Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Stolen cuda found but owner can't get it back


Recommended Posts

Too early to tell . . . not enough information in that story. These things are always a whole lot more involved than a short blurb on the news will disclose. And, they generally don't sound so sensational when you learn the rest of the story.

There's nothing that says a thief can hang onto stolen property after three years. The story indicates the current possessor bought the car in the past few years, not that he stole it.

There are laws making possession of stolen property illegal, and the statutes of limitations don't run during the time the stolen property is 'possessed.'

What makes these situations so complicated is that the current possessor may have made a good-faith purchase of the vehicle from someone he had legitimate reason to believe had bona-fide ownership interest in the vehicle and could lawfully convey title to the current possessor. When the original owner/victim comes forth and attempts to claim the vehicle, litigation is required because both parties have claims under the law and a court must determine whose ownership interest is superior.

There are a lot of factors involved, and if a situation involves a truly innocent buyer, there are two victims, not just one. In most instances, there isn't a great deal of time elapsed between the theft and the third party purchase and discovery/recovery of the vehicle. In those instances, the court often returns the vehicle to the original owner but requires him to reimburse the third party buyer for any repair, upgrade, or improvement investments.

It gets immensely more complicated when you have years ~ or decades ~ of intervening time and/or multiple changes of hands, or significant increase in value (appreciation) rather than typical depreciation.

So, yeah. It sounds sensational and shocking, but there's a LOT more to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes these situations so complicated is that the current possessor may have made a good-faith purchase of the vehicle from someone he had legitimate reason to believe had bona-fide ownership interest in the vehicle and could lawfully convey title to the current possessor.

But the "current possessor" doesn't have the title. He bought the car in an unlawful transaction, because title to the car was never transferred to him–because the car he bought was stolen!

He is in possession of stolen property. The fact that he "bought" it is irrelevant. He can't produce the title, because the original owner has it!

So how is it possible that the original owner, who has the title and is on record as being the owner of the car, is being denied the return of his property? The "current possessor" has a bill of sale, but a bill of sale doesn't prove ownership of the car. The title does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should provide the title and the VIN numbers (If they know them) to the police. Get a warrant for searching Mr. S's house and check out the VIN. If it matches, boom there ya go. Harry you're right, a bill of sale doesn't prove complete ownership. Why would he even bother buying a car without a title? That just creates problems..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with all this screwing around trying to find an "appropriate legal reason" to return the Cuda to the Whites, the current possessor will probly strip the car before this gets sorted out.

True, I can see it happening. Or he'll sell it to someone in another country or state to get it off his hands and then buy it back later...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story says the storage company contacted the original owner (the Whites) of the car by letter, and that they used DMV records to find the Whites. But by the time the letter arrived and the Whites contacted the storage company about getting their car back, the storage company told them that a man (the "current possessor") had paid the storage/repair bills due on the car and had the car delivered to his house. This "current possessor" has a bill of sale that proves he bought the car, but has no title, which would prove he owns the car. The people who do have the title are the Whites.

But the cop's side of the story is that since the statute of limitations on the original theft of the car has expired, they have no way to now issue a warrant and retrieve the car from the "current possessor."

I'm no lawyer, but this seems like a total no-brainer to me. The Whites can prove they are the legitimate owners of the car (they have the title). The "current possessor" is obviously in possession of stolen property, even if he "bought" the car not knowing it was stolen. The "current possessor" has no title to the car, therefore he has no legal ownership. A "bill of sale" proves nothing. I can make up and send you a "bill of sale" for my neighbor's car... but that "bill of sale" doesn't prove that you own it!

I don't get why this isn't clear to the Oregon authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oregon law says you have to title a car within 30 days of purchase. The "current possessor" never did. He has no title, so he has no proof of legal ownership. The Whites have the original title, they have copies of the stolen car report they filed, they even have the keys to the car.

Watch the video at the link I posted... it explains the case very well, even an interview with a Portland cop and his explanation of why the cops can't retrieve the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did watch the video Harry. I was just pointing out about what different states do with older cars.

Now lets look at the report.

First the storage lot contacted a different person other than who was storing the car, this did not draw a red flag to them?

Second before the rightful owners could pick up their car the deadbeat non payer suddenly shows up to pay the bill? If he owed thousands of dollars why would he just show up now?

They should ask for proof that he was the one that stored the car there and for how long. If they can prove the car was at the location from the time it was stolen or at least before the statue of limitations had ran out that would also help in the case.

It just smells of two guys being in on this together. I wonder how many other cars are sitting over there waiting for time to expire on the running clock from when they were stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring up an interesting point. WHO brought the car to the storage garage in the first place?

If the garage staff had a record of who brought it there, they would have contacted that person about the overdue bill. But they contacted the Whites via DMV records... which suggests that the garage had no record of who actually brought them the car and didn't know who the owner is. But if that's the case, why did the garage accept the car without taking the name and number of the person who brought it there? And how did the "current possessor" know where the car is and to go to the garage and pay the bill before the Whites had a chance to respond to the letter the garage sent to them? Seems like the "current possessor" himself either dropped off the car there in the first place... or he knew whoever did.

But who brought the car to the storage garage is irrelevant as far as proof of ownership. As far as I can see, the Whites have proof of ownership, the "current possessor" does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how it got into storage in the first place. Sitton said he bought the car several years ago. Did he put it in storage then? The storage yard would have had the person's name and number who brought the car to them. But they searched and found the proper owner.

My head hurts. We need Perry Mason on the is one.

You beat me to it Harry. lol

Edited by pharoah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who took the car to the storage lot is the key to whomever stole the car in the first place. That is the person that they have to stop from doing it again and again. Not the first car that this person did this with, nor will it be the last. It is as important to stop this person from repeating the crime for the next person or persons. These are not cheap cars so I doubt he started with a car that is that rare to begin with.

If Sitton took this car to the storage garage within a few years of when it was stolen it was done so to hid it out from the police and the rightful owner.

Why this matters , if they start looking around he may have many cars sitting around buying his time so that he can sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Disclaimer: I am not conversant in Oregon law at present (although I have been in the past), and laws change, laws are different from state to state, etc.

Having said that, however, these are NOT unusual situations. These things happen every day. The only reason this one hit the news and registers on the 'what the . . . ' scale is because it involves a classic muscle car and it involves an ancient theft.

I am very sympathetic to the original owner. I had a very similar thing happen to me, and I'm an auto theft investigator!

I know it seems like it should be cut and dried, but it's usually not. That's why this WILL end up in court. There's no other way for it to be resolved.

Yes, the original owner still has a title to the car. That does not mean it's the only title to the car. There are still states where a title can be obtained for a stolen car. Titles get "laundered" all the time or new titles issued on a bill of sale with a bond posted. It's a process to provide for lost or misplaced titles. Some states have more stringent rules than others. And, trust me . . . the bad guys know which states are easy. They just show up with a bill of sale and a story. The state makes an effort (more diligent in some than others) to confirm the bill of sale, but if one guy lies and another swears to it . . . And, being an old, pre-17 digit VIN, it's not going to show up easily. Believe it or not, law enforcement agencies delete stolen vehicle listings periodically.

IF the car was uninsured at the time of the original theft (which I suspect is the case here), the car will drop off computer systems at whatever point in time the law enforcement agency purges its computer files of old, unrecovered stolen vehicles. They all do it, because so many vehicles are stolen and have been stolen that they must at some point dump old files to make room for more thefts. There is a finite limit to storage capabilities.

Insured vehicles are easier to find. The Insurance Services Office and the National Insurance Crime Bureau maintain computer records of vehicles reported as stolen for which insurance claims are made. But they do not keep records of vehicles that are not insured.

Another factor comes into play. If the vehicle was insured, the insurance company pays the insured and the title is signed over (by 'power of attorney' from the insured) to the insurance company. Insurance companies usually submit paperwork to the state motor vehicle department to convert the title from the insured to the insurance company. When they do, the state issues a new title with the insurance company appearing as the owner.

However, two more layers of strange things can happen at this point. One, the insured is not actually required to surrender the title (if it is a title-holding state) to the insurer. The 'power of attorney' form allows the insurance company to take legal title without having the paper title. In this case, the insured may keep the paper title which appears to show him as the owner. The other thing that can happen is that some insurance companies don't change the title over until the vehicle is recovered. They do that to save the expense of MVD title fees in the event the car is never recovered. The longer the vehicle is unrecovered, the longer they hold the paperwork but have not filed it with the state. Stupid? Yeah, but since many stolen vehicles are never recovered, they save some money.

Even stupider is that sometimes they just plain lose the paperwork. But, that's another story.

Another thing to consider here is that even if the original owner still has the original title, he might lose ownership of the vehicle by process of law. For example, if a vehicle is left with a mechanic, shop, or a storage facility, the mechanic/shop/storage facility or towing company may file a lien against the vehicle to recover charges owed. In most states, they have no obligation to find the true owner than to check with the state for the last owner on file, then mail a redemption notice to the owner of record at the address in MVD files. Believe me, despite laws that require people to update their addresses with MVD, a huge percentage never do. A vehicle titled for a long time may have an address the owner has moved from - even dozens of times. The notice goes to the address of record but never gets to the owner. The holder of the lien then files a simple affidavit and gets title to the vehicle in lieu of the unpaid charges (actual or fictitious) since the previously titled owner did not respond, pay the charges, or challenge the lien.

That happens a lot, especially with towing companies. They count on the required notice going to an old or bad address and the actual owner never knowing until after they get the title transferred to them.

Then guess what? They have "legal" title to the vehicle. They can sell it. The buyer gets "legal" title to the vehicle. If he sells it, the next buyer gets "legal" title and so on.

If the vehicle is later discovered to have been stolen at some point in the chain of events, the most recent buyer may very likely have had no clue, but thinks he bought the vehicle legitimately. The actual thief is many layers removed from the current possessor.

For any and all of these reasons (and who knows how many other permutations there are out there), any time there's a challenge as to ownership in situations like these, it will go to a court to decide who has the superior claim to the vehicle.

And none of that even discusses VIN switching or cloning, where the VIN of the vehicle is altered to appear like another vehicle.

We've had a severe problem with these types of situations in Arizona, where stolen vehicles are outfitted with what appears to be a clean title and then sold to an innocent third party. Usually on street corners or Craigslist.

If the third party bought the car for a ridiculous amount or had other clues that would have told a reasonable person that the sale was not on the level, the car will usually go back to the original owner and the third party's ownership interest will be deemed invalid. However, if the third party paid a reasonable amount and legitimately had no reason to suspect it was 'too good to be true,' then the ownership interest may go to the third party. Especially if the vehicle was insured and paid off and the insurance company was the legal owner. Once the original owner was "made whole" by the insurance company, no matter what sentimental attachment was involved, the original owner has no claim to the vehicle. And, courts tend to rule against insurance companies in these matters if they are the titled owner instead of the original owner. If the original owner had no insurance and was just out the car, the courts tend to give the original owner much greater ownership interest than the third party buyer, but it's not guaranteed. It doesn't seem to be as obvious a 'no-brainer' to the courts as it is to you and I.

There are very complex issues involved in these situations, and it takes a lot of investigation to get to the bottom of what's right and what's wrong. Far more investigation - and legal wrangling - than any news bimbo is going to do for a 15 second segment of the nightly news.

Second Disclaimer: There are so very many possibilities involved that a model car forum discussion can go sideways every few sentences. Yes, it seems the original owner should get it back and there should be little discussion. But, there may be extenuating circumstances we don't know about that might persuade even us differently. And, neither the cops nor us are judges. Even lawyers might disagree, but the one, single, solitary judge who has jurisdiction over this case is the only person that will be able to make the call.

Now, I have to get back to work. I have some stolen cars to deal with. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, you raise a lot of good points. But this is where I get stuck: The garage found the Whites via DMV records. Since all they supposedly had to go by is the car itself, I assume they tracked down the owner via the car's VIN... which suggests the VIN had not been tampered with, sice the VIN on the car led directly to the Whites.

So it seems (and I'm no lawyer)... but it seems that since the VIN on the car matches the VIN on the White's title, and the Whites actually have the physical paper title, and they have a copy of the stolen vehicle report they filed, and the "current possessor" has offered nothing to prove he is the legitimate owner... it seems to me to be pretty clear who the rightful owners are.

You're right that if the car had been insured and the Whites had received compensation from their insurance company for their loss, then yes, legal ownership of the car would transfer to the insurance company and even if found, the Whites would no longer "own" the car... but there's no mention of that in the story. It seems like a pretty basic question for the reporter to have asked them... "was the car insured against theft and did you receive compensation from the insurance company after it was stolen?"

Quite a twisted little tale... ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not knowing the whole story on this [as mentioned, can be many sides to this] I will say this,

I don't know what would be worse, losing the car altogether [initial theft]

OR the finding it and not being able to get it back [after all the time that passed].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here's a sorta / kinda type of situation... I once had a '73 Barracuda. I sold it to a buddy-0-mine for $1500, who paid me $1000 and owed me $500. After pretty much trashing it, he offered it back to me in lieu of his owing me $500. I figured it would be better to have the car than to never see my $500, so I took it back with the intent of reselling it to get my money back. I never titled it in my name, agreeing to sell it on my friend's behalf.

I sold the car to a minor who was in the auto shop program in high school and needed a class project. I think I got $1000 for it. I was smart enough to sign the title over to his mother, and to get her to sign a hand written bill of sale. Car was driven on a flat bed and left my house.

A year or more goes by and my buddy gets a citation in the mail for abandoning a car. I called the court and got advise to appear in court and bring the proof of sale. No problem. They also told me that since the title was still in my friend's name, we also had the option of retrieving the car if we paid the fine and all the towing and storage charges. So we went for a look... man it was depressing. The car was nothing more than a shell, wrecked and stripped. All the glass broken out of it and the roof caved in from people jumping on it. Not a car we wanted back.

So we were told to go to the courthouse and ask to see the prosecutor before the session. He was a nice guy who took copies of my sale paperwork, and said that he was glad we had it since he often had to prosecute owners who he believed that they sold the car, but had no proof. Then he was going to file the same charge against the kid's mother. So we sat in the front row of court, and when the judge called the case, the prosecutor stood up and said he declined to prosecute, and the case was dismissed.

Be careful to get papers signed when you sell a car. Too many guys just take the cash and hand the buyer the signed undated title. It was evident that in our case that this kid was tear assing around town in this car, uninsured and with the title still in the previous owner's name. If he had gotten into an accident and people were hurt or killed, you know who would've been sued.

Edited by Tom Geiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...