COLLECTOR MATT STOCK!! PLEASE PAY YOUR 5 YEAR DEBT!!!

[romitaman]

I had a great show selling art at the awesome COMIC ART CON this past weekend.....

 

I also have decided to post here and on comic art fans that I did see "Matt Stock" (who was in a photo with Bechara at his booth) at Comic Art Con this past weekend....

 

It was interesting that Matt saw me (once again) at the show and again he REFUSED to stop by my booth here at this show as well as at San Diego and at the big new York comic-con the past few years..........

 

I wonder if he didn't stop by because he has refused to pay me the last 2000 dollars for a Gil Kane FEAR cover I sold Matt and personally gave to him almost 5 YEARS AGO at the 2010 New York Comic con.......

 

We were very good friends doing several deals over the years prior to this incident.....

 

Matt paid off 2k of the cover and has refused to pay off the last 2000.... I'm sorry to have to bring it up on a public forum but after 5 "years of DOZENS of private emails" asking him to resolve this matter amicably.....Matt has refused to contact me even ONCE in any way for over 4.5 years so I have decided that my only recourse left is a public forum so Matt will hopefully come to the conclusion that our hobby is pretty small and its not a very good idea to screw people over on art deals for art you have already received, when we all know each other pretty well.....

 

I had given Matt the cover when we hand shaked and agreed to the transaction at the new York con in 2010. Matt has since done a deal with Rich Donnelly for the cover he got form me, so Matt doesn't own the cover anymore, so its impossible for us to do the deal back now.

 

i will post every few months about this on public websites until the deal is resolved

 

here is the actual invoice I STILL have on my Romitaman website from 2010 when we did the deal.

 

 

 

10/8/2010 Invoice Details

 

Buyer: matt stock

 

Want List Sent From Romitaman.com

 

Want List Items

 

Description Total Price

 

Gil Kane

Fear #25 Cover (1974)

$5000.00

 

-$1000.00 Discount

 

 

Current Total: $4000.00

 

Email: mattstock@msn.com

First Name: matt

Last Name: stock

Address:

Address2:

City:

State: NY

Zip Code:

Phone: 917--- ----

comments:

 

Hi Matt

 

anytime you can send me that last 2000 dollars you owe from over 4 YEARS ago I sure would appreciate it!

 

 

I did see you in San Diego this year but I decided to not make a scene by confronting you in front of my girlfriend and many collectors we both know.

 

please send the 2000 dollars you owe me .

 

i'm not sure why you choose to act this way over a few thousand dollars you owe me.

 

I look forward to seeing you at the comic art con in march or San diego in July...i wont be so nice if it takes longer if i have to meet you in person.

 

Just pay your debt please and the issue will be over for us.

 

thanks

 

mike

[Matches_Malone]

You are an outstanding seller and I’m Sorry to hear that Mike....Hopefully the matter will be settled soon.

 

 

 

[NelsonAI]

Is this the dude you are referring to?

If so, perhaps also leave a comment on CAF under each photo.

 

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1215311&GSub=160589

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1215304&GSub=160589

 

 

[tth2]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

[Xela]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

 

 

He trusted him that much I guess ?

[vodou]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

He trusted him that much I guess ?

Uh uh. He wanted to make the deal that much. Mike is a closer. Taking partial immediate payment and handing off the piece on the spot "closes" iffy deals. Mike knocked 20% off too, and then gave up the piece with payment terms. Mike is a closer. I'm sure ninety-nine out of a hundred times Mike does this, the remainder comes through. The buyer is more obliged -piece in hand- to follow through where otherwise, in the face of not having enough cash- they'd walk away. When it doesn't happen in the agreed timeframe, Mike should just go right to small claims court. Not that doing so recovers payment, but it does create a legal and public trail. It also burns the other party though, which is not what closers really want to do. (That's why Mike hung on for five years here and ten plus for Jusko.)

 

Self-financing and letting it drag on quietly for years, without writing off the loss and moving on, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I think if you're going to take the risk to keep volume up, you have to expect a certain loss percentage, and build that into your overall business plan.

[zhamlau]

Wow, talked to that guy for a bit at the show about selling art on ebay. Seemed like a nice guy, sorry to hear that mike.

[comix4fun]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

He trusted him that much I guess ?

Uh uh. He wanted to make the deal that much. Mike is a closer. Taking partial immediate payment and handing off the piece on the spot "closes" iffy deals. Mike knocked 20% off too, and then gave up the piece with payment terms. Mike is a closer. I'm sure ninety-nine out of a hundred times Mike does this, the remainder comes through. The buyer is more obliged -piece in hand- to follow through where otherwise, in the face of not having enough cash- they'd walk away. When it doesn't happen in the agreed timeframe, Mike should just go right to small claims court. Not that doing so recovers payment, but it does create a legal and public trail. It also burns the other party though, which is not what closers really want to do. (That's why Mike hung on for five years here and ten plus for Jusko.)

 

Self-financing and letting it drag on quietly for years, without writing off the loss and moving on, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I think if you're going to take the risk to keep volume up, you have to expect a certain loss percentage, and build that into your overall business plan.

 

 

It sounds like Mike has been trying to collect on this debt the entire time, not letting it "drag on quietly". There's a difference between "drag on quietly" and diligently pursuing the debt without making it public. Just because it's gone five years and Mike is just now making it public doesn't mean Mike hasn't been diligent.

 

You think selling artwork and expecting full payment is having one's cake and eating it too? I think it's expecting all parties to perform what they contracted to do and keep their word.

 

Why should Mike write it off? Because the buyer has successfully dodged him for a certain length of time?

 

Court is a last resort. Mike has not yet exhausted all his non-legal options. The one he is employing here is one of the most effective at his disposal. As Mike says, this hobby is a small one where your word is pretty much everything. It won't take long for word to get around the hobby completely of what happened. That can cost buyers far more than the cost of repayment.

 

I can't imagine letting someone screw me over on a deal and walking away without trying everything.

[Ironmandrd]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

He trusted him that much I guess ?

Uh uh. He wanted to make the deal that much. Mike is a closer. Taking partial immediate payment and handing off the piece on the spot "closes" iffy deals. Mike knocked 20% off too, and then gave up the piece with payment terms. Mike is a closer. I'm sure ninety-nine out of a hundred times Mike does this, the remainder comes through. The buyer is more obliged -piece in hand- to follow through where otherwise, in the face of not having enough cash- they'd walk away. When it doesn't happen in the agreed timeframe, Mike should just go right to small claims court. Not that doing so recovers payment, but it does create a legal and public trail. It also burns the other party though, which is not what closers really want to do. (That's why Mike hung on for five years here and ten plus for Jusko.)

 

Self-financing and letting it drag on quietly for years, without writing off the loss and moving on, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I think if you're going to take the risk to keep volume up, you have to expect a certain loss percentage, and build that into your overall business plan.

 

How does Mike being patient but still trying to pursue a collector who owes him more than de minimis money (a collector who has been around awhile and is known by many, is an art seller on Ebay and is seen at most NY/NJ shows) a negative on Mike? Why should Mike have to write-it off? It's not like the guy disappeared and is no longer in the hobby. And it's not as if the guy didn't actually take the art so in the end, there was no option of Mike just refunding him the payment he made and they both could have moved on.

[comix4fun]

Why do sellers deliver the item before payment has been fully received? And if the buyer demands to receive the item before making full payment, why doesn`t that make the seller suspicious as hell?

He trusted him that much I guess ?

Uh uh. He wanted to make the deal that much. Mike is a closer. Taking partial immediate payment and handing off the piece on the spot "closes" iffy deals. Mike knocked 20% off too, and then gave up the piece with payment terms. Mike is a closer. I'm sure ninety-nine out of a hundred times Mike does this, the remainder comes through. The buyer is more obliged -piece in hand- to follow through where otherwise, in the face of not having enough cash- they'd walk away. When it doesn't happen in the agreed timeframe, Mike should just go right to small claims court. Not that doing so recovers payment, but it does create a legal and public trail. It also burns the other party though, which is not what closers really want to do. (That's why Mike hung on for five years here and ten plus for Jusko.)

 

Self-financing and letting it drag on quietly for years, without writing off the loss and moving on, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I think if you're going to take the risk to keep volume up, you have to expect a certain loss percentage, and build that into your overall business plan.

 

How does Mike being patient but still trying to pursue a collector who owes him more than de minimis money (a collector who has been around awhile and is known by many, is an art seller on Ebay and is seen at most NY/NJ shows) a negative on Mike? Why should Mike have to write-it off? It's not like the guy disappeared and is no longer in the hobby. And it's not as if the guy didn't actually take the art so in the end, there was no option of Mike just refunding him the payment he made and they both could have moved on.

 

 

All true.

 

The part about still being in the hobby...showing up at the same shows as Mike and avoiding him...selling the artwork he didn't yet own without fully paying Mike...posing and glad handing with other dealers at conventions where Mike can see him...that's what's brazen in this whole thing.

 

 

[vodou]

Self-financing and letting it drag on quietly for years, without writing off the loss and moving on, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I think if you're going to take the risk to keep volume up, you have to expect a certain loss percentage, and build that into your overall business plan.

 

It sounds like Mike has been trying to collect on this debt the entire time, not letting it "drag on quietly". There's a difference between "drag on quietly" and diligently pursuing the debt without making it public. Just because it's gone five years and Mike is just now making it public doesn't mean Mike hasn't been diligent.

 

You think selling artwork and expecting full payment is having one's cake and eating it too? I think it's expecting all parties to perform what they contracted to do and keep their word.

 

Why should Mike write it off? Because the buyer has successfully dodged him for a certain length of time?

 

Court is a last resort. Mike has not yet exhausted all his non-legal options. The one he is employing here is one of the most effective at his disposal. As Mike says, this hobby is a small one where your word is pretty much everything. It won't take long for word to get around the hobby completely of what happened. That can cost buyers far more than the cost of repayment.

 

I can't imagine letting someone screw me over on a deal and walking away without trying everything.

Oh come on. What part of sending e-mails and whatever other means for five years and not getting responses (per Mike) is not "drag on quietly"? As soon as the other guy stops talking to you, the jig is up. Anybody familiar with collections knows this.

 

Just because you do everything you can to please your customers is no guarantee that you’ll be paid for your efforts. According to the Commercial Collection Agency Association, after 30 days past due, the chances of being paid drop to 89.9%; after six months, there’s only a 52.1% chance of being paid. From: http://blog.fundinggates.com/2014/05/happens-taxwise-dont-get-paid/

 

I don't have a problem with Mike embarrassing Matthew publicly, except the way Mike has done it does open himself up to risk of libel. Better imo to have a judgement in hand already, publicly sticking to those facts only.

 

No I think giving up the art without payment in full is eating it too. This is a very obvious closer's sweetener, an aggressive sales tactic. Knowing this doesn't mean Mike deserves to lose, but it should not surprise anyone (least of all Mike) that it can and will happen. Of course every deal should be honored and legal remedies should be a last resort. Mike being a smart businessman should know that every day is not sunny, and have a plan to deal with that. I don't think five years and watching the art change hands, is any plan at all.

 

*Not material to this example, but further to Mike's willingness to extend himself at great risk: I think many of us that have been around for a good long while remember when Mike "rented" (with no intention of selling) a complete Romita LA ASM story to another collector for a year. At the end of the year the other collector paid Mike off for the story instead of returning it. That is not what Mike wanted, but it was the best he could get in the face of knowing the story wasn't coming back. This was a long time ago, my memory may be a bit off on the details but that's the gist of it. There are other examples like this too, not all are public, so I won't go further, but Mike does things most of us would consider "odd" to keep the action going, and has been and will get burned on occasion. No excuse for the dishonorable behavior of various other parties but.. Again a smart businessman (like Mike, that is not in question) will price these occasional losses into the larger business model and take whatever deductions against gains are allowable for tax purposes too. Not five years later or ten years later but one year or two (I guess?), while still relevant.

 

Trying everything? Sure. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise.

 

Even though we all want to believe Mike (what's not to believe, right?), it is very much now a matter of he said/she said as very few, especially outside the hobby, will understand Mike giving up $4,000 worth of art without payment in full. Though a legal grey area, there is that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" thing in people's minds. Imagine telling this story to your non-hobby friends, co-workers, spouses...it's just bad business, unless the good business it brings in far outweighs the bad! (Which was my real point - take the risk, knowing the upside is great and bountiful, but price the downside in to mitigate real losses.)

[eewwnuk]

sorry to hear. and he got a good discount ontop of that!

[vodou]

How does Mike being patient but still trying to pursue a collector who owes him more than de minimis money (a collector who has been around awhile and is known by many, is an art seller on Ebay and is seen at most NY/NJ shows) a negative on Mike? Why should Mike have to write-it off?

You guys should try reading for content, or maybe it's me? I wasn't clear enough?

 

It's a negative on Mike the same way it's a negative on me if I leave wad of cash on the kitchen table while a team of contractors is going in and out all day when nobody is home. Just not smart, at least not if you expect the wad to still be there!

 

Mike should write it off, I mean technically on his tax return, because one should always take every legal deduction one can.

[comix4fun]

Though a legal grey area, there is that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" thing in people's minds. Imagine telling this story to your non-hobby friends, co-workers, spouses...it's just bad business, unless the good business it brings in far outweighs the bad! (Which was my real point - take the risk, knowing the upside is great and bountiful, but price the downside in to mitigate real losses.)

 

 

You mean like when you buy a house, a car, items on credit cards, or anything else where you get the product now in promise for payment later?

 

"possession is 9/10th of the law" only works if the owner can prove he owns the item he possesses. The paper trail of what's been paid and what's owed blows up that cliche almost immediately.

 

Honestly, I am not sure what the point of telling mike to write it off is. I don't really care what Mike did or didn't do to collect this debt before. The buyer seems to be very active in the hobby.

[Ironmandrd]

How does Mike being patient but still trying to pursue a collector who owes him more than de minimis money (a collector who has been around awhile and is known by many, is an art seller on Ebay and is seen at most NY/NJ shows) a negative on Mike? Why should Mike have to write-it off?

You guys should try reading for content, or maybe it's me? I wasn't clear enough?

 

It's a negative on Mike the same way it's a negative on me if I leave wad of cash on the kitchen table while a team of contractors is going in and out all day when nobody is home. Just not smart, at least not if you expect the wad to still be there!

 

Mike should write it off, I mean technically on his tax return, because one should always take every legal deduction one can.

 

It's you.

 

*edited to add the bold.

[comix4fun]

How does Mike being patient but still trying to pursue a collector who owes him more than de minimis money (a collector who has been around awhile and is known by many, is an art seller on Ebay and is seen at most NY/NJ shows) a negative on Mike? Why should Mike have to write-it off?

You guys should try reading for content, or maybe it's me? I wasn't clear enough?

 

It's a negative on Mike the same way it's a negative on me if I leave wad of cash on the kitchen table while a team of contractors is going in and out all day when nobody is home. Just not smart, at least not if you expect the wad to still be there!

 

Mike should write it off, I mean technically on his tax return, because one should always take every legal deduction one can.

 

 

What?

 

You can only write off a bad debt if it was counted as income already on the balance sheet.

 

You really think a contract for the sale of artwork with specific amounts due for specific artwork is "leaving cash on the kitchen table". It's an really poor analogy.

 

People do deals all the time where one party performs before the other. Simultaneous complete performance is very rare. Everyone is trusting the other party to keep their promises in businesses of all kinds.

 

 

[comix4fun]

 

I don't have a problem with Mike embarrassing Matthew publicly, except the way Mike has done it does open himself up to risk of libel. Better imo to have a judgement in hand already, publicly sticking to those facts only.

 

 

How exactly? If Mike's account is accurate and true, how exactly has he opened the door to libel?

 

I'm very interested in what analysis you used to arrive at that potentiality.

[theflashunc]

 

I don't have a problem with Mike embarrassing Matthew publicly, except the way Mike has done it does open himself up to risk of libel. Better imo to have a judgement in hand already, publicly sticking to those facts only.

 

 

How exactly? If Mike's account is accurate and true, how exactly has he opened the door to libel?

 

I'm very interested in what analysis you used to arrive at that potentiality.

\

 

I found this strange too. While I'm not a libel and media lawyer, I have spent my fair share of time studying the matter. There's all sorts of variations in the law by country/state/etc on libel/slander/defamation, but the'res a common thread for all of it. If what the party is saying is true, there is no libel being committed.

 

So if what Mike is saying is true and can back it up (ie: Invoice on partial payments, emails reminding this gentleman to pay, etc etc), then there is no libel claim. Pure and simple. He can keep posting this till the cows come home.

[comix4fun]

 

I don't have a problem with Mike embarrassing Matthew publicly, except the way Mike has done it does open himself up to risk of libel. Better imo to have a judgement in hand already, publicly sticking to those facts only.

 

 

How exactly? If Mike's account is accurate and true, how exactly has he opened the door to libel?

 

I'm very interested in what analysis you used to arrive at that potentiality.

\

 

I found this strange too. While I'm not a libel and media lawyer, I have spent my fair share of time studying the matter. There's all sorts of variations in the law by country/state/etc on libel/slander/defamation, but the'res a common thread for all of it. If what the party is saying is true, there is no libel being committed.

 

So if what Mike is saying is true and can back it up (ie: Invoice on partial payments, emails reminding this gentleman to pay, etc etc), then there is no libel claim. Pure and simple. He can keep posting this till the cows come home.

 

 

Yep.

 

Just because something's negative, or embarrassing, or something the person doesn't like to hear doesn't mean you can sue. There are pretty specific rules and criteria.

[vodou]

Though a legal grey area, there is that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" thing in people's minds. Imagine telling this story to your non-hobby friends, co-workers, spouses...it's just bad business, unless the good business it brings in far outweighs the bad! (Which was my real point - take the risk, knowing the upside is great and bountiful, but price the downside in to mitigate real losses.)

You mean like when you buy a house, a car, items on credit cards, or anything else where you get the product now in promise for payment later?

 

"possession is 9/10th of the law" only works if the owner can prove he owns the item he possesses. The paper trail of what's been paid and what's owed blows up that cliche almost immediately.

 

Honestly, I am not sure what the point of telling mike to write it off is. I don't really care what Mike did or didn't do to collect this debt before. The buyer seems to be very active in the hobby.

Well I think you know you're mixing a lot of different things up together as the same when they are not. Proving legal title can be complicated. Notes for real estate and cars are secured obligations. Credit card transactions generally aren't. Buying art from a dealer in cash at a convention and then later being told by the artist it was stolen from the studio or he wasn't compensated by the selling rep...very complicated. Or try being the artist in that scenario - also very complicated to "prove" you didn't sell it for cash! Any variation of these scenarios with little/no paper trail on either end, the sort we all engage in regularly at shows, very complicated. Mostly we all rely on the general honesty of those we transact with, all good until it isn't. So what? When talking title without paper trail, possession carries some weight. If not, everything you "own" is subject to seizure at any point in time unless you can provide legal transfer of title. As if the courts aren't clogged up enough as it is.

 

What's the big hangup on the write-off (tax deduction) aspect? Whenever Mike crystallizes the debt as uncollectible, it's a loss to the business. Duh. Like you guys don't file tax returns or something??? I've never had to do it myself, but I'm sure there is a window that closes after a certain period of time, whether that's up to or greater than five years..? I don't know, but $2,000 is still $2,000, better to get some (deductible) value out of the thing rather than none. Okay so now somebody will argue that Mike may still shame Matthew into paying up in full (or at least more than the deductible value) -best not to crystallize the loss yet, okay. Good. My real point here is figuring out if this is going to happen within a year or two (or whatever the deduction limitation is, if it exists) and moving forward. Back to "drag on quietly" we are now. Waiting five years to go public with the shaming, basically the last resort imo, is not the way to get 'er done.