060.40
$74,506.48 balance to be paid as progress payments, anticipated to be at least $10,000 per month until completion.
DM000007

15

oy Terms and Conditions:
1 The detailed quotation for the car is enclosed. The total price for the car and originally specified parts
is $29,553.92 which is due and payable upon acceptance of this proposal. A Bill of Sale is included
for the car, and upon payment you will be the legal owner of the car and associated parts. This Bill of
Sale should work for shipping purposes.
2 The balance of the parts and labor for the Project comes to $74,506.48, to be invoiced as the project
progresses. We will make every effort to complete the car and have it registered and race ready for
the event at Circuit of the Americas, November 1-4, 2018. If the car is completed in time, Duntov will
crew the car for you at this event and you will only be responsible for the entry fee (about $1,200) and
consumables - tires, brake pads, race gas, ect. We will make sure you will have a license as long as you
have a completed approved physical.
3 There are about four and a half months between now and the race at Circuit of the Americas. We will not
rush the car to make that race, but the offer is there if it is completed in time. This offer is transferable
to whatever race is next on the Duntov racing calendar after the car is completed.
4 Duntov will invoice you monthly with pictures of the progress as the car is being completed. Work will
begin immediately, and you will get your first pictures within a week.
5 Wiring Instructions for initial payment:
Account:
Duntov Motor Company, LLC
13906-C Denton Drive
Farmers Branch, TX 75234
United States Federal EIN # 51-0554721
Wells Fargo Bank, Dallas Texas
Bank Wire Number: 121000248
Account Number: 94 733 98 072
Routing Number: 111900659
Swift Code: WFBIUS6S
Amount: $29,533.92 U. S.

DM000008

: . . : : os □□ 29 □
The above Final Bill of Sale included a section titled “Terms and Conditions” which
: . 6
provided, in part, that the Defendants would “make every effort to complete the car and have it
: : : :
registered and race ready for the event at Circuit of the Americas, November 1-3, 2018.7 But, as
: : : : : “14° :
Alan noted in his first communication with Mr. Radenne that “building a car from scratch typically

57
D-6, pg. 3.

takes us between 1000 and 1500 hours,”58 the November 1-3, 2018 timeline appeared unrealistic.
Ultimately, Duntov did not complete building the 1968 Corvette until around January 9, 2020.59
Between April 22, 2018 (when Mr. Radenne first contacted the Defendants) and June 21,
2018 (when Mr. Radenne signed the Final Bill of Sale), Mr. Radenne did not inquire about or
request from the Defendants a detailed history of the Duntov Frame or its VIN. Nor did any of the

Defendants provide Mr. Radenne with any such detail or information. Mr. Radenne contends, in
part, that the Defendants intentionally withheld the detailed history of the Duntov Frame and its
VIN from Mr. Radenne to fraudulently induce him to sign the Final Bill of Sale, purchase the
Duntov Frame, and begin the project to build the 1968 Corvette.60 Based on the credible evidence
in the record detailed in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court disagrees.
D. The History of the Duntov Frame and VIN Prior to the Defendants Acquiring the
Frame
To fully understand and properly analyze the disputes between each of the parties, it is
necessary to understand the history of the Duntov Frame and its VIN prior to the Defendants
acquiring the Duntov Frame in 2015. The credible evidence suggests that the Defendants did not
know much of the detailed history of the Hanna Frame (defined below) and its VIN when they
acquired it in 2015. Rather, they researched and learned the history of the Hanna Frame and its
VIN on or around mid-February 2019.61
1. In 2007 Mr. Hanna acquired the Hanna Frame and filed suit in Brown County,
Texas in 2012 to obtain a VIN and Certificate of Title for the Hanna Frame
The Defendants acquired the Duntov Frame in 2015 from Mr. Omer Hanna (“Mr. Hanna”).
On or about May 15, 2007, Mr. Hanna acquired a “1968 Corvette Convertible Body” (the “Hanna

58 R-43, pg. DM000467.
59 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 173, line 23 through pg. 174, line 1; testimony of Mr.
Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 188, lines 6–9.
60 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 63, lines 21–23.
61 D-27, pg. DM000061; testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 39, line 23 through pg. 174, line 1.
Frame”) from Mr. Marlin R. Scott (“Mr. Scott”) for $1,500.62 The uncontroverted evidence
suggests that Mr. Hanna either never had or had lost his title to the Hanna Frame.63 Therefore, on
May 21, 2012, Mr. Hanna filed a Plaintiff’s Original Petition in the County Court of Brown
County, Texas, (the “Brown County Court” and the “Brown County VIN Litigation”) “requesting
the Court order the [Texas Department of Motor Vehicles] to issue a Vehicle Identification Number

(VIN) and Certificate of Title to [Mr. Hanna] on a vehicle 1968 Corvette VIN # 1946785422741.”64
The uncontroverted evidence further suggests that the procedure to obtain a new court
ordered VIN and Certificate of Title in Texas requires, in part, that an anti-theft officer of the local
police department examine the vehicle to confirm the VIN and to verify that the vehicle was not
stolen.65 Apparently, when the Texas State Trooper inspected the Hanna Frame he mistakenly
recorded the 7th digit on the VIN of the Hanna Frame as a “5” as opposed to an “S,”66 which was
then used by Mr. Hanna when he filed his Brown County VIN Litigation.67
On June 5, 2012, the presiding Judge in the Brown County VIN Litigation issued an Order
providing, in part:

[T]he Court having heard the testimony and evidence and argument of the
Plaintiff, is of the opinion that title to the 1968 Corvette, VIN#
1946785422741, is vested in Omar J. Hanna.
It is the further finding of the Court that the motor vehicle in question was
originally manufactured by Chevrolet as a competitive race car, and that the
only VIN assigned to the motor vehicle was for the vehicle frame, and not
for ancillary parts or the engine.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
title to the 1968 Corvette, VIN# 1946785422741, is truly and properly

62 R-44, pg. DM000590 and D-2, pg. DM000590.
63 R-23, pg. DM000077.
64 R-44, pg. DM000581 (emphasis added) and D-2, pg. DM000581 (emphasis added).
65 D-27, pg. DM000061; R-23, pg. DM000077.
66 R-44, pg. DM000075.
67 R-23, pg. DM000077.
vested in the Plaintiff, Omar J. Hanna, and the Court directs The Texas
Department of Transportation to issue a title to said vehicle.68
On June 20, 2012, the presiding Judge in the Brown County VIN Litigation issued an
Amended Order.69 The Amended Order changed the VIN # in the original Order to replace the
number “5” in the 7th digit of the VIN to the letter “S.” Additionally, the Amended Order provided
further, in part:
[T]he Court having heard the testimony and evidence and argument of the
Plaintiff, is of the opinion that:
Title to the 1968 Corvette, including the vehicle frame with the VIN#
194678S422741, is vested in Omar J. Hanna.
The vehicle identification number has been removed from the body of the
1968 Chevrolet Corvette (the vehicle that is the subject of this Order);
Good cause exists to assign the VIN# 194678S422741 (of the 1968
Chevrolet Corvette frame) to the 1968 Chevrolet Corvette.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
The title to the 1968 Chevrolet Corvette including the 1968 Chevrolet
Corvette frame, VIN# 194678S422741, is truly and properly vested in the
Plaintiff, Omar J. Hanna;
And the Court directs The Texas Department of Transportation to issue a
title to said 1968 Chevrolet Corvette to Omar J. Hanna, and to reassign as
the VIN for said vehicle the existing VIN 194678S422741 (currently on the
frame of said vehicle).70
Finally, on June 29, 2012, the presiding Judge in the Brown County VIN Litigation issued
a third order—the Corrected Order71 (which, as detailed later in this Memorandum Opinion, was
the order Edward sent to Mr. Radenne on October 31, 2019). The Corrected Order was identical
to the Amended Order except (i) it changed the VIN # back to “1946785422741”—changing the

68 R-44, pg. DM000589 (emphasis added) and D-2, pg. DM000589 (emphasis added).
69 R-44, pg. DM000592 (emphasis added) and D-2, pg. DM000592 (emphasis added).
70 R-44, pgs. DM000592–593 and D-2, pgs. DM000592–593.
71 R-44, pgs. DM000595–596 and D-2, pgs. DM000595–596.
7th digit from the letter “S” back to the number “5,” and (ii) corrected the spelling of Mr. Hanna’s
first name. There is no evidence in the record to explain why the Brown County Court flip-flopped
the 7th digit in the VIN # from the number “5” to the letter “S” and then back to the number “5.”
But the orders by the Brown County Court support the logical inference that there was substantial
confusion about the Duntov Frame’s VIN long before Mr. Radenne approached Duntov to build

the 1968 Corvette. And, as previously noted, the credible evidence further suggests that neither
Alan nor Edward knew or had reason to know this history concerning the Hanna Frame until
months after Duntov and Mr. Radenne signed the Final Bill of Sale.
2. Mr. Hanna works on the Hanna Frame which is then modified and conveyed to
Duntov, and is ultimately sold to Mr. Radenne
At or about the time Mr. Hanna acquired the Hanna Frame in 2007, he began working as
an employee for Duntov.72 Mr. Hanna brought the Hanna Frame to the Duntov’s facilities so he
could work on it during his spare time.73 While working for Duntov, Mr. Hanna installed a Duntov
built roll cage onto the Hanna Frame—which is the “Duntov built roll cage” that is included in the
definition of the Duntov Frame as defined supra in Section II.C. of this Memorandum Opinion.74
In 2015, Duntov agreed to purchase the Duntov Frame (and other items not relevant to this
litigation) from Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Hanna conveyed his title to the Duntov Frame to Alan.75 The
Duntov frame was then stored in the Duntov facility, where it stayed until it was sold to Mr.
Radenne in 2018.76

72 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 21, line 24 through pg. 24, line 20; pg. 86, line 20 through
pg. 88, line 6; pg. 104, line 24 through pg. 107, line 18; pg. 109, lines 3–21.
73 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 21, line 24 through pg. 24, line 20.
74 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 21, line 24 through pg. 24, line 20.
75 D-23.
76 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 88, lines 2–6.
Although Mr. Hanna signed the Texas Certificate of Title77 conveying legal title of the
Duntov Frame to Alan, both Alan and Edward testified credibly that Duntov paid for the Duntov
Frame, and it was always their understanding and intent that Duntov was the beneficial owner of
the Duntov Frame.78 The Court found the testimony of Alan and Edward was credible concerning
the legal versus equitable ownership of the Duntov Frame and the ability of Duntov to convey title

of the Duntov Frame to Mr. Radenne.
E. The Project to Build the 1968 Corvette Encounters Delays
Mr. Radenne and the Defendants were hoping for a smooth and enjoyable ride transforming
the Duntov Frame into a vintage 1968 Corvette that Mr. Radenne could (i) race in FIA racing
circuit events and (ii) drive legally on public roads throughout Europe. Unfortunately, over the
ensuing months, the project encountered many extended delays—some of which were caused by
the Defendants, while others were caused by Mr. Radenne.79 As the project encountered extended
delays, the relationship between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants soured and eventually veered
offtrack into litigation.
1. The initial months of the project were a relatively smooth ride
From June 2018 through November 2018, Mr. Radenne and the Defendants maintained

good communication and the project “was progressing quite well.”80 Mr. Radenne testified that in
November 2018, however, he “started to have less and less feedback from Alan.”81 Therefore,

77 D-23.
78 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 21, lines 17–18; see also testimony of Mr. Edward
Sevadjian at ECF No. 218, pg. 38, line 22 through pg. 39, line 24; pg. 85, line 20 through pg. 86, line 3.
79 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 129, line 1 through pg. 134, line 16 (describing several
modifications to the vintage 1968 Corvette being built were requested by Mr. Radenne during the process); see also
pg. 161, lines 2–15. See also testimony of Mr. Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 93, line 18 through pg. 94, line
12; pg. 159, lines 16–22. One such change required by Mr. Radenne was that the Duntov built roll cage had to be
replaced with a new roll cage to comply with FIA requirements. See Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No.
221 at pg. 129, lines 1–22; pg. 133, lines 1–9.
80 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, line 16.
81 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, lines 16–19.
around that time, Mr. Radenne decided to travel to the United States to inspect the car and see the
progress made on the project.82
2. Mr. Radenne travels to the United States in February 2019 to view the progress in
building the 1968 Corvette
Mr. Radenne traveled to the United States and met with Alan and Edward at Duntov’s shop
on February 8, 2019. Alan did not stay long as he was feeling ill,83 but Edward spent several hours
with Mr. Radenne that day. Mr. Radenne testified that, when he arrived at the Duntov shop, “I was
expecting to see the car almost complete or even to test drive the car, but – but, no, the car was
still in little – in pieces. They had the transmission on the floor. . . . I mean there was nothing built
in the car at the time. . . . The car was still kind of empty shell.”84 Mr. Radenne testified further
that he “spend a bit of time around the car . . . trying to find actually the VIN numbers. I didn’t

see any. And then I spent a bit of time with Edward Sevadjian and we reviewed some details about
the completion of the car.”85
Mr. Radenne testified further that he asked Edward about the VIN. Edward told Mr.
Radenne that he had just received a new VIN plate to reflect the “S” in the 7th digit in the VIN, but
that he still needed to fix the discrepancy between (i) the Certificate of Title (reflecting a “5” in
the 7th digit), (ii) the Final Bill of Sale (reflecting a “S” in the 7th digit), and (iii) the new VIN plate
(reflecting a “S” in the 7th digit).86 Mr. Radenne testified that this conversation with Edward was
the first time the he was told there was a discrepancy between the Certificate of Title, the Final
Bill of Sale, and VIN.87 But Mr. Radenne admitted that when he and Edward were talking about

82 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, line 23 through pg. 75, line 3.
83 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 132, lines 9–17.
84 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 76, lines 10–18.
85 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 76, line 25 through pg. 77, line 6.
86 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 78, lines 3–9.
87 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 77, line 22 through pg. 78, line 9.
the discrepancy, “I don’t think we spoke much about that, just that there was a discrepancy and he
didn’t make a big deal of that. So I didn’t.”88
3. Mr. Radenne returns to France, makes an additional progress payment, makes
further inquiries about the VIN, and inquires about the time-period to finish the
project
On February 12, 2019, after Mr. Radenne returned to France, Alan sent Mr. Radenne an
email attaching an Original Invoice in the amount of $10,000 representing Progress Billing #5 in
the project.89 Mr. Radenne paid the $10,000 for Progress Billing #5 on February 19, 2019.90
On February 14, 2019, Mr. Radenne sent Alan a couple of emails. The first email
expressed, in part, Mr. Radenne’s disappointment in “the stage of construction of the car[,]” and
he also stated “[a]s I explained to Edward, I will need to get the car in not too long. Taking into
account the time necessary for shipment, receiving, preparation for inspection, submission, and
most certainly the necessary adjustment. I have still a chance to race one by the end of the
season.”91 This email was the first time Mr. Radenne raised a concern about the time-period within
which the Defendants would need to complete the project.
Mr. Radenne then sent a second email to Alan on February 14, 2019, asking:

By the way, it seems that there is a discrepancy between the chassis number
and the number reported on the documents: A “S” (for St Louis) has been
misreported as a “5” on the ownership documents What can be done here?
I cannot imagine that we change the chassis number since the code (and the
S) has a specific meaning and will be used by both the FIA and the french
(sic) administration for the road registration. Can we get the paperwork
amended?92
On February 15, 2019, Alan sent the following response to Mr. Radenne:

88 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 78, lines 15–19.
89 D-8, pg. DM000001; see also D-9, pg. DM000082.
90 R-21, DM000061; see also testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 107, lines 1–3.
91 D-9, pg. DM000081 (emphasis added).
92 R-23, pg. DM000077–078.
You mentioned this anomaly when you first got a copy of the title. 7 have
since found the story behind '5' vs. S' as follows:?
The car lacked a GM VIN number because the windshield frame to which
it was attached had been removed in preparation for racing. The owner at
the time had lost the title, and the procedure to acquire a new title involved
having a State Trooper examine the vehicle, get the serial number off of the
frame and create a new VIN plate with that number and affix it to the car.
Since there was no windshield post, it was affixed to the hinge pillar, drivers
side (see below).
ay. ei rs □
(aa Tih Tee — Pie,
= f “ ’ a 7 | □ a “oe
Ps a a a ae, □
a a Atlee
— Boal oe Pe. *
At :
—
□ ee a : =
ee ry

Oe ‘ ta
i J il
Bee oan.
Fi ' a)
i ,
a Lael FF SSS
The factory VIN number is stamped on top of the frame rail on the driver's
side in the middle of the door opening. The officer made an error and an S'
was recorded as a'5'. I did a search of the VIN number with a 5 and also
with an S, and there is no issue with the title either way. I have had a new
proper GM VIN number made that shows the S' instead of the 'S’.

3 R-23, pg. DM000077 (emphasis added).
24

=
ed eee a ———e =
Tao) ea
ot ao) a ee
Pieeeeae
IU Ncpactr

If you like, I will make the appropriate inquiries to establish the procedure
of issuing a new title with the proper VIN number. The State has the records
of the issuance of the incorrect VIN in its records.”4
On February 19, 2019, Mr. Radenne sent a follow-up email with the subject line “VIN
number” to Alan and Edward:
I would like to clarify this issue of VIN number.
As far as I know, the VIN number is printed in the window frame and the
back of the chassis.
Referring to your emails of June 20" last year, the VIN should be present
on the back of the chassis.
We also discussed back then about the number of the windshield frame. On
the first pictures you provided me of the car, the frame was cut above the
position of the VIN number (copied). And as far as I remember, that’s
something you confirmed when I mentioned it was important to have this
number.
When I came to visit you, I think I was actually able to see a number on the
frame, which has been painted over now.
You also made clear about the fact that the car, the bills of sale and the title
(to my name) should have the same VIN Number.
So, I don’t quite understand your statement that “The car lacked a GM VIN
number because the windshield frame to which it was attached had been
removed in preparation for racing.”
Since this is important matter to prove the age of the car (and therefore the
racing category) as well as to get it road registered in France, may I ask you
please to check this part and to send me pictures of the chassis & frame
numbers? If the frame number is missing, I believe the chassis number is
good enough.»
°4 R-23, pg. DM000077-078.
T)-27, pg. DM000065 (emphasis added); R-21, DM000069 (emphasis added); see also testimony of Mr. Radenne,
ECF No. 220 at pg. 78, line 17 through pg. 79, line 1.
25

Later that day, Alan sent the following reply email to Mr. Radenne:
When the previous owner bought the car, it had no windshield post at all,
and therefore no traditional VIN plate. The complete removal of the
windshield posts was the style for many roadsters run back in the day. The
previous owner installed the stubby windshield posts when he planned on
running the car as a roadster. When we got the car it had the stubby
windshield posts, absent the traditional VIN number plate.

I spent the morning researching the title issue. I drove over to the regional
headquarters of the Texas Department of Public Safety and talked face to
face with a key person. She was able to call up the VIN number (with the
5) to see that what I told here was true. She told me that in order to change
it to an S would require three things: A copy of the court order that
authorized the State to issue a title with the VIN number with the 5, an
inspection of the car by an Anti Theft Officer of our local police department
that will generate a ‘68-A’ inspection report, and then I would need to take
the 68-A and the original court order to the Dallas County courthouse to get
a new court order that directs the State to issue a new title with the S.

I came back to the office and called the Brown County Clerk who was able
to put her hand on the document I requested. She directed me to send her
$6 to get a Certified Copy. I have sent my letter request along with my
money order for $6. When I receive the document, I will call for the
inspection and then petition the Dallas County Court to issue the appropriate
instruction. All of this should be done in the next few weeks, given the usual
pace of government workers.96

The next day, February 20, 2019, Mr. Radenne sent the following reply email to Alan:
Thank you very much for the time consuming work. I hope you understand
that this is important. Please, don’t forget to send me a picture of the VIN
chassis number at your earliest convenience.

. . .

PS: Invoice #5 have been paid yesterday. It should be on your bank account
soon.97

Although Mr. Radenne testified that neither Alan nor Edward sent him a picture of the VIN
chassis number as requested in his February 20, 2019 email, Mr. Radenne sent Alan and Edward

96 R-21, DM000061.
97 R-21, DM000061.
an email a month later, on March 21, 2019, stating, “I assume that all the points are now clarified
and that the correction of the VIN number is moving forward.”98 In that same email, Mr.
Radenne noted that he had just learned that the 1968 Corvette “needs to look like one of the cars
that participated to (sic) FIA races in 1973. It must have the same body components . . . don’t ask
me why.” But that the “good news” was that he had “identified a 1968 L88 corvette that raced

until 1973” and “[t]his is one of the few coupes to have raced, and the only difference I see with
the car you are building is the mirror used.”99 Mr. Radenne’s testimony at trial that he was not
interested in purchasing a “parts car”100 is not credible and contrary to the many communications,
including this email, between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants.
4. Mr. Radenne insists on a final deadline for the defendants to complete the project
Between March 2019 through August 2019, the record suggests that little progress was
made on the project. Because of the lack of meaningful progress, Mr. Radenne sent the following
email to Edward on August 21, 2019, insisting on a deadline to finish the project:
Hi Edward,
Sorry to insist, but I need to share with you my deadlines.
Where I live, there is usually heavy snow from end of December to end of
April; period during which it will be impossible for me to bring back my
car. This means that the car needs to leave your shop, either before end of
October or after end of February (it needs 2 months for shipment).

You can understand why I would like to get that project finalized as soon as
possible; especially since it has been initiated a bit more that 1 year ago.101

This email was the first time Mr. Radenne insisted on establishing a firm deadline for the
Defendants to complete building the vintage 1968 Corvette.102

98 R-16, DM000050 (emphasis added).
99 R-16, DM000050 (emphasis added).
100 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 152, lines 15–22.
101 D-27, DM000035; see also testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 141, line 22 through pg. 142, line 8.
102 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 165, lines 16–24.
Becoming more frustrated with the Duntov’s lack of progress, Mr. Radenne sent Edward
an email on October 15, 2019, stating, in part:
Please can you confirm approx number of days spent on the car since
March??
Also, VERY, VERY important: I still have no proof that this car is the one
I purchased (chassis number corresponding to the Bill of Sale). I am
insisting to get a copy of the corrected paperwork no later than end of
this week, 18 October 2019.103
I know that this project is not a priority for Duntov . . . [i]f you cannot make
that make that finalize this project within these timelines (which is already
about 10 months late vs. the original plan), I will give up this project and
request my investment back.104
There is no evidence in the record that the Defendants responded to Mr. Radenne’s demand
for the court order addressing the VIN issue by October 18, 2021. On October 21, 2019, Mr.
Radenne emailed both Alan and Edward summarizing the timeline of the events of the previous
16 months and demanding a refund by October 31, 2019.105
On October 21, 2019, Edward sent an email response to Mr. Radenne stating:
Making progress here. The wiring harness is built and being installed.
Gauges will be installed this week. I checked with Alan on the
documentation. He secured a court order106 to get the title fixed, awaiting
inspection. When we are don’t (sic) working on it, we will get the inspection
and the judge will issue the new title. I have yet to get the hours together on
the car but I think we will have it ready to ship in 6 weeks or less.107
October 27, 2019, Mr. Radenne sent Edward another follow-up email stating, in part:
While I am surprised with your unusual responsiveness to my last email and
apparent sudden ‘progress’ on this project, . . . [m]y trust in your ability to

103 R-9, DM000034 (emphasis in original).
104 D-27, DM000034 (emphasis added).
105 R-3, pgs. DM000019–020.
106 This statement was false. But, based on the entire record, the Court finds and concludes that Edward was
confusing the Corrected Order issued in 2012 by the County Court of Brown County with the updated order that
Duntov would need to obtain after the 1968 Corvette was complete (in order for the VIN to match on the 1968
Corvette the Certificate of Title and the Final Bill of Sale). To be clear, although this statement was false, the Court
finds and concludes that Edward did not intend for this statement to be a fraudulent or materially misleading
statement to Mr. Radenne.
107 D-27, DM000028 (emphasis added); R-78, RADENNE 000131 (emphasis added).
deliver what I purchased and what was promised by our company has
eroded due to your inability to provide a weekly update as promised by Alan
and yourself, along with pictures and lack of communication/response to
my ongoing and increasing concerns, etc.108

Mr. Radenne also requested Edward to provide (i) weekly updates (with pictures as proof),
and (ii) proof of the court order curing the discrepancy between the Final Bill of Sale, the Title,
and the VIN by October 31, 2019.109 Mr. Radenne then sent a follow-up email on October 31,
2019, stating “I am expecting the proof of court order for today.”110
On October 31, 2019, Edward sent an email to Mr. Radenne stating “I have attached the
court order. Next is the inspection.”111 But the court order Edward attached to the email was the
Corrected Order112 issued in 2012 by the County Court of Brown County, Texas—not an updated
court order assigning a new VIN for the 1968 Corvette and curing the discrepancy between the
vehicle, the Final Bill of Sale, and the Certificate of Title. The credible evidence established that
Duntov would not have been able to obtain the new court order until after the 1968 Corvette was
complete and running—which had not yet occurred. Ultimately, the Defendants never did get the
1968 Corvette inspected or obtain a court order assigning a new VIN to the 1968 Corvette and
curing the discrepancy relating to the Final Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title.
Even though Edward stated in his October 21, 2019, email that “I think we will have it
ready to ship in 6 weeks or less”113—which would have been by December 2, 2019, there is no
evidence in the record of any communications between the parties until December 26, 2019. On
December 26, 2019, Edward sent an email to Mr. Radenne stating, “I texted you pictures of the

108 R-78, RADENNE 000130.
109 R-3, DM000018; D-27, pg. DM000018.
110 R-3, DM000016; D-27, pg. DM000016.
111 R-78, RADENNE 000127.
112 R-78, RADENNE 000135–136.
113 D-27, DM000028 (emphasis added); R-78, RADENNE 000131 (emphasis added).
final dash installation. I know you had said that weather was a consideration for shipping this car.
Can I please get an update on that? We still have the windows to fabricate but other that (sic) we
are really close.”114 There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Mr. Radenne responded to
Edward’s December 26, 2019, email.
5. Mr. Radenne retains counsel and sends a demand letter to the Defendants

Mr. Radenne retained counsel, and on December 31, 2019, Mr. Radenne’s counsel sent a
demand letter to the Defendants. The demand letter required, in part, (i) “specific performance
and delivery to Mr. Radenne of the Corvette (legally bearing the VIN identified in the Bill of Sale
on both its body and chassis—and affixed by the manufacturer not a third party) ‘complete and
street legal with a state inspection sticker, license plate, roll cage, race prepared chassis, in primer,
with a spare set of wheels’” and (ii) that the Defendants “provide on or before January 17, 2020,
copies of the formal, fully executed title to the Corvette and the appropriately and legally issued
registration certificate for the Corvette, both in Mr. Radenne’s name, along with a copy of the
shipping manifest indicating the documents have been examined and approved for export with
delivery to Mr. Radenne in France.”115

The uncontroverted evidence suggested that Duntov completed the 1968 Corvette on or
around January 9, 2020.116
Following receipt of Mr. Radenne’s demand letter, the Defendants retained counsel who
then, on January 17, 2020, sent a reply letter to counsel for Mr. Radenne.117 The Defendants’ reply

114 D-27, DM000016; R-3, DM000016.
115 D-12.
116 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian, ECF No. 221 at pg. 173, line 23 through pg. 174, line 1; testimony of Mr.
Edward Sevadjian, ECF No. 218, pg. 188, lines 6–18.
117 D-20.
stated that they intended to file an action within a week “to remedy the incorrect assignment” of
the VIN.
6. The litigation begins
On January 23, 2020, Alan filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
(the “TDMV”) in the 14th Judicial District Court of Texas (the “TDMV State Court Lawsuit”) to

begin the process to obtain the court order to remedy the discrepancy between the Final Bill of
Sale, Certificate of Title, and the VIN.118
On January 29, 2020, Mr. Radenne filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in the 162nd
Judicial District Court of Texas (the “Radenne State Court Lawsuit”)119 asserting several causes
of action against the Defendants. The Defendants responded asserting several affirmative defenses
and counterclaims against Mr. Radenne.
On March 26, 2020, Mr. Cooley intervened in the TDMV State Court Lawsuit asserting
that he was the owner of the 1968 Corvette.120 Each of the Defendants answered Mr. Cooley’s
intervention and asserted several affirmative defenses.121 In addition, Alan filed a counterclaim
against Mr. Cooley.122

On April 20, 2020, the State Court in the TDMV State Court Lawsuit entered an Order
Granting Motion to Transfer and Consolidate123 consolidating the Radenne State Court Lawsuit
into the TDMV State Court Lawsuit (together, the “Consolidated State Court Lawsuit”).

118 ECF No. 4-2.
119 See ECF No. 4-10, pg. 2, ¶ 3. Note that at this date, while the 1968 Corvette had been completed, the other
requirements had not been fulfilled. Namely, the requirement pursuant to the Demand Letter that the Defendants
“provide on or before January 17, 2020, copies of the formal, fully executed title to the Corvette and the
appropriately and legally issued registration certificate for the Corvette, both in Mr. Radenne’s name, along with a
copy of the shipping manifest indicating the documents have been examined and approved for export with deliver
(sic) to Mr. Radenne in France.”
120 ECF No. 4-8.
121 ECF No. 195.
122 ECF No. 4-18.
123 ECF No. 4-15.
On February 20, 2021, Duntov filed its Voluntary Petition124 commencing the above-
referenced Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case.
On May 17, 2021, Duntov filed its Notice of Removal125 removing the Consolidated State
Court Lawsuit to this Court initiating the above-referenced Adversary Proceeding.
On October 20, 2022, Alan and the TDMV filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant

Texas Department of Motor Vehicles dismissing Defendant TDMV from the litigation.126
On January 17, 2023, the Court entered the Joint Pretrial Order,127 which superseded the
parties’ live pleadings previously filed in the Consolidated State Court Lawsuit, and, after its
removal to this Court, the litigation is presently before this Court.128
F. During litigation, it was discovered that the Duntov Frame was actually
manufactured in 1978, as opposed to 1968
After this litigation was filed, it was discovered that the Duntov Frame was not
manufactured in 1968, but rather, the Duntov Frame was manufactured by General Motors in 1978.
The credible evidence established that from 2007—when Mr. Hanna acquired the Hanna Frame—
until sometime after the litigation between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants was filed, Mr. Hanna
and the Defendants reasonably believed that the Duntov Frame was manufactured by General
Motors in 1968. Evidence in support of this conclusion includes, but is not limited to, the credible
testimony of Alan and Edward and the orders entered in 2012 by the Brown County Court.
Additionally, as previously noted, each digit of a VIN has specific meaning, and the 6th digit of the

124 Bankr. ECF No. 1.
125 ECF No. 1.
126 ECF No. 154.
127 ECF No. 190.
128 See Elvis Presley Enters. v. Capece, et al., 141 F.3d 188, 206 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[i]t is a well-settled rule that a joint
pretrial order signed by [the] parties supersedes all pleadings and governs the issues and evidence to be presented at
trial. . . . Once the pretrial order is entered, it controls the course and scope of the proceedings under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(e), and if a claim or issue is omitted from the order, it is waived, even if it appeared in the
complaint.”).
VIN was an “8,” which indicates the year that the General Motor vehicle was manufactured.
Consequently, it was reasonable for Mr. Hanna to believe the Hanna Frame was a “1968 Corvette
Convertible Body” when it was represented to be a 1968 frame when Mr. Hanna purchased it from
Mr. Scott. Likewise, it was reasonable for the Brown County Court and the Defendants to also
assume the Duntov Frame was manufactured in 1968 as opposed to 1978.129

After this litigation was filed, however, it was discovered that the Duntov Frame could not
have been manufactured in 1968 because it has two indentations in the last rail on the end of the
frame. General Motors did not manufacture Corvette frames with those two indentations in the
last rail until 1978 through 1982.130 Consequently, Mr. Radenne and the Defendants concede that
the Duntov Frame could not have been manufactured in 1968, but rather, the Duntov Frame could
only have been manufactured between 1978–1982.131 Because the 6th digit of the original VIN
obtained by Mr. Hanna is the number “8,” the parties (and the Court) reasonably conclude that the
Duntov Frame was manufactured by General Motors in 1978 as opposed to 1968.
G. Who is Mr. Cooley and Why did he Intervene into this Litigation?
It was not until after Mr. Radenne and the Defendants found themselves in litigation, that

they picked up an unexpected passenger—Mr. Cooley—who intervened in the litigation. Mr.
Cooley had no relationship with either Mr. Radenne or the Defendants. Rather, Mr. Cooley’s story
and relationship to the litigation began in 1975 when he purchased a restored 1968 Corvette coupe,

129 Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 49, line 12 through pg. 50, line 3.
130 Testimony of Mr. Mackay at ECF No. 211, pg. 22, line 14 through pg. 23, line 1; pg. 29 lines 10–18; pg. 72 lines
16–18; pg. 92, lines 11–16. See also testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 49, line 12 through pg.
50, line 3; see also D-18 (expert opinion of Mr. Geatches—the Duntov Frame “appears to be a frame of a 1978
Corvette”).
131 Testimony of Mr. Mackay at ECF No. 211, pg. 72 lines 16–18; pg. 92, lines 11–16; see also D-18; see also
testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at ECF No. 221, pg. 152, line 13 through pg. 153 line 7. Mr. Alan Sevadjian
testified further, however, that this frame could only have been manufactured either in 1978 or 1979, as opposed to
1978 through 1982, but that distinction is not relevant in this litigation. See Testimony of Mr. Alan Sevadjian at
ECF No. 221, pg. 152, line 13 through pg. 153 line 7.
VIN 194378S422741(the “Cooley Vehicle”).132 The previous owner of the Cooley Vehicle had
totaled the vehicle, and after it had been fully restored, Mr. Cooley purchased the Cooley Vehicle
on or about December 22, 1975, for $3,000.133 Unfortunately in 1980, Mr. Cooley’s then girlfriend
(and current wife) totaled the Cooley Vehicle.134 Mr. Cooley had the inoperable Cooley Vehicle
towed to a friend’s farm for storage.135 Months later in 1981, the Cooley Vehicle was stolen from

his friend’s farm and the Cooley Vehicle has not been recovered since.136
Mr. Cooley contends and testified that the 1968 Corvette is his stolen coupe, the Cooley
Vehicle. During his testimony, however, Mr. Cooley reluctantly conceded that the VIN of his
stolen coupe Cooley Vehicle does not match exactly the VIN of the Duntov Frame—the 4th digit
of the Cooley Vehicle VIN is a “3” (which indicates that the vehicle was a coupe), whereas the 4th
digit of the Duntov Frame was a “6” (which indicates that the vehicle was a convertible). Mr.
Cooley testified further that the discrepancy in the two VINs is the result of a fraudulent alteration
of the Duntov Frame’s VIN.137 But there is no credible evidence in the record to support Mr.
Cooley’s fraud contention.

Rather, the credible and indisputable evidence contradicts Mr. Cooley’s contention that the
Duntov Frame or any part of the 1968 Corvette came from the Cooley Vehicle. First, the VIN of
the Cooley Vehicle does not match the VIN of the Duntov Frame.138 Second, and even more
compelling, the credible evidence confirmed that the Duntov Frame was not even in existence in

132 R-72 (emphasis added).
133 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 2:03:33 through 2:04:18.
134 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 2:05:30 through 2:08:55.
135 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 2:05:30 through 2:08:55.
136 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 1:59:54 through 2:00:15.
137 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 2:15:33 through 2:15:45.
138 The credible evidence established that the VIN of the Cooley Vehicle does not match the VIN of the Duntov
Frame. Although each VIN is very close, they do not match exactually. Being close may count when it comes to
playing horseshoes or tossing hand grenades, but close does not cut it when it comes to vehicle identification
numbers.
1975 when Mr. Cooley acquired the Cooley Vehicle—so it is impossible that the Duntov Frame
was part of the Cooley Vehicle.139 Third, Mr. Cooley could not identify one part of the Duntov
Frame or one part from the finished 1968 Corvette that came from the Cooley Vehicle. Finally,
the Cooley Vehicle was a coupe, but the credible evidence established that the Hanna Frame was
a “1968 Corvette Convertible Body.”140 Yet, Mr. Cooley testified and continued to assert that he

is entitled to the $85,000 proceeds realized from the sale of the 1968 Corvette and recovery of his
attorneys’ fees in the approximate amount of $25,000, contending that the 1968 Corvette somehow
originated from his Cooley Vehicle.141
The Court finds and concludes that Mr. Cooley’s factual contentions and legal positions
are frivolous and without any merit. Viewing the evidence in the best possible light for Mr. Cooley,
he might have had a reasonable suspicion that the 1968 Corvette might possibly have originated
from the Cooley Vehicle. But, at some point during the litigation, when it became clear and beyond
any reasonable doubt that the 1968 Corvette could not possibly have had any of its origins from
the Cooley Vehicle, Mr. Cooley should have requested to exit this litigation. Mr. Cooley, however,

chose to continue prosecuting his frivolous claims through the conclusion of trial.
H. Analysis of Expert Testimony
1. Mr. Kevin J. Mackay—Mr. Radenne’s Expert
Mr. Radenne engaged Mr. Mackay to provide expert testimony in support of Mr. Radenne’s
claims and causes of action. The Court found that much of Mr. Mackay’s testimony and opinions
were not relevant or credible for three independent reasons. First, Mr. Mackay’s testimony focused

139 The credible evidence established that the Duntov Frame could not possibly have come from the Cooley Vehicle;
unless, of course, Mr. Cooley had the ability to join Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett L. Brown in their DeLorean time
travel vehicle and head Back to the Future to get the Duntov Frame.
140 R-44, pg. DM000590 and D-2, pg. DM000590.
141 Testimony of Mr. Cooley 2:21:45 through 2:23:03.
on restored classic Corvettes, but the contract between Mr. Radenne and Duntov concerns a “parts
car” to be modified as a race car. Mr. Radenne’s counsel admitted that Mr. Mackay was not being
offered “as an expert in restoration because this is not a case about restoration.”142
Second, Mr. Mackay’s opinion in his testimony and in his expert report143 that the 1968
Corvette was the Cooley Vehicle was fatally flawed. As previously noted, Mr. Cooley acquired

his Vehicle in 1975. Yet, the 1968 Corvette that is the subject of this litigation originated with the
Duntov Frame—which Mr. Mackay testified was not manufactured until 1978 (at the earliest),
which was three years after Mr. Cooley acquired his vehicle. Accordingly, it is not possible that
the Duntov Frame came from the Cooley Vehicle.
Finally, Mr. Mackay testified that the 4th digit of the VIN could not be a “6” if the 1968
Corvette was, in fact, manufactured in 1968 because General Motors did not manufacture a
convertible in 1968. Therefore, the 4th digit of a VIN for a Corvette manufactured could only be
a “3” which represents a coupe. The credible evidence suggested, however, that the Duntov Frame
was a convertible frame manufactured in 1978.

To be clear, Mr. Mackay is a well-recognized expert in the field of restored classic
Corvettes. But this case is not about a restored classic Corvette. For all the reasons above, the
testimony of Mr. Mackay was not persuasive or impactful in the Court’s analysis.
2. Mr. Stephen Curt Geatches—the Defendants’ Expert
The Defendants engaged Mr. Geatches to provide expert testimony in support of their
claims and defenses in this litigation. The Court found that the testimony of Mr. Geatches was not
persuasive or impactful. The primary opinions of Mr. Geatches were that the 1968 Corvette
constituted a “parts car” that “is a C3 era Corvette which has been substantially modified into a

142 ECF No. 210 at pg. 23, lines 12–17.
143 R-113.
racecar” and “the racecar vehicle and components of the racecar-vehicle appear to be authentic
and in good condition.”144 Those opinions, are not in dispute—the 1968 Corvette is a “parts car”
that Mr. Radenne wished, in part, to drive as a race car. Therefore, the testimony of Mr. Geatches
was not influential in the Court’s analysis.
III. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Mr. Radenne’s Claims and Causes of Action Against the Defendants
In the Joint Pretrial Order,145 Mr. Radenne asserts the following 11 claims and causes of
action against the Defendants: (i) breach of contract against Duntov; (ii) breach of implied
warranties against all Defendants; (iii) breach of express warranties against all Defendants; (iv)
violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices act (“DTPA”)146 against all Defendants; (v)
common law fraud against all Defendants; (vi) negligent misrepresentation against all Defendants;
(vii) UCC remedies against Duntov; (viii) money had and received against all Defendants; (ix)
alter ego against all Defendants; (x) determination of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§
523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) against Duntov; and (xi) attorneys’ fees.

The Defendants deny each of Mr. Radenne’s claims and assert at least 16 different
affirmative defenses to the various claims.
The Court will address each of Mr. Radenne’s claims and causes of action, in turn.
1. Breach of Contract (against Duntov)
Mr. Radenne asserts a breach of contract claim against Duntov.147 Under Texas law, to
prevail on a breach of contract claim, Mr. Radenne has the burden to establish (a) a valid contract

144 D-18.
145 ECF No. 190.
146 TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE § 17.01, et seq.
147 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.; pg. 22, ¶ 8.A; pg. 23, ¶¶ 8.B., D., E., and G.; see also ECF No. 160, pg. 8, ¶¶ 5, 7; see
also ECF No. 164; ECF No. 224; TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 2.101, 2.103, 2.105, 2.106, 2.301; 2.309.
existed between Mr. Radenne and Duntov; (b) Mr. Radenne tendered performance or was excused
from performing; (c) Duntov breached the terms of the contract; and (d) Mr. Radenne sustained
damages caused by Duntov’s breach.148
a. The final bill of sale is a valid contract
Mr. Radenne and Duntov do not dispute that the Final Bill of Sale constitutes a valid

contract;149 therefore, the first element for the breach of contract claim is satisfied. To the extent
either party disputed that the Final Bill of Sale was a valid contract, based on the Court’s review
and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court finds and concludes that the Final
Bill of Sale constitutes the valid contract between Mr. Radenne and Duntov.
b. Mr. Radenne tendered performance and was later excused for further
performance
Mr. Radenne next contends that he tendered performance under the Final Bill of Sale by
timely making $94,553.92 in progress payments that had been invoiced by Duntov.150 The fact
that Mr. Radenne made such progress payments is not contested. But Duntov disputes that Mr.
Radenne tendered full performance or that he was excused from tendering full performance under
the Final Bill of Sale. The Court disagrees. For the reasons detailed infra in Section III.A.1.c. and
based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, Duntov materially
breached the contract. Thus, the Court finds and concludes that due to Duntov’s breach of the
Final Bill of Sale contract, Mr. Radenne was later excused from tendering full performance of his
obligations.

148 Turner v. Ewing, 625 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied).
149 ECF No. 190; see also ECF No. 224 at pg. 16 (“there was no dispute the Bill of Sale is a contract”); see also ECF
No. 222 at pg. 7, ¶ 7 (“[t]he vehicle was sold to Plaintiff through a bill of sale with a Texas title to be issued upon
completion of the project. This arrangement was entirely appropriate.”).
150 ECF No. 190, pg. 6, ¶ N.
c. Duntov Breached the Terms of the Final Bill of Sale
Mr. Radenne next contends that Duntov breached the terms of the Final Bill of Sale
contract. In support of his breach of contract claim, Mr. Radenne asserted several alleged breaches.
All but one of Mr. Radenne’s alleged breaches, however, fail and are not supported by the credible
evidence in the record. For example, Mr. Radenne contends that “[t]he Contract obligated Duntov

to convey a 1968 Corvette Chevrolet Corvette bearing the factory issued VIN of 194678S422741
to Plaintiff,”151 and “Duntov breached the Contract by failing to tender or convey the 1968 Corvette
“with factory-inscribed S-VIN on the chassis.” 152 As detailed in this Memorandum Opinion, there
is no term, provision, or obligation in the Final Bill of Sale contract requiring Duntov to convey
the 1968 Corvette with a “factory issued” or “factory-inscribed” VIN of 194678S422741 on the
1968 Corvette. Consequently, Mr. Radenne’s claim of a breach of contract based on these
contentions fails.
Mr. Radenne also contends that Duntov failed to timely tender, convey, or deliver the
conforming 1968 Corvette required by the Final Bill of Sale contract.153 The Court agrees.

Although the Final Bill of Sale does not set a specific deadline to complete the project, Texas law
provides that “[t]he time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract if not
provided in this chapter or agreed upon shall be a reasonable time.”154 Based on the following
analysis, the Court finds and concludes that Duntov failed to timely complete the project resulting
in a breach of contract by Duntov.155

151 ECF No. 190 at pg. 23 at ¶¶ B. and C.
152 ECF No. 190 at pg. 23 at ¶ E.; See also ECF No. 190 at 9, ¶ I.c.
153 ECF No. 190 at pg. 23 at ¶ E. (limited to the contention “Duntov breached the Contract by failing to tender or
convey the 1968 Chevrolet Corvette . . . to Plaintiff.”); ECF No. 224 at pgs. 8–9; 10–11; and 17–18.
154 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.309(a).
155 In addition, the year and a half plus that it took Duntov to complete the vehicle was both untimely and
unreasonable.
The Terms and Conditions section of the Final Bill of Sale includes the following
representation by Duntov: “[w]e will make every effort to complete the car and have it registered
and race ready for the event at Circuit of the Americas, November 1-4, 2018.”156 To meet this
timeline, however, Duntov would have had to complete building the 1968 Corvette in
approximately five months from the date of the Final Bill of Sale. A timeline of five months

appears unrealistically aggressive, given Alan’s initial representation to Mr. Radenne on May 2,
2018, that “[b]uilding a car from scratch typically takes us between 1000 and 1500 hours,
depending on the car.”157 That timeline equates to six to nine months assuming one worker
spending 40 hours each and every week to complete the project.
From June 2018 through November 2018, Mr. Radenne and the Defendants maintained
good communication and the project “was progressing quite well.”158 Mr. Radenne testified that
in November 2018, however, he “started to have less and less feedback from Alan.”159 Therefore,
around that time, Mr. Radenne decided to travel to the United States to inspect the car and the
progress being made on the project.160 Mr. Radenne traveled to the United States in early February

2019 to inspect the vehicle and the status of the project.
After returning to France, Mr. Radenne sent Alan a couple of emails expressing his
disappointment in “the stage of construction of the car,” and he also stated “[a]s I explained to
Edward, I will need to get the car in not too long. Taking into account the time necessary for
shipment, receiving, preparation for inspection, submission, and most certainly the necessary
adjustment. I have still a chance to race one by the end of the season.”161 This email was the first

156 D-6, pg. DM000008.
157 R-43, pg. DM000439.
158 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, line 16.
159 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, lines 16–19.
160 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 74, line 23 through pg. 75, line 3.
161 D-9, pg. DM000081 (emphasis added).
time Mr. Radenne raised a concern about the time-period within which the Defendants would need
to reasonably complete the project.
In March of 2019, Mr. Radenne again expressed concerns over the delays in the project.
On March 13, 2019, Mr. Radenne sent an email to Edward further expressing “[a]ll I need is to
have an idea about what’s going on with the work on my car time to time, and to understand when

I can organize the transfer to Europe.”162 At this time, the project to build the 1968 Corvette was
already in its ninth month.
Between March 2019 through August 2019, the record suggests that not much progress
was made on the project. Because of the apparent lack of meaningful progress, Mr. Radenne sent
his August 21, 2019, email to Edward insisting on a firm deadline to finish the project “especially
since it has been initiated a bit more that 1 year ago.”163 This email was the first time Mr. Radenne
insisted on establishing a firm deadline for the Defendants to complete the project.164
Becoming more frustrated with Duntov’s lack of progress, Mr. Radenne sent Edward his
October 15, 2019, email affirmatively setting deadlines for Duntov to (i) obtain the court order

relating to the VIN issue by October 19, 2019, and (ii) completing and shipping the 1968 Corvette
by “mid-February at the latest.”165 Mr. Radenne stated further that “[n]ow that you know what is
the ultimate deadline,” . . . if Duntov cannot “finalize this project within these timelines (which is
already about 10 months late vs. the original plan), I will give up this project and request my
investment back.”166 Receiving no response from the Defendants, Mr. Radenne sent Alan and

162 R-17, pg. DM000053.
163 D-27, DM000035; see also testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 141, line 22 through pg. 142, line 8.
164 Testimony of Mr. Radenne, ECF No. 220 at pg. 165, lines 16–24.
165 R-9, pg. DM000034.
166 R-9, pg. DM000034.
Edward a follow-up email on October 21, 2019, summarizing the timeline of the events over the
previous 16 months and demanding a refund by October 31, 2019.167
Later that day, Edward responded to Mr. Radenne representing that the court order had
been “secured”168 and that “I think we will have it ready to ship in 6 weeks or less.” Mr. Radenne
replied to Edward’s email accepting Duntov’s proposed six-week deadline, stating “Duntov Motor

has communicated . . . for the next ‘6 weeks’ as this is the period you consider necessary for
completion.”169 Therefore, six weeks from the date of Edward’s email established December 2,
2019, as the deadline to complete the project. Additionally, Mr. Radenne agreed to extend the
deadline for Duntov to obtain the court order addressing the VIN issue to October 31, 2019.170
Mr. Radenne then sent a follow-up email on October 31, 2019, stating “I am expecting the
proof of court order for today.”171 Duntov, however, failed to obtain the court order by the October
31, 2019.172 Additionally, although Duntov represented that the vehicle would be “ready to ship
in 6 weeks or less”173—which would have been by December 2, 2019—Duntov failed to complete
the 1968 Corvette by that deadline. Consequently, Duntov breached both affirmative deadlines set

by Mr. Radenne, which this Court finds and concludes to be reasonable deadlines to complete the
Final Bill of Sale contract.
Mr. Radenne retained counsel, and on December 31, 2019, Mr. Radenne’s counsel sent a
demand letter to the Defendants. The demand letter required, in part, (i) “specific performance
and delivery to Mr. Radenne of the Corvette (legally bearing the VIN identified in the Bill of Sale

167 R-3, pgs. DM000019–020.
168 See footnote # 106.
169 R-3, pg. DM000018.
170 R-3, pg. DM000018.
171 R-3, DM000016.
172 The record established that the Defendants never did obtain a court order assigning a new VIN to the 1968
Corvette curing the discrepancy relating to the Final Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title.
173 D-27, DM000028 (emphasis added); R-78, RADENNE 000131 (emphasis added).
on both its body and chassis—and affixed by the manufacturer not a third party) ‘complete and
street legal with a state inspection sticker, license plate, roll cage, race prepared chassis, in primer,
with a spare set of wheels’,” and (ii) that the Defendants “provide on or before January 17, 2020,
copies of the formal, fully executed title to the Corvette and the appropriately and legally issued
registration certificate for the Corvette, both in Mr. Radenne’s name, along with a copy of the

shipping manifest indicating the documents have been examined and approved for export with
deliver to Mr. Radenne in France.”174
Duntov, however, did not cure the defaults raised in Mr. Radenne’s demand letter. Rather,
the Defendants retained counsel who then, on January 17, 2020, sent a reply letter to counsel for
Mr. Radenne.175 The Defendants’ reply stated that they intended to file an action within a week
“to remedy the incorrect assignment” of the VIN.
Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne has satisfied his burden to establish that Duntov breached
the terms of the Final Bill of Sale contract by failing to timely (i) obtain the court order relating to

the VIN issue; and (ii) complete and ship the 1968 Corvette.
d. Mr. Radenne sustained damages caused by Duntov’s breach
The uncontroverted and undisputed evidence established that Duntov sent Mr. Radenne
invoices pursuant to the Final Bill of Sale totaling $94,553.92, of which, Mr. Radenne timely
paid.176 Additionally, Mr. Radenne sent parts for the project to Duntov totaling an additional
$1,250.77.177 Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the

174 D-12.
175 D-20.
176 ECF No. 190, pg. 6 at ¶ N.
177 R-34 and R-35; ECF No. 220, pg. 108, lines 13–19; ECF No. 224, pg. 6.
Court finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne has satisfied his burden to establish that he sustained
damages caused by Duntov’s breach in the amount of $95,780.35.
Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of Breach of Contract against Duntov is GRANTED, and
Mr. Radenne is entitled to Judgment against Duntov for general damages in the amount
$95,780.35.

2. Breach of Implied Warranties (against Duntov)
Mr. Radenne contends that Duntov breached implied warranties of title, merchantability,
and fitness for a particular purpose.178 In support of his breach of implied warranty count against
Duntov, Mr. Radenne contends that the Final Bill of Sale “obligated Duntov to convey a 1968
Chevrolet Corvette bearing the factory issued VIN of 194678S422741 to [Mr. Radenne] with
implied and express warranties of title”179 and “Defendants’ identification of the subject vehicle as
a 1968 Chevrolet-manufactured Corvette with a factory-inscribed VIN on the chassis formed the
basis of the parties’ bargain.”180 The Court disagrees.
Nowhere in the Final Bill of Sale or in any of the many communications between Mr.

Radenne and the Defendants was there a requirement that the custom 1968 Corvette parts car to
be built by Duntov required a “factory issued” or “factory-inscribed” VIN on the chassis. Rather,
the agreement between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants was that Duntov was required to deliver
a custom-built 1968 Corvette and that the VIN on the vehicle match the VIN on the Certificate of
Title and the Final Bill of Sale. The credible evidence in the record established that Mr. Radenne
knew that the Defendants would have to obtain a court order to cure the VIN discrepancy. Mr.
Radenne’s testimony that he expected and required the completed 1968 Corvette parts car to

178 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.; pg. 23, ¶¶ 8.B.; 8.F.; pg. 24, ¶ 8.K.; see also ECF No. 160, pg. 8, ¶¶ 2, 6, 11; see also
ECF No. 224; TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 2.312(a); 2.314(b)(1), and 2.315.
179 ECF No. 190, pg. 23, ¶ 8.B; see also ECF No. 160 pg. 8, ¶ 2 (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 224.
180 ECF No. 190, pg. 23, ¶ 8.C; see also ECF No. 160 pg. 8, ¶ 3 (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 224.
include “a factory issued” or a “factory-inscribed” VIN on either the Duntov Frame or its chassis
was not credible and contrary to the substantial evidence in the record.
Second, Texas law permits a seller to disclaim implied warranties of merchantability or
fitness for any particular purpose if the disclaimer is in writing, mentions the word
“merchantability,” and is conspicuous.181 “When a reasonable person against whom a clause is to

operate ought to have noticed it, the clause is conspicuous. For example, language in capital
headings, language in contrasting type or color, and language in an extremely short document,
such as a telegram, is conspicuous.”182
The Final Bill of Sale contains the following disclaimer:
Warranty:
Buyer acknowledges THERE IS NO WARRANTY ON THE VEHICLE,
and the SELLER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.183

The disclaimer is conspicuous, contains the word “merchantability,” and expressly
disclaims implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. Therefore,
the disclaimer contained in the Final Bill of Sale is enforceable.
Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his
burden to establish that Duntov breached an implied warranty of title, merchantability, or fitness

181 TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE § 2.316.
182 Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 511 (Tex. 1993).
183 Def. Ex. 6, RADENNE 000125.
for a particular purpose. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of breach of implied warranties against
Duntov is DENIED and DISMISSED.
3. Breach of Express Warranties (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that each of the Defendants also breached an express warranty of
title and express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, or sample.184 To prevail on a

breach of express warranty claim, Mr. Radenne has the burden to establish (i) the Defendants made
a representation to Mr. Radenne about the title, quality, or characteristics of the 1968 Corvette; (ii)
the Defendants made the representation by affirmation of fact, promise, description, or display of
a sample or model; (iii) the representation became part of the “basis of the bargain;” (iv) the 1968
Corvette did not comply with the representation; and (v) Mr. Radenne suffered injury.185 “Basis
of the bargain” is akin to reliance.186
In support of his breach of express warranty count against each of the Defendants, Mr.
Radenne again contends that the Final Bill of Sale “obligated Duntov to convey a 1968 Chevrolet
Corvette bearing the factory issued VIN of 194678S422741 to [Mr. Radenne] with implied and
express warranties of title”187 and “Defendants’ identification of the subject vehicle as a 1968

Chevrolet-manufactured Corvette with a factory-inscribed VIN on the chassis formed the basis of
the parties’ bargain.”188 Again, the Court disagrees and incorporates its reasons detailed supra in
Section III.A.2. of this Memorandum Opinion.
Additionally, Duntov’s express warranty in the Final Bill of Sale stated that it would deliver
the 1968 Corvette with VIN 194678S422741. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that it

184 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.; pg. 23, ¶¶ 8.B.; 8.F.; pg. 24, ¶ 8.K.; see also ECF No. 160, pg. 8, ¶¶ 2, 6, 11; see also
ECF No. 224; see also TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 2.312(a); and 2.313(a)(1).
185 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.313; Morris v. Adolph Coors Co., 735 S.W.2d 578, 587 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
186 Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 436 (Tex. 1997).
187 ECF No. 190, pg. 23, ¶ 8.B; see also ECF No. 160 pg. 8, ¶ 2 (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 224.
188 ECF No. 190, pg. 23, ¶ 8.C.; see also ECF No. 160 pg. 8, ¶ 3 (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 224.
was not possible for the Defendants to comply with that express warranty. To the contrary, the
credible evidence in the record suggests that the Defendants could comply with that express
warranty by obtaining a court order assigning VIN 194678S422741 to the 1968 Corvette. Before
Duntov could obtain that court order, however, Mr. Radenne cancelled the contract due to Duntov’s
breach of contract for failing to timely perform.189 Therefore, since it was possible for Duntov to

comply with the express warranty, Mr. Radenne did not satisfy his burden on this claim.
Finally, Mr. Radenne contends that the 1968 Corvette “was not fit for the particular
purpose, known, to the seller, for which Mr. Radenne was purchasing it.”190 Again, the Court
disagrees. The credible evidence in the record established that Mr. Radenne knew he was
purchasing a “parts car” and that the Defendants would need to obtain a court order so the VIN
requested by Mr. Radenne would be assigned to the 1968 Corvette and would match the Certificate
of Title and Final Bill of Sale. Mr. Radenne’s testimony and contention to the contrary was not
persuasive. The credible evidence in the record suggests that the Defendants could comply by
obtaining a court order assigning VIN 194678S422741 to the 1968 Corvette. Before Duntov could

obtain that court order, however, Mr. Radenne cancelled the contract due to Duntov’s breach of
contract for failing to timely perform.191 Therefore, since it was possible for Duntov to complete
the 1968 Corvette with the VIN 194678S422741, the particular purpose for which Mr. Radenne
was purchasing the 1968 could be satisfied. Consequently, Mr. Radenne did not satisfy his burden
on this claim.
Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his

189 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(d).
190 ECF No. 224 at pg. 11, ¶ C.
191 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(d).
burden to establish that any of the Defendants breached an express warranty of title or an express
warranty by affirmation, promise, description, or sample. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of
breach of express warranties against each of the Defendants is DENIED and DISMISSED.
4. Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that each of the Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act (“DTPA”).192 The DTPA is liberally construed “to promote its underlying purposes,
which are to protect consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices,
unconscionable actions and breaches of warranty and to provide efficient and economical
procedures to secure such protection.”193 The DTPA does not codify the common law, but it
functions to allow consumers to pursue causes of actions for deceptive trade practices without the
burden of proof and the plethora of defenses as available in common law fraud or breach of
contract or warranty.194
To succeed under a DTPA claim against the Defendants, Mr. Radenne must establish that
(i) he was a consumer; (ii) the Defendants can be sued under the DTPA; (iii) the Defendants (a)

committed at least one wrongful act that § 17.46(b) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code
enumerates, (b) breached an express or implied warranty, or (c) engaged in an unconscionable
action; and (iv) the Defendants’ actions were a producing cause of Mr. Radenne’s damages.195
Further, Mr. Radenne may recover mental anguish damages and treble damages if the Defendant
knowingly or intentionally violated the DTPA.196

192 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.; pg. 23, ¶¶ 8.H.; 8.I.; pg. 25, ¶ 8.S.; see also ECF No. 160, pg. 8, ¶¶ 8, 9; see also
TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE § 17.01, et seq.
193 Smith v. Baldwin, 611 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. 1980).
194 Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 817, 825 (Tex. 2012).
195 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 17.41–17.63; Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex. 1996).
196 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50(b)(1).
To state a DTPA claim specifically in this case, the Defendants must have failed to disclose
“material information” that the Defendants knew at the formation of the agreement and never
brought that particular “material information” to Mr. Radenne’s attention.197 “Under section
17.46(b)(23) of the DTPA, information known at the time of the transaction must be withheld for
the purpose of inducing the consumer into a transaction which the consumer would not have

entered had the information been disclosed. Furthermore, the information withheld must concern
goods or services.”198 Finally, Mr. Radenne must establish that he relied to his detriment on the
deceptive act.199
While there is not an exhaustive list of “false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices”
contained in Section 17.46(b), the statute does provide 30 examples of such “false, misleading, or
deceptive acts or practices.”200 Mr. Radenne specifically contends that Defendants passed off
goods or services as those of another,201 caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source or
certification of the vehicle,202 misrepresented characteristics of the goods or services,203
misrepresented the quality and particular style or model of the goods,204 advertised goods with the
intent to not sell them as advertised,205 advertised goods with the intent not to supply a reasonable

expectable public demand,206 represented that title conveyed rights or remedies which it does not
have,207 represented that a guaranty or warranty has rights that it does not have,208 represented that

197 Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dall., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tex. 1995).
198 Id.
199 Cruz, 364 S.W.3d at 823.
200 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b).
201 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(1); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 23. ¶ 8.I.a.
202 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(2); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.b.
203 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(3); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.c.
204 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(5); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.d.
205 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(9); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.e.
206 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(10); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.f.
207 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(12); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.g.
208 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(20); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.h.
work was being performed when in fact it was not,209 and induced Mr. Radenne into entering the
contract by failing to disclose known information from the beginning.210
In response, the Defendants first contend that Mr. Radenne’s DTPA claims are barred by
the statute of limitations.211 This contention fails on the merits because Mr. Radenne commenced
the Radenne State Court Lawsuit on January 29, 2020, well within the two-year statute of

limitations period contained in the statute. Even though Mr. Radenne did not initially assert the
DTPA count in his original complaint, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code unequivocally
provides that amended pleadings relate back to the date of the original complaint.212 The Fifth
Circuit has held that when a plaintiff amends a complaint filed in Texas state court, the Texas
relation back statute applies.213
While Mr. Radenne’s DTPA claim was timely, the claim itself lacks merit. The credible
evidence established that the Defendants did not attempt to sell goods or services that belonged to
someone else—as the Defendants had good title to the Duntov Frame. The credible evidence
further established that the Defendants accurately represented the characteristics, quality, and

particular style or model of the “parts car” they agreed to build and sell to Mr. Radenne. Finally,
Mr. Radenne failed to establish, with credible evidence, that the Defendants induced him to enter
into the Final Bill of Sale by failing to disclose relevant and known information at that time.
Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record and for all
the reasons detailed throughout this Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds and concludes that Mr.
Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his burden to establish DTPA liability

209 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(22); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.i.
210 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(24); see also ECF No. 190, pg. 24. ¶ 8.I.j.
211 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.565.
212 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.068.
213 Taylor v. Bailey Tool Mfg. Co., 744 F. 3d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 2014); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c).
against any of the Defendants. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of DTPA liability against each of
the Defendants is DENIED and DISMISSED.
5. Common Law Fraud (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that each of the Defendants committed common law fraud.214 “The
traditional elements of common-law fraud are (1) a knowing or reckless material

misrepresentation, (2) that the tortfeasor intended to act on, and (3) that harmed the plaintiff.”215
More specifically, the elements of common law fraud are:
(1) that a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false;
(3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or
made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive
assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the
other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the
representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury.216
Mr. Radenne has the burden of proof to establish that the Defendants made
misrepresentations that were material, false, or reckless and that he justifiably relied on the such
misrepresentations.217 Reliance must be reasonable and justified.218 Justifiable reliance depends
heavily on the parties’ relationship with each other and their respective relative level of
sophistication.219 “The reliance element does not require a plaintiff to demonstrate reasonableness,
yet a person may not justifiably rely on a representation if ‘there are red flags indicating such
reliance is unwarranted.’”220 “The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact is justified

214 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶¶ 1.A. and B., pg. 26, ¶ X.; see also ECF No. 160, pg. 6, ¶ 18, pg. 11, ¶ 24; ECF No. 224.
215 Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 34 F.4th 446, 455 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. Jarkesy v. SEC, No.
22-991, 2023 WL 4278466 (U.S. June 30, 2023), and cert. granted sub nom. SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2023 WL
4278448 (U.S. June 30, 2023) (quoting In re Deepwater Horizon, 857 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 2017)).
216 Saenz v. Gomez, 899 F.3d 384, 391 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 758
(Tex. 2001)).
217 Saenz v. Gomez, 899 F.3d at 392.
218 In re Saenz, 534 B.R. 276, 294 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2015), subsequently aff'd sub nom. Saenz v. Gomez, 899 F.3d
384 (5th Cir. 2018).
219 In re Saenz, 534 B.R. at 294.
220 Id. (quoting AT&T Universal Card Serv. Inc. v. Mercer (In re Mercer), 246 F.3d 391, 418 (5th Cir. 2001))
(citations omitted).
in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had
he made an investigation.”221
Mr. Radenne first contends that the Defendants made material, false, or reckless
misrepresentations concerning the VIN of the Duntov Frame and the VIN applicable to the 1968
Corvette. As detailed in this Memorandum Opinion, there was clear confusion among all the

Parties concerning the VIN of the Duntov Frame and the 1968 Corvette. Mr. Radenne explicitly
requested that the VIN for the 1968 Corvette contain a “S” in the 7th digit of the VIN. Alan
confirmed to Mr. Radenne that the VIN of the completed 1968 Corvette, the Certificate of Title,
and the Final Bill of Sale must match.
Although the credible evidence suggests that there was initial confusion about the VIN of
the Duntov Frame, it became clear in the following months that a court order would be required to
resolve the confusion and discrepancy between the Duntov Frame (which would become part of
the custom built 1968 Corvette), the Certificate of Title to be delivered to Mr. Radenne, and the
Final Bill of Sale. Mr. Radenne’s actions and communications, detailed throughout this

Memorandum Opinion, make clear that he ultimately understood the VIN discrepancy and was
satisfied with Duntov’s ability to cure the VIN discrepancy. Further, there is no evidence in the
record to suggest that Duntov would not be able to obtain such a court order. The Court finds and
concludes that none of the Defendants made a material, fraudulent, or reckless misrepresentation
about the VIN of the Duntov Frame or the ability of Duntov to obtain a court order to cure the VIN
discrepancy.
Second, Mr. Radenne contends that the Defendants made material, fraudulent, or reckless
misrepresentations to Mr. Radenne that Duntov was the owner of the Duntov Frame. The credible

221 In re Saenz, 534 B.R. at 295 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 540 (1977)).
evidence established that (i) although the Duntov Frame was titled in Alan’s name as opposed to
Duntov, Duntov was the beneficial and equitable owner of the Duntov Frame, and (ii) Alan could
and would transfer legal title of the Duntov Frame to Duntov—enabling Duntov to ultimately
transfer title of the completed 1968 Corvette to Mr. Radenne. Therefore, the Court finds and
concludes that the credible evidence established that that the Defendants did not make a material,

fraudulent, or reckless misrepresentation about the ownership of the Duntov Frame or Duntov’s
ability to convey title of the Duntov Frame and the completed 1968 Corvette to Mr. Radenne.
Third, Mr. Radenne contends that the Defendants made a material, fraudulent, or reckless
misrepresentation to Mr. Radenne that the Duntov Frame was a 1968 Corvette frame. The credible
evidence in the record clearly established that all the Parties initially believed the Duntov Frame
was manufactured by General Motors in 1968. It was not until after this litigation was filed that
the Parties realized that the Duntov Frame was actually manufactured in 1978 as opposed to
1968.222 Although this discrepancy may seem to be “material” on first blush, the credible and
uncontroverted evidence established that (i) the Defendants believed, in good faith and based on

the title Alan received from Mr. Hanna, that the Duntov Frame was a 1968 manufactured frame,
and (ii) a 1978 frame on a custom built vintage 1968 Corvette would (a) comply with the FIA
requirements to enable the 1968 Corvette to qualify for racing in the FIA European historic racing
circuit, and (b) be “street legal” for driving throughout Europe. Therefore, the Court finds and
concludes that the credible evidence established that the Defendants’ representation about the year
the Duntov Frame was manufactured by General Motors was not material, fraudulent, or reckless.

222 Supra Section II.F.
Fourth, Mr. Radenne contends that Alan made a false representation to Mr. Radenne in
Alan’s June 20, 2018, email223 when he responded, “Yes, confirming both.”224 This email
exchange, however, should not be analyzed and interpreted in isolation. Rather, this email
exchange must be analyzed and considered in context with all the communications that took place
between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants to arrive at a proper interpretation and conclusion

regarding this email exchange. Additionally, the Court found Alan’s testimony addressing this
specific email exchange was credible.225
Although there was clear confusion concerning the VIN of the Duntov Frame, when
analyzed and considered within all the communications between Mr. Radenne and the Defendants,
the VIN confusion was ultimately clarified, and Mr. Radenne accepted that the VIN issue could be
cured by Duntov obtaining a court order. Mr. Radenne forged ahead with the project, giving
Duntov the green light to obtain a court order to resolve the VIN discrepancy. Consequently, Mr.
Radenne failed to establish that Alan made a false or reckless misrepresentation to Mr. Radenne in
this email exchange.

Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his
burden to establish that the Defendants committed common law fraud. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s
claim of common law fraud against each of the Defendants is DENIED and DISMISSED.
6. Negligent Misrepresentation (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that each of the Defendants made negligent misrepresentations to
Mr. Radenne.226 In support of his negligent misrepresentation claim against the Defendants, Mr.

223 D-6, pg. RADENNE 000111; R-77, pg. RADENNE 000111.
224 R-77.
225 ECF No. 221, pg. 35, lines 2–20; ECF No. 221, pg. 199, line 18 through pg. 200, line 6.
226 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.
Radenne contends: (i) “Defendants made representations and failed to disclose facts to [Mr.
Radenne] to induce him to purchase a vehicle and hire Defendants to make said vehicle ‘road legal’
and ‘race ready’;”227 (ii) “Defendants supplied false information to [Mr. Radenne] regarding the
‘true identity’ of the vehicle [Mr. Radenne] purchased;”228 and (iii) “Defendants also
misrepresented the amount of time it would take to have said vehicle ‘race ready.’”229

To succeed on a negligent misrepresentation claim under Texas law, a plaintiff is required
to prove that: (1) without exercising reasonable care or competence in communicating information
to plaintiff; (2) defendant supplied “false information” for the guidance of plaintiff; (3) in the
ordinary course of business; (4) which caused plaintiff to suffer a pecuniary loss by justifiably
relying on the information.230 The type of “false information” must be a misstatement of existing
fact, not a promise of future conduct.231
In Texas, non-disclosures rise to the level of negligence only if there is a corresponding
duty to disclose that information.232 Under Texas law, a duty to disclose information may arise in
the following four situations: “(1) when there is a ‘confidential or fiduciary relationship’; (2) ‘when

one voluntarily discloses information, he has a duty to disclose the whole truth’; (3) ‘when one
makes a representation, he has a duty to disclose new information when he is aware the new
information makes the earlier representation misleading or untrue’; and (4) ‘when one makes a
partial disclosure and conveys a false impression, he has a duty to speak.’”233

227 ECF No. 10, pg. 6, ¶ 76.
228 ECF No. 10, pg. 6, ¶ 77.
229 ECF No. 10, pg. 6, ¶ 77.
230 Coburn Supply Co. v. Kohler Co., 342 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. Land Bank Ass’n v. Sloane,
825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991)).
231 Erdman Co. v. USMD of Arlington GP, LLC, No. 3:09-CV-1081-D, 2011 WL 1356920, at *19 (N.D. Tex. Apr.
11, 2011).
232 Coburn Supply Co., 342 F.3d at 377 (quoting Fed. Land Bank, 825 S.W.2d at 442).
233 Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. v. LifeCare Holdings, Inc., No. CIV.A.3:08CV0102B, 2008 WL
3925272, at *12 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP v. LifeCare
Although the claim is referenced in the Complaint and Joint Pretrial Order, it appears that
Mr. Radenne abandoned this claim. Mr. Radenne did not identify any specific representations that
Mr. Radenne deemed “negligent” in the Complaint, Pretrial Order, during trial, or in his post-trial
brief. To the extent Mr. Radenne contends that the representations referenced in support of his
other claims and causes of action were also negligent, based on the Court’s review and analysis of

the credible evidence in the record, the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer
adequate credible evidence to satisfy his burden to establish each element for a claim of negligent
misrepresentation relating to any such alleged negligent representations. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s
claim of negligent representation against each of the Defendants is DENIED and DISMISSED.
7. UCC Remedies (against Duntov)
Mr. Radenne contends that he is entitled to UCC remedies against Duntov.234 Under this
claim, Mr. Radenne contends that he is entitled to UCC remedies based on Duntov’s breach of the
Final Bill of Sale contract.235 Under the UCC, there are two ways to end a sale of goods agreement:
(1) termination or (2) cancellation.236 Any party may terminate a contract for a reason other than

breach, and both parties are discharged from performing but keep their rights and remedies based
on prior performances or breaches.237 Cancellation occurs when either party ends the contract due
to a breach, and the cancelling party retains rights and remedies for the alleged breach.238 Apart
from the retention of the remedy of breach, the effects of cancellation are the same as

Holdings Inc., 377 F. App'x 422 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Four Bros. Boat Works, Inc. v. Tesoro Petroleum Cos.,
Inc., 217 S.W.3d 653, 670–71 (Tex.App.-Hous. [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); Newby v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron
Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig.), 388 F.Supp.2d 780, 788 (S.D. Tex. 2005)).
234 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.
235 ECF No. 10 ¶¶ 82–86.
236 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(c)–(d); U.C.C. § 2-106(3)–(4).
237 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(c); U.C.C. § 2-106(3).
238 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(d); U.C.C. § 2-106(4).
termination.239 Damages for a breach of contract claim are based on whether the terminating party
gave reasonable notice to the other party.240
Additionally, under the UCC, either party has the right to request reasonable assurances of
performance. Specifically,
A contract for sale imposes an obligation on each party that the other's expectation
of receiving due performance will not be impaired. When reasonable grounds for
insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party the other may in
writing demand adequate assurance of due performance and until he receives such
assurance may if commercially reasonable suspend any performance for which he
has not already received the agreed return.241

Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne has satisfied his burden to establish that he is entitled to
UCC remedies against Duntov, for the reasons more fully addressed supra in Section III.A.1. of
this Memorandum Opinion. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of UCC remedies against Duntov is
GRANTED, and Mr. Radenne is entitled to Judgment against Duntov for general damages in the
amount of $95,780.35.
8. Money had and Received (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that each of the Defendants are liable for money had and received.242
In support of his money had and received claim against the Defendants, Mr. Radenne contends
that “Defendants hold money paid to them for the Corvette Defendants did not own and for
modifications to a car that [Mr. Radenne] was not the legal owner of,”243 and “[t]he money belongs
to [Mr. Radenne] in equity and good conscience.”244

239 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.106(d).
240 Jonibach Mgmt. Tr. v. Wartburg Enter., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 792, 812 (S.D. Tex. 2015).
241 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.609(a).
242 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.
243 ECF No. 10, pg. 17, ¶ 88.
244 ECF No. 10, pg. 17, ¶ 89.
In Texas, a claim for money had and received is equitable in nature.245 This equitable
doctrine is in place to prevent unjust enrichment.246 To establish this type of claim, a plaintiff must
show that a defendant holds money which in equity and good conscience belongs to plaintiff.247
The Fifth Circuit has held that “a cause of action for money had and received is less restricted and
fettered by technical rules and formalities than any other form of action. It aims at the abstract

justice of the case, and looks solely at the inquiry, whether the defendant holds money, which
belongs to the plaintiff.”248
The undisputed evidence established that Duntov sent Mr. Radenne invoices pursuant to
the Final Bill of Sale totaling $94,553.92, of which Mr. Radenne timely paid. Additionally, Mr.
Radenne sent parts for the project to Duntov totaling an additional $1,250.77.249 The undisputed
evidence established further that Duntov obtained Court approval to sell the completed 1968
Corvette for $85,000, with such proceeds being placed into the Registry of the Court pending
resolution of this litigation. There is no credible evidence in the record to establish that either Alan
or Edward individually received the payments or goods totaling of $95,780.35 from Mr. Radenne.

Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to satisfy his burden to establish, in equity and good
conscience, a claim for money had and received against Alan or Edward. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s
claim of money had and received against Alan and Edward is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court
finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne has satisfied his burden to establish, in equity and good

245 Plains Exp. & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors Inc., 473 S.W.3d 296, 302 n.4 (Tex. 2015).
246 Id.
247 Id.; see also Villarreal v. First Presidio Bank, 283 F. Supp. 3d 548, 555 (W.D. Tex. 2017).
248 Bank of Saipan v. CNG Fin. Corp., 380 F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
249 R-34 and R-35; ECF No. 220, pg. 108, lines 13–19; ECF No. 224, pg. 6.
conscience, a claim for money had and received against Duntov. Pursuant to the Court’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law regarding the breach of contract and subsequent cancellation of the
Final Bill of Sale contract against Duntov, supra in Section III.A.1. of this Memorandum Opinion,
Mr. Radenne is entitled to the proceeds realized for the sale of the 1968 Corvette, which is currently
held in the registry of the Court. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim of money had and received

against Duntov is GRANTED, and Mr. Radenne is entitled to Judgment against Duntov for money
had and received in the amount of $95,780.35. Additionally, as an offset to the Judgment, Mr.
Radenne is entitled to the $85,000.00 (plus accrued interest, if any) of sale proceeds for the 1968
Corvette that is currently held in the registry of the Court.
9. Alter Ego (against all Defendants)
Mr. Radenne contends that he is entitled to a finding of alter ego relief against all the
Defendants.250 Alter ego applies when the unity between a corporation and an individual is such
that holding only the corporation liable would be unjust.251 A plaintiff shows alter ego through the
total dealings of the corporation and the individual, which includes (i) the degree that corporate

formalities have been followed and corporate and individual property have been kept separate; (ii)
the amount of financial interest, ownership, and control the individual maintains over the
corporation; and (iii) whether the corporation has been used for personal purposes.252
Mr. Radenne contends that (i) “Duntov was organized and operated as a mere tool or
business conduit . . . of the Sevadjians;253 (ii) “[t]he unity between one or both of the Sevadjians
and Duntov was such that [there] was no meaningful separation between the two;”254 and (iii)

250 ECF No. 190, pg. 2, ¶ 1.A.; pg. 3, ¶ 1.C.; see also TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 21.223.
251 See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 21.223(b); Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1986).
252 Castleberry, 721 S.W.2d at 272.
253 ECF No. 10, ¶ 91.
254 ECF No. 10, ¶ 93.
“[o]ne or both of the Sevadjians did not observe the corporate formalities and exercised control
over Duntov.”255 Consequently, Mr. Radenne contends that “[t]he separate existence of Duntov
should be pierced or ignored to hold one or both of the Sevadjians liable for the actions of
Duntov.”256
In support of his alter ego claim, Mr. Radenne makes the following contentions: (i) Alan

and Edward have continually treated Duntov’s corporate assets as their own assets;257 (ii) at least
three times over the years—in 2012, 2016, and 2019—Duntov’s charter with the Texas Secretary
of State was forfeited for briefs period of time;258 (iii) Alan and Edward used Duntov to perpetrate
a fraud on Mr. Radenne for their own personal benefit;259 (iv) Alan and Edward are both alter egos
of Duntov;260 and (v) after Duntov obtained confirmation of its Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization,261 Alan and Edward caused reorganized Duntov to be sold for their own personal
benefit.262 The Court disagrees.
Mr. Radenne failed to offer credible or persuasive evidence to establish his contentions that
(i) Duntov’s corporate formalities had not been followed, (ii) Alan or Edward failed to keep

Duntov’s assets separate from their own person

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10462508. Public record. Not legal advice.