In response to the request of the court appointed receiver for Jeremy marcus to turn over his luxury BMW, Marcus says he needs it to look for a job.
More specifically, court documents say, “Mr. Marcus turned over his family vehicle, a 2015 Range Rover, to the Receiver without the need for a contested motion. At the time that Mr. Marcus negotiated turnover of the Range Rover, he offered the Receiver the BMW in place of the Range Rover because a) the BMW was valued more than the Range Rover, and more importantly, b) Mr. Marcus needed the Range Rover to transport his infant son. It was explained to the Receiver that the 2015 BMW was a two-door vehicle and that it would be extremely difficult and tight to fit an infant car seat into the back. It was further explained to the Receiver that the family needed at least one car for the duration of this case so that Mr. Marcus could seek and obtain gainful employment and so he could, at the very least, transport his infant son to and from doctor’s appointments.
Despite his obvious need for a family vehicle, Mr. Marcus turned over the Range Rover to the Receiver and somehow managed with the much smaller vehicle. Without the BMW, Mr. Marcus has no means of transportation. The lack of transportation will indubitably impact his ability to take care of his infant son and his household’s basic needs.”
Thank goodness Marcus “somehow managed with the much smaller vehicle” and was able to make do. Jeremy also says he “has been focused on maximizing the funds available for consumer redress. Mr. Marcus is not remotely concerned with having a “luxury” vehicle, as the Receiver alleges, but rather, he is merely concerned with having a single mode of transportation.”
“Mr. Marcus even offered to sell the BMW – the pricier vehicle – and use a small portion of the sales proceeds to procure a small, affordable, non-luxury vehicle simply as a means for transportation. The Receiver ultimately rejected this option.” – Source