Page 26 - The Origin of the Species

THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES
26
— an all-original, numbers-matching, factory 100M that was in pieces, and a Silverstone
that was a “good clean usable car.” The only problem was he didn’t have the money to buy
them. So he offered a partnership deal. Oesterle would buy the cars, and Hillinger would
put in the roughly $10,000 of necessary work on the 100M and the roughly $20,000
needed for the Silverstone. Once they were done, the cars would be sold. Oesterle would get
his investment back, Hillinger would get paid for his work, and the remaining profits would
be split 50-50. Oesterle liked the idea and paid $50,000 to buy the 100M and $160,000
to buy the Silverstone.
The $10,000 of repairs on the 100M turned out to be $130,000. Even worse, Oesterle
discovered that the 100M was not a true factory car as represented.
Meanwhile, the work on the Silverstone stalled. Hillinger suggested buying it from
Oesterle, who decided he wanted to keep it. When Hillinger balked at giving it to him,
Oesterle discovered that Hillinger had titled the Silverstone in Healey Werks’ name and
then sold it to a third party, pocketing the cash.
Austin-Healey 100S
Hillinger had purchased a 100S that needed restoration for $290,000. He then sold it
to Oesterle for $630,000, which included a full restoration. Hillinger promised to restore
the car to concours level and to get it entered in the Pebble Beach Concours when completed.
That goal became impossible when Oesterle discovered that the engine-number plate
had been removed, suggesting that the engine was not original. He also discovered that
the engine rebuild, which was included in the $630,000 already paid, had been done
incorrectly and with used parts. In addition, a number of parts were missing.
But what really confused Oesterle was when he learned that the previous owner had
fully restored the car before selling it to Healey Werks, and that all it needed was some
brake work.
Litigation
Oesterle grew concerned about the heavy bills coupled with a seeming lack of progress,
so he sent his Indianapolis mechanics to Healey Werks to inspect the cars. They reported
back to him that he had been billed for work that had not been done and parts that had not
been incorporated into the cars. He had also been significantly overbilled for work that had
been completed.
Oesterle consulted Anna Limoges, a partner in the regional Goosmann Law Firm.
Limoges investigated Healey Werks and discovered that it had been sued multiple times by
customers, with one of the larger claims brought by a California collector who had reached
a settlement with Healey Werks.
That information led Oesterle to see Hillinger as a serial defrauder, and made him
determined to do something about it.
Limoges’ firm filed suit against Healey Werks, Hillinger and a related entity, Anca
Properties in Iowa District Court in Sioux City (LACV 192052). The lawsuit alleged
that all of these actions constituted fraud, as well as violations of the Iowa Motor Vehicle
Services Trade Practices Act. The latter claim was the most important because it provides
for two critical things. First, it gives the plaintiff the right to recover attorney fees. Second,
it provides that whatever the plaintiff ’s damages are, they get tripled.
Iowa’s statute is unusually consumer-oriented. First off, it is specifically geared toward
auto-repair facilities. Many states don’t take that approach and rely on generalized
consumer-protection statutes to cover the territory, with spotty results. Plus, the Iowa