Like Tree0Likes

Kachina Boats

Reply
Old 04-10-2009, 08:28 PM
  #1
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: GLOC
My Boats: 31 SC Formula, 06 Z21 Ranger, 00 Hurricane
Posts: 30
Default Kachina Boats

anyone on here own a kachina?????? lookin at a 34 bolero.......:ernaeh rung004:
2INDAPINK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 08:53 PM
  #2
Registered
 
RebarBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Grove, Oklahoma
My Boats: 05' Cobalt 343, 28' Cigarette (sold), 91' Ciglett, 08' Tahoe 215, plus some other crap.
Posts: 1,783
Default

Isn't the blue one - here on grand a 34?
RebarBox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 08:56 PM
  #3
VIP Member
VIP Member
 
PARADOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
My Boats: Formula 272 Sold, 26 Infinity, 4 sale, 08-33' Avanti 4SALE
Posts: 2,697
Default

Checked them out some time ago. West states,, lake boat sort of.. nice looking.. but... I would do some serious research...
PARADOX is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 08:57 PM
  #4
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: GLOC
My Boats: 31 SC Formula, 06 Z21 Ranger, 00 Hurricane
Posts: 30
Default

what blue one
2INDAPINK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 08:59 PM
  #5
Registered
 
Anarchy Powerboats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Phoenix, Havasu, Newport
My Boats: www.anarchypowerboats.com
Posts: 3,060
Default

K. Alan Holcomb, SBN 018404
LAW OFFICES OF K. ALAN HOLCOMB, P.C.
208 E. Woodman Dr.
Tempe, Arizona 85283
Telephone: (480) 456-5194
Facsimile: (602) 532-7078
E-Mail: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

KENNETH W. KIRKALDY, a single man,

Plaintiff,
vs.

KACHINA BOATS, INC., an Arizona Corporation,

Defendant, )))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

(Breach of Contract, Fraud, Misrepresentation)




Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, for his Complaints against the Defendant, states and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned, was a resident of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County.
2. Defendant Kachina Boats, Inc., is an Arizona Corporation, authorized to do and doing substantial business in the State of Arizona, Maricopa County.
3. All actions complained of herein occurred in Maricopa County, State of Arizona, making jurisdiction proper in this Court.
4. Venue is proper in this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On or about March 11, 2005, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement, entitled “Customer Purchase Order” (“The Contract”) with Defendant Kachina for the purchase of a 2006 34’ Boat, Drone-closed bow model (“The Boat”). Plaintiff later added some upgrades to The Boat via a supplemental “Customer Purchase Order” dated April 12, 2005.
6. At the time The Contract was signed by both parties, Defendant Kachina promised Plaintiff that The Boat would be delivered no later than May 30, 2005 (Memorial Day Weekend).
7. Despite its promise to deliver The Boat no later than May 30, 2005, Defendant Kachina failed to deliver The Boat until August 11, 2005 – 73 days late, thus forcing Plaintiff to miss the majority of the 2005 boating season.
8. In a scheme to fraudulently obtain the full financing of The Boat prior to its actual delivery date, Defendant Kachina, by its employee Shannon Heustess, told Melissa Blake-Kidd of Essex Credit that the boat was finished and ready for delivery by May 30, 2005.
9. Acting in reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentations by Defendant Kachina, Essex Credit tendered approximately $94,270.00 to Defendant Kachina on or about May 24, 2005.
10. Plaintiff was thus required to make loan payments to Essex Credit in July and August, 2005, during a period when he did not have possession of The Boat.
11. During manufacture of The Boat, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Kachina had put used parts on The Boat – namely used canopies/windshields, kick plates (and other items).
12. When Plaintiff confronted Defendant Kachina about it having put used parts on the new Boat, Kachina at first denied the allegation, but later admitted the same and then removed the used parts (or some of them), replacing them with new parts.
13. However, due to the new canopies having different mounting brackets, the hull of The Boat has been damaged by having additional holes drilled in the hull to fit the new canopies on The Boat.
14. Kachina Employee Brett Campbell disclosed to Plaintiff the used canopies/windshields that had been put on the new Boat – and as a result, Defendant Kachina fired Mr. Campbell for disclosing Kachina’s fraudulent behavior (Kachina apparently re-hired him later).
15. After confronting Defendant Kachina about the used parts that had been put on the boat, the owner of Kachina, Louie T. Majors, directly threatened to further stall delivery of The Boat unless Plaintiff paid an additional $25,000 to “cash out” an additional agreement that was made in exchange for professional services from Mr. Kirkaldy in exchange for a trade for additional discount for The Boat.
16. After Plaintiff informed Louie that he was obtaining counsel to address this attempted extortion, Louie backed away from his illegal threat.
17. Suspecting problems and shoddy workmanship on the manufacture of The Boat by Defendant Kachina, on August 25, 2005 Plaintiff hired Southwest Passage Marine Surveys, of Tucson, Arizona, to conduct a survey of The Boat (“The Survey”).
18. The Survey indicates that Defendant Kachina has poorly manufactured The Boat and that The Boat suffers from numerous defects.
19. The Survey concludes that “The findings above (in The Survey) indicate poor workmanship and a lack of attention to detail in the manufacture of this vessel. . . . the imperfections and damage found in the gel-coat are so widespread as to require a complete rework of the foredeck of the vessel.”
20. The Survey further concludes “The vessels’ imperfections have severe financial implications on its present and future worth (value). It is assumed that few buyers would wish to purchase this vessel, as is, without a severe discount.”
21. The Survey also indicates that the structural integrity of The Boat may be compromised due to Defendant Kachina’s poor workmanship.
22. Indeed, the survey states “It should be noted that if the underlying fiberglass and wooden sections have many imperfections or pockets, any collision or grounding would produce greater damage to the hull than would normally occur and which may have severe consequences to the safety of the passengers.”
23. The survey also lists several mechanical problems with The Boat and indicates that several systems do not work or do not work correctly.

COUNT ONE
Breach of Contract
24. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein.
25. There was an offer, acceptance, and consideration to support the contract between the parties.
26. Defendant Kachina has breached its contract with Plaintiff resulting in damages for needed repair costs, loss-of-use damages, and diminution of value of The Boat.
27. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01, as this matter arises out of contract.
COUNT TWO
Consumer Fraud
28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations, as though fully set forth herein.
29. Defendant Kachina sold Plaintiff a product, The Boat, which does not meet the workmanship standards of the boating industry.
30. Defendant used deception, deceptive practices, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of material facts to induce Plaintiffs to purchase The Boat.
31. Defendant actions violate A.R.S. 44-1522, of the Consumer Fraud Act. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been damaged as previously mentioned.
COUNT THREE
Common Law Fraud
32. The foregoing allegations are relied upon as if set forth fully herein.
33. Defendant Kachina made financial representations to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s lender, Essex Credit, regarding the promised delivery date of the boat.
34. Defendant Kachina made representations to Plaintiff that he was receiving a new boat, but The Boat had some used parts installed on it.
35. Some of the representations made by Defendant Kachina were false.
36. The representations were material and were sufficiently important to influence Plaintiff’s decisions and lender’s decisions in the transaction.
37. Plaintiff and his lender did not know that the representations were false.
38. Plaintiff and his lender relied on the representations by Defendant Kachina.
39. Plaintiff and his lender were reasonable in relying on Defendant Kachina to provide true and correct information regarding delivery date of The Boat.
40. As a result of the untrue statements and a delay in the delivery of The Boat, Plaintiff has been damaged.
41. Defendant Kachina’s conduct was intentional or reckless and was committed with an evil mind, guided by an evil hand, such that punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate against it in order to punish it and to deter such future conduct.
COUNT FOUR
Misrepresentation
42. The foregoing allegations are relied upon as if set forth fully herein.
43. Defendant Kachina made financial representations to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s lender, Essex Credit, regarding the promised delivery date of the boat.
44. Defendant Kachina made representations to Plaintiff that he was receiving a new boat, but The Boat had some used parts installed on it.
45. Defendant Kachina provided Plaintiff and his lender with false or incorrect information, or omitted or failed to disclose material information.
46. Defendant Kachina intended that Plaintiff and his lender rely on the information provided and it provided the information for that purpose.
47. Defendant Kachina failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to Plaintiff.
48. The representations were material and were sufficiently important to influence Plaintiff’s decisions and lender’s decisions in the transaction.
49. Plaintiff and his lender relied on the representations by Defendant Kachina.
50. Plaintiff and his lender were justified in relying on Defendant Kachina. to provide true and correct information regarding The Boat.
51. As a result of the untrue or incorrect information and a delay in the delivery of The Boat, Plaintiff has been damaged.
52. Defendant Kachina’s conduct was intentional or reckless and was committed with an evil mind, guided by an evil hand, such that punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate against him in order to punish him and to deter such future conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendant as follows:
A. For actual and consequential damages, for breach of contract, in an amount to be proved at trial;
B. For loss-of-use damages;
C. For diminution of value damages;
D. For Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01, as this matter arises out of contract;
E. For punitive and exemplary damages for Defendant Kachina’s willful and reckless conduct;
F. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate allowed; and
G. For such other relief at law or in equity as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED this April 10, 2009.


LAW OFFICES OF K. ALAN HOLCOMB, P.C.




_______________________________________
K. ALAN HOLCOMB, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff

Last edited by Anarchy Powerboats; 04-10-2009 at 09:05 PM.
Anarchy Powerboats is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 09:04 PM
  #6
Registered
 
Magnum25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cincinatti,OH
My Boats: Velocity,Trophy
Posts: 481
Default

Magnum25 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 09:09 PM
  #7
Registered
 
Anarchy Powerboats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Phoenix, Havasu, Newport
My Boats: www.anarchypowerboats.com
Posts: 3,060
Default

We had a 2 day bench trial which was focused on entirely on the gel coat issues which I was awarded 5K, the whole thing was a cluster f#ck start to finish. A nightmare to work with.
BTW a friend told me a good joke the other day. Do you know what the word "Kachina" means in the native American tongue? NO RESALE VALUE hahahahahahahahaha. I'm stuck with my piece O chit............
Anarchy Powerboats is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 11:11 PM
  #8
Registered
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nor-cal
My Boats: 07 commander signature
Posts: 35
Default

Will 5k fix the problems with the boat ? It doesn't sound like it
rshrp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2009, 01:02 AM
  #9
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
My Boats: 2000 Powerplay 25'
Posts: 467
Default

Everything I ever read about them seemed to state average to poor build quality.
Powerplay25 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2009, 01:07 AM
  #10
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Ona-Mission's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tampa, Fl.
My Boats: boatless
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by METAL BROS RACING View Post
K. Alan Holcomb, SBN 018404
LAW OFFICES OF K. ALAN HOLCOMB, P.C.
208 E. Woodman Dr.
Tempe, Arizona 85283
Telephone: (480) 456-5194
Facsimile: (602) 532-7078
E-Mail: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

KENNETH W. KIRKALDY, a single man,

Plaintiff,
vs.

KACHINA BOATS, INC., an Arizona Corporation,

Defendant, )))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

(Breach of Contract, Fraud, Misrepresentation)




Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, for his Complaints against the Defendant, states and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned, was a resident of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County.
2. Defendant Kachina Boats, Inc., is an Arizona Corporation, authorized to do and doing substantial business in the State of Arizona, Maricopa County.
3. All actions complained of herein occurred in Maricopa County, State of Arizona, making jurisdiction proper in this Court.
4. Venue is proper in this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On or about March 11, 2005, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement, entitled “Customer Purchase Order” (“The Contract”) with Defendant Kachina for the purchase of a 2006 34’ Boat, Drone-closed bow model (“The Boat”). Plaintiff later added some upgrades to The Boat via a supplemental “Customer Purchase Order” dated April 12, 2005.
6. At the time The Contract was signed by both parties, Defendant Kachina promised Plaintiff that The Boat would be delivered no later than May 30, 2005 (Memorial Day Weekend).
7. Despite its promise to deliver The Boat no later than May 30, 2005, Defendant Kachina failed to deliver The Boat until August 11, 2005 – 73 days late, thus forcing Plaintiff to miss the majority of the 2005 boating season.
8. In a scheme to fraudulently obtain the full financing of The Boat prior to its actual delivery date, Defendant Kachina, by its employee Shannon Heustess, told Melissa Blake-Kidd of Essex Credit that the boat was finished and ready for delivery by May 30, 2005.
9. Acting in reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentations by Defendant Kachina, Essex Credit tendered approximately $94,270.00 to Defendant Kachina on or about May 24, 2005.
10. Plaintiff was thus required to make loan payments to Essex Credit in July and August, 2005, during a period when he did not have possession of The Boat.
11. During manufacture of The Boat, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Kachina had put used parts on The Boat – namely used canopies/windshields, kick plates (and other items).
12. When Plaintiff confronted Defendant Kachina about it having put used parts on the new Boat, Kachina at first denied the allegation, but later admitted the same and then removed the used parts (or some of them), replacing them with new parts.
13. However, due to the new canopies having different mounting brackets, the hull of The Boat has been damaged by having additional holes drilled in the hull to fit the new canopies on The Boat.
14. Kachina Employee Brett Campbell disclosed to Plaintiff the used canopies/windshields that had been put on the new Boat – and as a result, Defendant Kachina fired Mr. Campbell for disclosing Kachina’s fraudulent behavior (Kachina apparently re-hired him later).
15. After confronting Defendant Kachina about the used parts that had been put on the boat, the owner of Kachina, Louie T. Majors, directly threatened to further stall delivery of The Boat unless Plaintiff paid an additional $25,000 to “cash out” an additional agreement that was made in exchange for professional services from Mr. Kirkaldy in exchange for a trade for additional discount for The Boat.
16. After Plaintiff informed Louie that he was obtaining counsel to address this attempted extortion, Louie backed away from his illegal threat.
17. Suspecting problems and shoddy workmanship on the manufacture of The Boat by Defendant Kachina, on August 25, 2005 Plaintiff hired Southwest Passage Marine Surveys, of Tucson, Arizona, to conduct a survey of The Boat (“The Survey”).
18. The Survey indicates that Defendant Kachina has poorly manufactured The Boat and that The Boat suffers from numerous defects.
19. The Survey concludes that “The findings above (in The Survey) indicate poor workmanship and a lack of attention to detail in the manufacture of this vessel. . . . the imperfections and damage found in the gel-coat are so widespread as to require a complete rework of the foredeck of the vessel.”
20. The Survey further concludes “The vessels’ imperfections have severe financial implications on its present and future worth (value). It is assumed that few buyers would wish to purchase this vessel, as is, without a severe discount.”
21. The Survey also indicates that the structural integrity of The Boat may be compromised due to Defendant Kachina’s poor workmanship.
22. Indeed, the survey states “It should be noted that if the underlying fiberglass and wooden sections have many imperfections or pockets, any collision or grounding would produce greater damage to the hull than would normally occur and which may have severe consequences to the safety of the passengers.”
23. The survey also lists several mechanical problems with The Boat and indicates that several systems do not work or do not work correctly.

COUNT ONE
Breach of Contract
24. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein.
25. There was an offer, acceptance, and consideration to support the contract between the parties.
26. Defendant Kachina has breached its contract with Plaintiff resulting in damages for needed repair costs, loss-of-use damages, and diminution of value of The Boat.
27. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01, as this matter arises out of contract.
COUNT TWO
Consumer Fraud
28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations, as though fully set forth herein.
29. Defendant Kachina sold Plaintiff a product, The Boat, which does not meet the workmanship standards of the boating industry.
30. Defendant used deception, deceptive practices, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of material facts to induce Plaintiffs to purchase The Boat.
31. Defendant actions violate A.R.S. 44-1522, of the Consumer Fraud Act. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been damaged as previously mentioned.
COUNT THREE
Common Law Fraud
32. The foregoing allegations are relied upon as if set forth fully herein.
33. Defendant Kachina made financial representations to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s lender, Essex Credit, regarding the promised delivery date of the boat.
34. Defendant Kachina made representations to Plaintiff that he was receiving a new boat, but The Boat had some used parts installed on it.
35. Some of the representations made by Defendant Kachina were false.
36. The representations were material and were sufficiently important to influence Plaintiff’s decisions and lender’s decisions in the transaction.
37. Plaintiff and his lender did not know that the representations were false.
38. Plaintiff and his lender relied on the representations by Defendant Kachina.
39. Plaintiff and his lender were reasonable in relying on Defendant Kachina to provide true and correct information regarding delivery date of The Boat.
40. As a result of the untrue statements and a delay in the delivery of The Boat, Plaintiff has been damaged.
41. Defendant Kachina’s conduct was intentional or reckless and was committed with an evil mind, guided by an evil hand, such that punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate against it in order to punish it and to deter such future conduct.
COUNT FOUR
Misrepresentation
42. The foregoing allegations are relied upon as if set forth fully herein.
43. Defendant Kachina made financial representations to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s lender, Essex Credit, regarding the promised delivery date of the boat.
44. Defendant Kachina made representations to Plaintiff that he was receiving a new boat, but The Boat had some used parts installed on it.
45. Defendant Kachina provided Plaintiff and his lender with false or incorrect information, or omitted or failed to disclose material information.
46. Defendant Kachina intended that Plaintiff and his lender rely on the information provided and it provided the information for that purpose.
47. Defendant Kachina failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to Plaintiff.
48. The representations were material and were sufficiently important to influence Plaintiff’s decisions and lender’s decisions in the transaction.
49. Plaintiff and his lender relied on the representations by Defendant Kachina.
50. Plaintiff and his lender were justified in relying on Defendant Kachina. to provide true and correct information regarding The Boat.
51. As a result of the untrue or incorrect information and a delay in the delivery of The Boat, Plaintiff has been damaged.
52. Defendant Kachina’s conduct was intentional or reckless and was committed with an evil mind, guided by an evil hand, such that punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate against him in order to punish him and to deter such future conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendant as follows:
A. For actual and consequential damages, for breach of contract, in an amount to be proved at trial;
B. For loss-of-use damages;
C. For diminution of value damages;
D. For Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01, as this matter arises out of contract;
E. For punitive and exemplary damages for Defendant Kachina’s willful and reckless conduct;
F. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate allowed; and
G. For such other relief at law or in equity as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED this April 10, 2009.


LAW OFFICES OF K. ALAN HOLCOMB, P.C.




_______________________________________
K. ALAN HOLCOMB, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
im at a loss for words

.
Ona-Mission is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.