I think this is a bunch of BS and they should return this couples car, then arrest who ever has it in their possession.
Stolen 1970 'Cuda Found After 14 Years, Still Not Returned to Owner
I think this is a bunch of BS and they should return this couples car, then arrest who ever has it in their possession.
Stolen 1970 'Cuda Found After 14 Years, Still Not Returned to Owner
I've been following this on a Mopar site, the link in the story is interesting.
Man finds car 13 years later, but can
rumor has it that at this point the car has been stripped by the guy that currently posses it.
.
I was not aware of a statute of limitations on the return of stolen property, but there is one for the act of theft. IMO the car goes back to the original owner, who is still the legal owner per the state, but there's no basis for arresting the guy who has the car now. The OE needs to hire an attorney.Quote:
Originally Posted by vara4
or buy a gun
The question I have is. If I have legal in my hand , keys in my hand and the car is on the other side of a fence "What would stop me from going and getting MY car". Certianaly not who's ever yard its in. I'd get MY car and let the courts argue about it.. I do have another question though? Was he reimbursed for the car when stolen (Insurance?) That would make it the Ins. Co. car.
well trespassing would be the first mistake. could legally put a few rounds in you. your trespassing and stealing his car in his mind. only person who will take something from my place is the sheriff with a warrant . anybody else is fair game .
now if you catch it parked somewhere and the keys still works it's a done deal. show the cop the title and registration if they stop you. it is not registered to the other guy but in his possession .
I sure hope the White's can get their car back. The Oregon statute of limitations is bogus. If the White's don't get this car back, I bet Oregon's theft rate will go up. All the dirt bags will be stealing everything and hiding it for 3 years or more.....
Very frustrating! The guy who has it obviously knows it's stolen or he would have provided documentation, and had it legally registered. It would appear that he has deep pockets by the looks of his estate and company. I think a better approach would be to challenge his claim to the stolen vehicle and threaten to have his contractor's license revoked for the possession of stolen property/ethical practices. Charlie make a great point here that if they had it insured and received a payoff from the insurance company, then the car is the insurance company's property. Maybe having the deep pockets of the insurance company pursue the legal battle would be the way to go.
Yup,,don't know how it all works up there,,but here,,if it was stolen,,and the insurance company paid out,,it's no longer their car,,but the insurance company's car..in fact,,they would have no claim to it any more..Quote:
Originally Posted by stovens
That's a piece of the story that's not been told, whether the OE had the car insured or not, and that little issue can totally change the outcome. If he was paid for a theft loss of the vehicle 14 years ago he then lost all claim to the property, regardless who holds it today which would indeed add to the frustration.
A long wait, but sounds like they will have their car back, even though it's missing a few parts! Sounds like that will be a future issue!
The news report said it wasn't insured, so it looks like it's all his. The police have it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by rspears
I listened to Lars Larson (talk show host) interview Lee Sitton, who HAD possession of the car. His justification for having the car is bizarre. Among other statements, he said that "If Richard White had insured the car, it wouldn't be a problem." Essentially, he was transferring the blame to the car owner.
Sounding more & more like Mr Sitton knew well that he was buying stolen property, and that he assumed he'd get away with it due to the statute of limitations on theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Rifle