• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

Started by romitaman,

151 posts in this topic

vodou

vodou

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

Is it accurate and true? Depends on the quality of Mike's documentation. Maybe Mike has this, maybe he doesn't. If not, he said/she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
koollectablz

koollectablz

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

Is it accurate and true? Depends on the quality of Mike's documentation. Maybe Mike has this, maybe he doesn't. If not, he said/she said.

 

You seem incredibly vocal in this matter?

 

You've said your piece, we get it.

 

You got a horse in this race or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

Speaking of mixing in a lot of things that don't apply. lol

 

So now Mike saying he has a paper trail and invoices and emails back and forth equals you comparing his deal to transactions without any paper trail?

 

Clouding the facts that Mike sold art, Matt promised to pay, Mike performed his end and Matt didn't, with scenarios about phantom artists and art reps and stories that don't apply to the very simple transaction Mike laid out here seems to be placing disproportionate blame on the only person that actually performed fully.

 

What's the big hangup on the write-off (tax deduction) aspect?

 

 

It was mostly to highlight another opinion you've forwarded (like the aforementioned "libel" suggestion ) that seems to be questionable and cloud the simple and basic points that only one person here didn't get what due to him. Tax deductions for bad debt require that the amount was already claimed as income. Tax deductions for theft require proof that the item was removed from your control with criminal intent at the outset.

 

Basically, the hangup on the write off is the person who owes the money is still in the hobby, still active, still attending conventions, the focus should be on the person who failed to pay and not the seller who's only fault was believing that someone with whom he had actively traded and dealt would continue to do so in good faith.

 

I guess I can't see how putting so much of this on Mike, or suggesting letting someone walk away with thousands of dollars is the best thing to do, is a position anyone would want to advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Different business are organized different ways. I have no idea how Mike has his business organized, how he booked the sale and partial payment of the cover five years ago matters. Sort of doesn't matter though, I'm sure Mike's accountant is on top of it. We're just puffing smoke here. I guess ya'll like to let things fester and linger or at least support those that do. I don't. Life is too short. Mike is aces in my book, I just wouldn't have suffered Matthew for five years that's all. Mike's choice to do so.

 

Correct trust is everywhere all day long. And art (and stamps, and coins) on approval has been around for a long time. Cut through the noise though, and it is cash on the kitchen table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

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

Is it accurate and true? Depends on the quality of Mike's documentation. Maybe Mike has this, maybe he doesn't. If not, he said/she said.

 

 

It's a red herring.

 

You throw out a comment like "Mike risks libel" with nothing to back that up.

If you meant "If Mike's lying he risks libel" that might make sense, but that's not what you said.

 

What you wrote applies to pretty much everyone, everyday, with everything they write, email, post, or publish...everyone "risks libel" if they are lying and critical of someone...so it's a red herring as it applies Mike unless you are saying Mike is lying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Different business are organized different ways. I have no idea how Mike has his business organized, how he booked the sale and partial payment of the cover five years ago matters. Sort of doesn't matter though, I'm sure Mike's accountant is on top of it. We're just puffing smoke here. I guess ya'll like to let things fester and linger or at least support those that do. I don't. Life is too short. Mike is aces in my book, I just wouldn't have suffered Matthew for five years that's all. Mike's choice to do so.

 

Correct trust is everywhere all day long. And art (and stamps, and coins) on approval has been around for a long time. Cut through the noise though, and it is cash on the kitchen table.

 

Still the worst, and least accurate analogy so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted

Well since I've been called out for being so vocal (err no more so than Chris though??), point taken I'll fade back. I'm only affiliated with Mike for having done many deals over many years. No affiliation or transactions with Matthew. My opinions have been expressed, though poorly (ha ha) and through bad analogy (ha ha ha)...all good. Hope Mike gets his money, and wish he'd get 2010 purchasing power too not just nominal. If you visit my home, I'll have to frisk you before allowing you to leave. Sorry ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
You throw out a comment like "Mike risks libel" with nothing to back that up.

If you meant "If Mike's lying he risks libel" that might make sense, but that's not what you said.

 

What you wrote applies to pretty much everyone, everyday, with everything they write, email, post, or publish...everyone "risks libel" if they are lying and critical of someone...so it's a red herring as it applies Mike unless you are saying Mike is lying.

 

Oops. Yes you are correct, it's an internet board, I meant that but didn't fully write it. For sure "risks" only. Not knowing any of the parties on a close personal basis, or anybody that way on this board for that matter, I have no idea who's lying and who isn't, now or at any time. I'm certainly not saying Mike is lying, I really don't know one way or another. But really I don't trust most people most of the time. My default is skeptic requiring substantial proof, no blind respecter of degrees, titles, reputations. Guess that's just me too :)

 

But really enough. Okay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted

Mike:

In all seriousness, this deal took place in New York. Why not bring him to small claims court here in New York and get a judgement for your money? If you need some legal advice send me a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
You throw out a comment like "Mike risks libel" with nothing to back that up.

If you meant "If Mike's lying he risks libel" that might make sense, but that's not what you said.

 

What you wrote applies to pretty much everyone, everyday, with everything they write, email, post, or publish...everyone "risks libel" if they are lying and critical of someone...so it's a red herring as it applies Mike unless you are saying Mike is lying.

 

Oops. Yes you are correct, it's an internet board, I meant that but didn't fully write it. For sure "risks" only. Not knowing any of the parties on a close personal basis, or anybody that way on this board for that matter, I have no idea who's lying and who isn't, now or at any time. I'm certainly not saying Mike is lying, I really don't know one way or another. But really I don't trust most people most of the time. My default is skeptic requiring substantial proof, no blind respecter of degrees, titles, reputations. Guess that's just me too :)

 

But really enough. Okay!

 

 

lol Okay.

 

I get the default position thing. I come from a default position of looking for the equity in the situation first. It makes it difficult to see faults in people who perform when there's a non performing walking away with art/cash he should not equitably have.

 

I get what you are saying though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dano

Dano

Posted
Posted

This is sad news. But I'm glad to know this guy's name. The OA community is so small - it's good to be aware of the deadbeats.

 

I hope to make a deal with Romitaman one day, and his patience and good will make me even more hopeful!

 

All the best with this situation.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Joe

Doc Joe

Posted
Posted
if handshakes meant anything these days id have some AMAZING stuff in my collection.

 

the handshake-down

 

 

its irritating for those of us who do appreciate time payments; I'm trying to think if I have ever been given the art before fully paying?

 

But also why not go up to him at the show? Why wait for him to come to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
I'm glad that the community is small and forces people to keep their name and reputation in good standing.

Yes. But does it? Matthew's got the usual interesting fare up on eBay right now, are those bids being withdrawn to put pressure on him to make Mike whole? I hope so! My experience is many (but no, not all) collectors put art before ethics, it's sad, but it has been my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing