Special Credit to David Anderson of Collins Einhorn for Making this Article Possible
Throughout our reporting over the years on Park West Gallery's unfair and deceptive trade practices, we have exposed two so-called appraisers that Park West Gallery regularly employs or contracts with, namely Caroline Ashleigh and Bernard Ewell. This article and update will focus on Caroline Ashleigh and what is considered, in our opinion, overwhelming evidence of a pattern of illicit practice. It is a warning to collectors, consumers, and professionals that the performance of due diligence is critically important before retaining any so-called "art industry" professional.
It must be remembered that the art, antique, and collectible industries are completely unregulated and under the umbrella of unregulated activities are art appraisers and art dealers. Just because an art appraiser is affiliated with an art appraisal organization or association, it does not mean that the appraisal organization will oversee or discipline any of its members. In fact, the opposite is true. An appraiser's affiliation with the AAA, ASA, or any other appraisal entity means nothing. These organizations will not and do not police or otherwise oversee its appraiser membership base. It is a misnomer and a danger to rely on any affiliation with an appraisal organization to lend credibility of any kind to a member appraiser's qualifications, character, or any other claimed attribute. Therefore, with no laws, oversight, or checks and balances in place, rogue appraisers and unscrupulous art dealers abound.
Introduction
Caroline Ashleigh has, and continues to advertise her services in a variety of ways: as an appraiser, an art dealer (who accepts collections on consignment), an art broker of sorts, and an online art auctioneer or reseller. Park West Gallery who contracted with Ashleigh, has made it a practice of referring dissatisfied Park West Gallery customers who demand refunds for purported fraudulent and overpriced artwork, including forged Dali graphics, to Caroline Ashleigh, with the representation to the victim that Ashleigh is an "independent appraiser" qualified to evaluate Dali works and a reputable reseller of art and antiques on the secondary market - characterizations that are highly questionable given the solid evidence we have collected on Caroline Ashleigh's experience and her general business practices over the last three years.
The whole idea behind Park West Gallery referrals to Ashleigh (and to Bernard Ewell as well) over the years was to obviously placate and appease the victims, leading them into a false sense of security that what they purchased from Park West Gallery was indeed legitimate in authenticity and price, so that Park West Gallery could avoid refunds. It is also reasonable to assume that Ashleigh received fees from the Park West Gallery referrals. An example, of this is evidenced by the Mike Holfeld investigative report that aired on WKMG Channel 6, in Orlando, Florida, in early 2008 - an investigative report Park West Gallery desperately tried to kill. Ashleigh who has no experience in appraising Dali graphics (her claimed appraisal expertise is fabrics), appeared on camera and verified the value of a Park West Gallery forged Dali graphic, the purchase price of which was later refunded to the victim, Patti Dibella, a resident of Florida.
Further, it has been reported to Fine Art Registry® by reliable Park West Gallery insiders that Caroline Ashleigh once worked for Park West Gallery as an actual "employee" of the gallery and was fired by Albert Scaglione. It was further reported that Ashleigh later returned to Scaglione with an appraiser designation from the AAA, begging that he put her to work appraising Park West Gallery artwork. Though Fine Art Registry contacted Caroline Ashleigh for comment prior to our reporting on her activities with Park West Gallery, she failed to return our call.
Caroline Ashleigh's Business Practices Revealed and Analyzed
The history concerning Caroline Ashleigh and her business practices as they relate to Park West Gallery have been reported extensively on Fine Art Registry, so we will not bother to go into detail on what has already been disclosed. But let it be known that we have a significant amount of information that we have gathered on the questionable business practices of Caroline Ashleigh which were received from a variety of sources and which Fine Art Registry has not yet disclosed publicly, but has definitely shared with Federal law enforcement authorities. It will be in our sole discretion as to whether or not we decide to publish in full everything we know to be true about Caroline Ashleigh so that the public can be informed of potential risks. All of the prior articles and videos concerning Caroline Ashleigh can be accessed through the links provided below:
So let's get to the subject of this rather lengthy article which is the latest news concerning Caroline Ashleigh and what appears to be a serious pattern of abuse when it comes to collectors consigning their art, antiques, and collectibles to Caroline Ashleigh and her company.
There have been a number of lawsuits filed against Ashleigh for accepting clients' property on consignment, promising to sell it for at least a 15% commission or more, and then failing to fulfill her contract. In the cases we have reviewed, not only does she keep or retain the consigned property (by her own admission) for months and months, and in some cases years (which just boggles the mind), it has been reported to us by reliable sources (supported by documentary evidence and first hand witness accounts) that Ashleigh actually uses the clients' consigned property (as creepy as this sounds) to decorate and furnish her own home, using an antique chest of draws, for example, in her bedroom (more on this later in the article).
And if retaining her clients' consignment collections for years on end and using it for her own personal pleasure isn't enough to make one sick to one’s stomach, it is has been reported to us by victims that she has also gifted her clients' consignment property to others without the clients' knowledge, and has also sold pieces from her clients' collections without their knowledge and then months or even years later, when challenged or caught by the client, she refuses to pay the client the proceeds from the sale. Instead of returning the collection or paying her clients the rightful proceeds they are entitled to, Ashleigh instead issues a stern email/letter warning, attaches a concocted invoice in which she claims trumped up expenses and charges that are due from the clients who make a demand for payment or return of their collection - charges which are not supported in any way which we will discuss in detail later in this article.
Selling on consignment and failing to pay the rightful owner for the property is a crime. There are many criminals that have operated in the art industry that have been convicted for exactly the same thing. Tod Volpe is a prime example of this type of art fraud. He is a convicted felon that was criminally charged for taking art on consignment, selling it, keeping the sale a secret from the rightful owner, and retaining the proceeds. He wrote a book outlining his method of operation. Volpe writes in his book, "Framed," the following: "Choosing money over truth, something bad was beginning to happen to me. With a love of beautiful things and the wherewithal to pursue them, how I related to the process of dealing with art was distorted from day one.... Beautiful things had a hold on me and I would become possessed by them."
What kind of so-called professional contracts with a client to sell on consignment (which is a fiduciary responsibility to be taken seriously) and then uses a clients' collection for their own personal use or gain without the clients' knowledge? It is unthinkable that any professional in the industry would knowingly do such a thing. Yet this is exactly what the evidence shows that Caroline Ashleigh has done, and it appears to be habitual. A reasonable person (or a jury) could and probably most likely would conclude given the overwhelming evidence that not only is this type of behavior and conduct unprofessional beyond imagination, but it is quite bizarre and strange on a variety of levels. One could conclude that this type of practice borders on psychosis or fetishism - an excessive attachment to objects or being "possessed" by objects, just as Tod Volpe describes in his tell all book.
According to the evidence Fine Art Registry has on file, this has happened on numerous occasions with Ashleigh's clients. Those individuals we know about are Gwen Yeaman, Sam Lawson, Hollie Bendewald, and most recently, Mark Hay, who filed a lawsuit against Caroline Ashleigh in May 2010. We will focus on the pending Hay case in detail later in this article.
After months and years of clients seeing no movement on Ashleigh's part to sell the consigned collections, the clients rightly start to ask questions concerning the status of their collections and ultimately demand the property be returned, at which time Ashleigh enters another phase of her pattern by turning the tables on the client. She will conveniently cite to her consignment contract, claiming she is owed excessive amounts of money for the time and effort she alleges she put into marketing the collection and/or getting it ready for auction and/or for storage fees and makes demand that the client pay her a "ransom" of sorts in order to have their property returned. What's more, as mentioned above, there never seems to be any hard documentary evidence, receipts, insurance certificates, or otherwise to support her invoiced charges. Actually, it should be the other way around; the clients should charge Ashleigh for her personal use and the wear and tear of their collections - if the clients only knew.
Yes, there is enough litigation that has been filed against Ashleigh alleging the same thing over and over again for a reasonable person to conclude that there is a serious pattern of abuse. But don't take our word for it. Let's look at the hard evidence available and analyze it. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
The Evidence of a Pattern of Consignment Deceit
What follows are accurate examples of Ashleigh's pattern and method of operation which we have discovered in our own research and from what others have provided to Fine Art Registry over a period of years.
Victim Gwen Yeaman
The following excerpts are extracted from portions of the Gwen Yeaman complaint. We also talked directly with the victims involved in this case. What is posted below is just a brief introduction into what we know to have occurred. The whole story is one for the record books. Notice how Ashleigh convinces Yeaman to do all the work - including exhaustive research and written reports on the Indian "bandolier bag" as well as other items in the collection, including research on the values. Ashleigh then communicates to Yeaman that she [Ashleigh] bought the bandolier bag herself "on behalf of their [Yeaman and Ashleigh's] partnership" for a paltry $12,500, then turns around and consigns it to Christie's under her own name, Caroline Ashleigh Associates, rather than the name of the Yeaman/Ashleigh partnership and ultimately yields a hammer price of $110,000, at which time Ashleigh completely denies and repudiates her partnership with Yeaman and refuses to share 50% of the proceeds originally agreed to by Ashleigh. A careful reading of the entire Yeaman lawsuit reveals even more shocking allegations.
During June and July 2004, Ashleigh and Yeaman discussed partnership business during several telephone and e-mail conversations.
During those conversations, Yeaman told Ashleigh that she had received the Zuni Pot, the Navajo Rugs and the Gregory artifacts (collectively, the "bailed* artifacts"), as partnership opportunities.
Ashleigh asked Yeaman to send her photographs of the artifacts in Yeaman's possession, so that Ashleigh could show them to potential partnership customers.
In a later conversation, Ashleigh told Yeaman to deliver the artifacts to Ashleigh's home in Michigan because, according to Ashleigh, the potential buyers need to see the actual items.
Yeaman delivered the bailed artifacts and the Lyton's bandolier bag to Ashleigh's home in Birmingham, Michigan on about July 31, 2004.
Ashleigh accepted possession of the bandolier bag and bailed artifacts and had sole custody and possession of them.
When Ashleigh accepted possession of the bandolier bag, she did so on behalf of the partnership [with Yeaman] and for the purpose of furthering the partnership's ability to find purchasers for the bailed artifacts.
At the time Ashleigh accepted possession of the bandolier bag and bailed artifacts, she knew that Yeaman did not own the bandolier bag or the bailed artifacts.
Ashleigh knowingly or intentionally exerted and continues to exert control over the bailed artifacts. Ashleigh sold some of the artifacts and retained (and retains) possession of others, knowing she had no authority to do either.
On or about September 8, 2004, CAA, Inc. [Ashleigh] sent the Lyton's a check in the amount of $12,500 as proceeds of the sale of the bandolier bag. The Lyton's accepted the check. Also on or about September 8, 2004, Ashleigh notified Yeaman that she had purchased the bandolier bag on behalf of the partnership.
Ashleigh told Yeaman that she would consign the bandolier bag with Christie's on behalf of their partnership. On October 20, 2004, Ashleigh consigned the bandolier bag with Christie's. Ashleigh told Yeaman that she had consigned the bandolier bag on behalf of the partnership. However, Ashleigh now purports to have consigned the bag on behalf of CAA, Inc. [Caroline Ashleigh Associates] On or about January 11, 2005, the bandolier bag sold at an auction at Christie's for a hammer price of $110,000.00. Despite Yeaman's demand, Ashleigh refuses to release Yeaman's 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of the bandolier bag.
On January 5, 2005, Ashleigh sent Yeaman an e-mail in which Ashleigh purported to repudiate the partnership.
In September 2005, Ashleigh informed Yeaman that she had sold about twelve of the twenty-four bailed artifacts [Without getting approval from Yeaman in advance]. The sales prices of those artifacts were far less than the estimated ranges provided by Yeaman in her cultural and historical context reports for those items.
Ashleigh never paid the proceeds or commission from any of these sales to Esten, LaPresto, Gregory, or Yeaman. [What a surprise.]
Ashleigh breached her fiduciary duty of loyalty to Yeaman by, among other things, consigning the bandolier bag in her own name or on behalf of CAA, Inc. [Caroline Ashleigh Associates], refusing to share with Yeaman 50% of the partnership's net proceeds from the sale of the bandolier bag and the bailed artifacts and refusing to return possession of the bailed artifacts to Yeaman and or Esten, LaPresto, and Gregory [other victims].
Ashleigh's actions in failing to return the property belonging to Yeaman, Esten, LaPresto and Gregory and her continued defense against Yeaman's claim for the return of this property is frivolous, unreasonable and groundless.
[*Bailment or "bailed" is the temporary placement of control over, or possession of Personal Property by one person, the bailor, into the hands of another, the bailee, for a designated purpose upon which the parties have agreed. Ashleigh would be considered the "bailee" for purposes of consignment. Ashleigh's years of possession of clients' consignments does not constitute "temporary placement."]
The Yeaman case ultimately settled. It seems to be Ashleigh's method to threaten and to push litigation, but only to a point. It is our opinion that she could not risk going before a jury on any one of these lawsuits filed against her. She usually settles prior to trial as she did in a recent case this year, completely unrelated to what is referenced in this article, in which Fine Art Registry was to testify. Once Ashleigh learned that Fine Art Registry was to testify, Ashleigh ran for the hills and quickly settled the case.
Victim Hollie Bendewald
The next example is Hollie Bendewald. The following email authored by Ashleigh was sent after Bendewald demanded the return of her "Whiskey Dust" collection. It is important to note that Ashleigh made the same claim for expenses against Sam Lawson and Mark Hay, which we will discuss in further detail below:
May 15, 2007
Dear Hollie,
Subsequent to our conversation in New York several weeks ago, I have reviewed the terms of the agreement made between you, Lark Mason and me, as an iGavel associate, as it pertains to the Whiskey Dust consignment. For property that is withdrawn, the seller assumes reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in association with withdrawn lots and/or for a rescinded sale.
Therefore, I have made an itemized list of costs that I have incurred as it pertains to moving and transportation expenses, the lotting of items for auction by my staff, storage and insurance of the collection since the time that you notified me that Brian Cummings and you had decided that you wanted the collection returned. Once I am made whole for my out-of-pocket expenses that I incurred on behalf of the Whiskey Dust consignment, I am pleased to arrange a date with you for your property to be picked up, and a release, signed....
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Ashleigh
Victim Sam Lawson
What follows is an email authored by Sam Lawson evidencing the same pattern of abuse by Ashleigh, accepting collections on consignment, keeping them for years, and refusing to return the collection, then demanding what amounts to a ransom (unsupported charges and expenses), and in Lawson’s case, in excess of $10,000. The email message has been redacted to protect identities:
From: Sam Lawson REDACTED
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:10 PM
To: REDACTED
Subject: Re: funny coincidence
REDACTED.
Yes, she has had my western collection since 25 August, 2007, and won't give it back. She never gave me any values on the items and the items never went to auction. Now, she says she doesn't have some of the items that I delivered and that she signed for...from a list witnessed by a third party. The items missing, I paid over $2,275 for. She sure has made me sick. I lose sleep and my blood pressure soars. I am so sorry for you, REDACTED. Why does she do these things to people?
She treated me like a little kid and not a client. I was always put on the back burner. I couldn't get her on the phone...she'd only contact me after I made the initial contact. I had to get an attorney to try to recoup my things. Still have not gotten anything back. That collection is all I have. She said I could have my collection back if I paid her $10,300. She even went so far as to charge me (in the $10,300 breakdown of charges) for the $20 valet parking tip at Indianapolis at the Canterbury Inn after you guys left here! Another $50 was for her dinner there. Another charge was for two nights at the Canterbury Inn...Gas was $51...
Go on Google and type Caroline Ashleigh. She doesn't know that I know it but she got some BAD publicity regarding an ART AUCTION AT SEA back in April or May of 2008. She had appraised a Salvador Dali "print" at $23,000...This article says that a couple bought the print for $23,000 and a Channel 6 reporter [Mike Holfeld] in Orlando found a similar work from the same series for $5,700. He asked her if she was "inflating" her appraisals for her own benefit. It really makes her look bad. You should go google her name and read that article. She appears to be dishonest from the way it reads. That's just my opinion and how I took it. The article says that Park West Galleries refunded $18,000 to the couple who purchased the print. What gives with her?
Sam [Lawson]
To be sure that Fine Art Registry readers have the full picture, set forth below is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Sam Lawson on October 15, 2008, against Caroline Ashleigh and her business entity. According to the complaint, Lawson had entered into a consignment contract with her on August 25, 2007, which means by the time the complaint was filed, Ashleigh had possession of this poor guy's collection for well over a year. Compare the allegations in the Lawson complaint to Mark Hay's complaint and the complaint of Gwen Yeaman and you will start to get the picture of a pattern of what is, in our opinion, the operation of a very slick, shrewd, and calculating predator. The referenced lawsuits are only the tip of the spear when it comes to Ashleigh's business dealings.
Of particular interest is the letter authored by Ashleigh that is attached as an exhibit to the Lawson complaint, as well as Ashleigh's outrageous and completely unsupported invoice. Is this chick for real? Here is a partial quote from her letter. Look familiar?
"Dear Sam,
I have reviewed your email of September 6, 2008. Although I certainly empathize with your situation, Sam, I cannot forego my fees for services performed by my firm on your consignment.
I took your consignment under the assumption that it would be sold at auction. In so doing, I incurred a substantial amount of fees, which include advertising and promotion expenses, web-site expenses, professional photography, travel expenses, shipping expenses, insurance and storage fees, just to name a few. These figures do not include all of the time I spent speaking with numerous auction houses to place this collection in the correct market, speaking to and corresponding with private collectors, correspondence with you, my travel time to and from Indiana to meet with you, and my meeting with you on August 25, 2007, in Michigan. I bill my time out at an hourly rate of $250.00."
Victim Mark Hay
The following is a discussion on the current egregious claim filed by Mark Hay against Caroline Ashleigh in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan. The complaint alleges fraud and wrongful conversion among other things. Adding insult to Mr. Hay's injury, Caroline Ashleigh had the gall to counterclaim against him, alleging that Hay breached the contract which she cunningly tried to change AFTER the initial agreement just as she tried to pull in the Yeaman case. Mark Hay's deposition, taken recently, couldn't make it more crystal clear::
Q. Some months after the initial agreement, you testified that Ms. Ashleigh sent you some other documents, Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. In any of those documents, were the terms that you had initially agreed to changed?
A. They had been changed.
Q. Can you tell me about that?
A. Yeah. She changed it to, you know, 20% consignment and, you know, fees for photography and fees for – all types of different fees, where, you know, in the original agreement, there were no other fees. Just the 15%.
Q. Did you ever at any time agree to pay Ms. Ashleigh hourly for her services?
A. No.
Ashleigh's counterclaim is nothing more than subterfuge to disguise, camouflage, and cover up her deceptive and mischievous acts. Good luck with your counterclaim, Ashleigh. It is certain to fail.
The bottom line: Ashleigh did not keep her end of the bargain. In fact, it appears that she had no intention in following through on what she promised Mr. Hay. What follows is another excerpt from Mr. Hay's deposition transcript:
Q. What other lies do you claim were made [by Ashleigh]? Are there any?
A. Oh, yeah. I mean, they were just constant lies to me. You know? "Oh, we're going to be selling it," you know. I would be asking her [Ashleigh]: "When are you going to come up with values? When are you doing all this?" And she would always give me these you know, "You know, I'm doing this, and I'm working on this," but nothing ever came through. Nothing.
Alarmed by Ashleigh's failure to provide any definitive answers, Mark Hay became extraordinarily concerned about his collection, as anyone would under the circumstances.
A. I would call her on the phone almost daily, and she would never take my calls.
Then comes Ashleigh's outlandish and completely unsupported list of expenses she claims Hay's owes her - a whopping $26,226. This is nearly three times what Ashleigh claimed Lawson owed her. See Ashleigh's contemptible and laughable invoice posted below. It is a concoction of numbers with zero support for any of what is claimed on her invoice to Hay. No receipts are attached - no breakdown or detail on her absurd hourly billing - nothing. As stated above, Mark Hay should be invoicing Ashleigh for her personal use of his collection, his loss of use, as well as the wear, tear and damage, including a huge charge for devaluation, not to mention interest on the money Mark Hay would have had if she had performed her contract in her capacity as a trusted professional and fiduciary. Hay's trust and good faith in Ashleigh was sadly misplaced and the same is true for Lawson, Bendewald and Yeaman as well as others. This collection belonging to Hay was to serve as his retirement nest egg - after losing his wife. It should also be noted that Fine Art Registry has solid evidence that Ashleigh paid absolutely nothing for the storage of Hay's collection as is set forth further below. The utter audacity of this woman defies description.
After all that Fine Art Registry has reported concerning Ashleigh's involvement with Park West Gallery, as well as the lawsuits that have been filed against Ashleigh and her appraisal company in the past, it is not surprising that Ashleigh is quite concerned about the publicity of the latest lawsuit that has been filed by Mark Hay. As stated above, after Mr. Hay's wife passed away, he decided to sell or liquidate his collection and retire and move to Florida. Ashleigh came to Mr. Hay's home and picked out the items which Ashleigh believed were most valuable and agreed to sell them for Hay on consignment for a flat 15% commission. Ashleigh made a list of Hay's most valuable items and told Hay that she would be selling them from her warehouse in Birmingham, Michigan. Sometime later, Ashleigh, without Hay's knowledge, transferred the inventory to her home she shared with her fiancé in Ohio - some of Hay items being stored in her fiancé's barn located on the property, the remainder used by her personally and/or sold or given away without Hay's knowledge. Ashleigh paid zero in storage fees, yet Ashleigh has the gall to now charge Hay storage and insurance fees (curiously absent are copies of the insurance certs. for the specific items Ashleigh claims to have insured) in excess of $11,500, and other outrageous expenses.
And as long as we are analyzing all Ashleigh's pie-in-the-sky expenses billed to Mr. Hay, assuming any of it is even real which is doubtful, then it certainly would stand to reason that it would be entirely possible for Ashleigh to make an insurance claim for Mr. Hay's loss (as long as she is charging him a sensational $4,500 for the premiums) as the result of her negligence in wrongfully converting, damaging, or otherwise completely compromising and pilfering Mr. Hay's collection. We all know the odds of Ashleigh having actually insured Hay's collection are about as good as being struck by lighting while standing naked in an empty swimming pool on a bright and sunny day. The better odds are that she is charging Mr. Hay for her professional liability insurance coverage which is paying her legal bills for the defense of the Hay lawsuit - at least for now anyway.
Further, without regard for her client, Ashleigh moved his collection from Michigan to Ohio without his permission and without notifying him. Mr. Hay in his recent deposition testified:
"I didn't even know the stuff was gone until she said come out and pick up this Wells Fargo strong box, you know, and I went out there, assuming all my stuff was going to be there, and I would take this one thing out because she said it was too heavy, and I got there, and the warehouse was empty. You know, so then that was the second big lie." [Hay Deposition at p. 76].
What follows is an email, dated August 7, 2007, authored by Caroline Ashleigh signed "Team Tweedy" and addressed to her former fiancé, listing what was to be returned to Ashleigh, the vast majority of which included the Hay collection which was to be picked up from storage and from inside her home in Ohio, which she once shared with her fiancé, and returned to Ashleigh in Michigan, as a result of the breakup with her fiancé. The email has been redacted to exclude the identity and email address of Ashleigh's former fiancé. Of specific note are the references to pieces that were actually being used by Ashleigh without Mark Hay's knowledge. UNBELIEVABLE! Notations like: "18th c. Tiger maple high boy located in master bedroom; Ornate antique sterling silver candelabras on living room mantle; Remington bronze sculpture in living room, and so on. Ashleigh's removal of Hay's collection to an undisclosed location as well as her actual personal use of these items is more than deeply disturbing:
Ashleigh's former fiancé came forward and revealed that for many months, Hay's property was stored by Ashleigh in his barn and in his home, and not in Ashleigh's Birmingham, Michigan, warehouse as she had represented to Hay. Further, when Ashleigh separated from her fiancé, he demanded that her "stuff" be boxed up and moved. His May 9, 2007, email to Ashleigh reads: "I would like to box up your stuff which you have here and your furniture in the house and barn and either have it delivered to you or you pick it up." It is clear from the email correspondence that her fiancé believed that Hay's collection belonged to her.
Even more amazing, is the fact that it has been nearly four years since the collection was returned to Ashleigh. And it has been nearly five years since Mark Hay initially consigned the collection (May 2006), and Ashleigh still has not returned Mr. Hay's property nor has he been paid by Ashleigh for any of what she has apparently sold or for what she used or gifted to others. Ashleigh fully admits all of this in discovery responses sent to Mr. Hay's counsel, as set forth below. Ashleigh admits to selling Hay's property, and makes the ludicrous claim that she did so because Hay "abandoned" the property. Yeah right, and a herd of pigs just flew over Birmingham, Michigan:
8. Admit that you have not given Plaintiff [Hay] any money from the sale of his property.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
11. Admit that you [Ashleigh] still have some or all of Plaintiff's property in your possession.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
12. Admit that you failed to sell all Plaintiff's [Hay's] property which he entrusted to you.
RESPONSE: Denied. Some items were sold.[Yes, indeed they certainly were sold - without Hay's knowledge and Ashleigh kept the proceeds.]
***
[Interrogatory Number] 9. Indicate whether you sold any property belonging to Plaintiff at any time. If so, indicate what property was sold, when it was sold, to whom it was sold, how much it sold for, and who kept the proceeds of the sale.
ANSWER: After Mr. Hay abandoned the property, I sold some of it in accordance with the terms of our agreement.
***
[Interrogatory Number] 19. Indicate whether Plaintiff [Hay] ever offered to pay you an hourly rate for services which were to be provided to him. If so, indicate when this promise was made, where this promise was made, indicate the exact words of Plaintiff [Hay] if possible in allegedly agreeing to hourly payment, indicate the hourly rate, and indicate what services were provided on an hourly basis.
ANSWER: While Plaintiff did not expressly offer to pay an hourly rate, he knew that defendants [Ashleigh] would need to be compensated in some manner (whether by commission or through an hourly rate) for all expenses and fees incurred in connection with the services provided. [So the answer is clearly, No. Hay did not offer or promise to pay Ashleigh an hourly fee. Ashleigh's remuneration was to be a 15% commission on what she ultimately sold - nothing more. The short end of the stick prize goes to Mark Hay. Ashleigh clearly took full advantage of her client and benefited hugely from the commissioned property.]
Interestingly, Ashleigh is being defended by her insurance company. In other words, her insurance company has hired a lawyer to defend her and the insurance company is paying for it. But since the allegations contained in the Hay lawsuit appear to be intentional acts on the part of Caroline Ashleigh, which are usually specifically excluded in an insurance contract or policy, we suspect that the insurance company has agreed to provide a defense lawyer for Ashleigh under what insurance companies term a "Reservation of Rights," which is a notice that even though the insurance company is proceeding to handle her claim, certain losses might not be covered by the terms of the policy - like intentional acts of fraud or other illicit acts. In other words, when an insurance company "reserves its rights," it is putting its insured on notice that it is "reserving" its right to deny coverage at a later date based on the terms of the policy, meaning Ashleigh could personally be on the hook for the Mark Hay damages and presumably attorneys' fees and costs as well.
We have already set forth at the beginning of this article those links to articles and video we have published in the past on the practices of Caroline Ashleigh and her connection to Park West Gallery. It is important to note that all of this was published well in advance of the filing of the Mark Hay lawsuit.
What Prompted This Article
In order to follow the chain of events for the remainder of this article, you may want to take a look at the June 16, 2010, Fine Art Registry video where we reported on the lawsuit filed against Ashleigh by Mark Hay. At this video link, you will also be able to read and review the Mark Hay complaint that was filed against Ashleigh in its entirety. For those who are already up to speed, please feel free to forge ahead.
After what we have reported to date on Park West Gallery along with the so-called art professionals that are, or were, heavily involved in the questionable business practices of Park West Gallery, including Caroline Ashleigh, it's not difficult to imagine that Ashleigh does not want her less than honorable activities exposed publicly. Many lawsuits by victims have been filed against Park West Gallery, including class action lawsuits. It is the Fine Art Registry mission to continue to expose art crime and art fraud and especially as it relates to Park West Gallery's continued bad business practices, and we will continue to do so until changes in the industry concerning these bad business practices are altered for the good of the art consuming public - this includes reporting on those that are intimately involved with Park West Gallery, like Caroline Ashleigh and Bernard Ewell.
Paranoid Gutter Tactics by Caroline Ashleigh and her Lawyer
On or about November 30, 2010, Fine Art Registry discovered that Ashleigh's attorney with absolutely NO defense to the Hay case, pulled a gutter move and filed with the Oakland County Circuit court, a Motion for Protective order requesting that the court issue a "gag" order to "keep Ms. Ashleigh's deposition transcript, as well as all written discovery, confidential and under seal." Ashleigh is certainly not entitled to a protective order - she possesses no trade secrets that we know of that would qualify for protection. Rather, we submit that Ashleigh seeks a gag order because she has plenty to hide! Astonishingly, in the lowest of blows, Ashleigh's lawyer goes on to heave his warped and completely unsupported reasoning for requesting the protective order, laying the blame at the feet of Fine Art Registry, for his client's legal woes:
"The Ashleigh defendants have performed appraisal work for Park West Galleries, Inc. [Yes, Ashleigh certainly has performed a great deal of appraisal work for Park West Gallery - much like an appraisal mill - in our discretion we will disclose all of the evidence we have on this subject at another time in another article.], an art gallery that has been involved in highly-publicized litigation with Fine Art Registries [sic] and its CEO, Theresa Franks. Ms. Franks has been pursuing an unjustified character assassination against Ashleigh defendants on the internet based upon their [Ashleigh's] association with Park West. [Is it "unjustified" to report truth about a potential menace in the art industry or about the unscrupulous business practices of so-called "art professionals"? We don't think so. As far as Ashleigh's character is concerned, we will let the court of public opinion be the judge based on the evidence. Further, Ashleigh had every opportunity to provide Fine Art Registry with her side of the story which we would have gladly published. One would think if she had nothing to hide and was truly "independent", she would have been happy to speak with Fine Art Registry. Notwithstanding Ashleigh's tight association with Park West Gallery (birds of a feather) as her lawyer rightly admits; in the cases of Hay, Yeaman, Lawson, and Bendewald, Ashleigh has created her own horrific mess for which she alone is accountable. The evidence and pattern of her activity speaks for itself.] Recently Franks posted a video where she reads from Mr. Hay's complaint in this case and makes slanderous remarks about the Ashleigh defendants. The allegations in this case have nothing to do with FAR or Ms. Franks; Ms. Franks is simply seeking to harm the Ashleigh defendants. [Any harm that Ashleigh suffers is of her own doing and on her own head. Fine Art Registry only reports the truth which we are certain Ashleigh and her lawyer would like to bury which is why they are seeking a gag order.] There is little doubt that Ms. Franks will unnecessarily read or post selected portions of Ms. Ashleigh depositions transcript to her viewers and mischaracterize the testimony."
Fine Art Registry agrees that the Hay case has ASBOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the litigation between Fine Art Registry and Park West Gallery, which begs the question as to why Ashleigh and her lawyer filed what they filed. Clearly, they have managed to cut off their noses to spite their faces by raising further public awareness about the questionable business practices of Caroline Ashleigh. In reading their request for a gag order, it is clear that Ashleigh's lawyer lifted the language for portions of his diatribe directly from the Park West Gallery legal briefs or, in the alternative (and it is most likely the case), Ashleigh and her lawyer are in collusion with the Park West Gallery lawyers to conspire against Fine Art Registry. It is interesting to note that Ashleigh was once represented by Jaye Quadrozzi of Young & Susser (Park West Gallery's counsel) as it relates to the Mark Hay demand for return of his collection, that is until Fine Art Registry called attention on video to the potential conflict of interest, so it would stand to reason that Ashleigh, her new lawyer, and Park West Gallery lawyers are all in this together. Gee, what a revelation. How many lawyers and sewer legal tactics does it take to stop Fine Art Registry from reporting the truth?
In any event, until this outrageous, defamatory and unwarranted Motion for Protective Order was filed which is clearly a blatant attempt to twist and pervert the truth about the Fine Art Registry and its continued mission to report the truth concerning art crime and art fraud, Fine Art Registry did not contemplate publishing anything further concerning the Hay case, including deposition transcripts. Ashleigh ought not to think so highly of herself. It may come as a shock to Ashleigh, but in our opinion, Ashleigh is relatively low on our radar, and constitutes little more than a wart on the rear of what is in our opinion the biggest art fraud in history. Ashleigh is a mere symptom of the over all problem in the art the industry and its complete lack of regulation.
Ashleigh can thank her attorney, David Anderson, for the necessity of publishing this article and for any future reporting because it is he who chose to baselessly and without provocation attack Fine Art Registry in his recent filing. Dear Mr. Anderson, we don't need or require the Ashleigh deposition transcript in the Hay case in order to report on Ashleigh. No, Fine Art Registry has infinitely more damning information and documentation concerning Ms. Ashleigh and her business practices, which Fine Art Registry could have easily published long ago, much more than could ever be extracted from Ashleigh at her upcoming deposition in the Hay case.
Ashleigh and her lawyer are best served by thinking twice before unfairly, dishonestly and cowardly challenging Fine Art Registry, especially when Fine Art Registry has no dog in Ashleigh's fight - until now any way. No doubt Ashleigh and her lawyer are taking cues from Park West Gallery's lawyers, Young & Susser (which may not be the wisest decision), as Ashleigh's lawyer cowardly cites to Zatkoff's decision in his request for a gag order, taking it completely out of context in a cheap, self-serving maneuver to conceal or cloak Ashleigh's bad business practices as a basis for granting Ashleigh's paranoid request.
So, how did Mr. Hay respond to Ashleigh's whiny request to be "protected?" Well, let's find out.
On December 2, 2010, Fine Art Registry purchased from the Oakland County Circuit Court, a complete copy of Mr. Hay's response to Ashleigh's pathetic Motion for Protective Order along with all the exhibits attached. Fine Art Registry has published the response in its entirety below.
Note: The Response to Ashleigh's Motion for Protective Order is hard hitting and definitely worth the read. The response includes some very interesting exhibits and the very discovery responses that Ashleigh wanted protected.
And lest Ashleigh's lawyer pulls another slick one and tries to bear false witness against Mr. Hay's lawyers before the judge, claiming that they [Hay's lawyers] provided Fine Art Registry with a copy of the response; we pre-empted any possible argument by posting below a copy of the sales receipt sent to us by the Oakland County Circuit Court as proof positive that Fine Art Registry relies on its own research:
Yes, Ashleigh and her lawyer have managed to rudely awaken a sleeping giant. As stated, Ashleigh's counsel admitted that Mr. Hay's lawsuit is not in any way related to the litigation between Park West Gallery and Fine Art Registry. And like all the other lawsuits filed against Caroline Ashleigh, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Fine Art Registry.
Hay, Yeaman, Lawson, and Bendewald (the only one that didn't file suit but was close to doing so) are separate and distinct claims made against Caroline Ashleigh and her company as the direct result of Ashleigh's own appalling conduct. It is beyond the pale for Caroline Ashleigh to blame Fine Art Registry for her legal afflictions; a gutless and spineless act, smacking of desperation for the wrong she knows she committed.
What the evidence shows Ashleigh has done to Mark Hay and others is shameful and indefensible, and she should be held accountable for her actions. In our opinion, Mark Hay's collection has been purloined and in essence his retirement monies stolen. In light of all the evidence, Mr. Hay suffered the ultimate in losses - his dear wife - and then his art and antique collection.
The views and opinions of individual authors/contributors expressed on the FAR® web site do not necessarily state or reflect those views and/or opinions of Fine Art Registry® or its agents or subsidiaries.
View Article Archives
