Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs

[Bill Pritchard]

From this morning's Arizona Republic newspaper...

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2009/12/11/20091211corvette1211.html

[Kim_Howie]

Sad part is his Insurance co. paid him for it back then ,and own it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[jannes_z-28]

We have discussed that before. As a "foreigner" I can't understand why the country with the most lawyers in the world hasn't yet solved this matter.

I can't believe that a car can be driven around for years with title and insurance, paying tax probably too for it and no authority can see that it is a stolen vehicle.

Isn't it time for you guys to call a senator in this matter.

The reason I speak on this matter is because a lot of people who buys car for export is stopped in the US customs,
who is one of few US authorities that has access to the NICB records, were they discover that it is a stolen vehicle.

FYI It could not happen in Europe!

Jan

[ORIGLS6]

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't it time for you guys to call a senator in this matter.



[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif Yeah, let's get our government involved; that'll fix the problem!


http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

[COPO 70 RS/Z28]

If I were him I'd take the thing out and

"DRIVE IT LIKE I STOLE IT"

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

[SSJunkie68-69]

[ QUOTE ]
Sad part is his Insurance co. paid him for it back then ,and own it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the article, a Judge awarded the original owner the fully restored car. The insurnace company does not own it. Chalk one up for the little guy~ http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

Plus the car has only 12K miles on it.

[al8apex]

the car was bought by my neighbor from a dealer in CA in June of 2009

the previous owner had it titled and registered in CA for the last 19 years

it was "totaled" in a garage fire 10 years ago

it was rebuilt

it is a 65 FI convertible

the dealer that sold it to my neighbor "jumped" the title

the court hearings started in early November

my neighbor was out the $65k until it was awarded last week and he DID get a check from his insurance company ...

way back when it was stolen, the owner let his insurance lapse

supposedly he was never compensated, that is why he got it back

the car WAS recovered in Chicago in 1970 and sold at a sheriff's auction

WHY they never bothered to contact neighboring states about it is hard to say ... there is a lot of murky facts surrounding that aspect of this car

my neighbor has been through the wringer on this as he did nothing wrong

the NICB report did NOT have it listed, only the fire "total"

CA was fine with the car, title, etc

IF the buyer of the car lived in CA and re-registered it there, it would have still been there ... it had a good CA title and was still registered there

the scary part is that a car CAN be registered and have a good paper and even for 19 years without anything happening

bottom line is beware when buying cars, even those with good paper ...

oh, the 12k miles are pure BS, maybe 12k from the restoration, but the car was not a "survivor" in any stretch of the imagination

[Bill Pritchard]

The wording in the article is kind of funny, but I took it to mean that it had only been driven 12K miles since it was reported stolen. The article does not say if he had theft insurance on it at the time it was stolen, so who knows if any insurance company was involved back then or not. You would assume there was on a car only 5 yrs old, but you never know.

It seems to me like there have been a rash of these old theft recoveries lately...I wonder if there has been an improvement in access to some national database recently http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

EDIT: oops, I see I was typing at the same time Jim provided many pertinent facts http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[al8apex]

[ QUOTE ]
The wording in the article is kind of funny, but I took it to mean that it had only been driven 12K miles since it was reported stolen. The article does not say if he had theft insurance on it at the time it was stolen, so who knows if any insurance company was involved back then or not. You would assume there was on a car only 5 yrs old, but you never know.

It seems to me like there have been a rash of these old theft recoveries lately...I wonder if there has been an improvement in access to some national database recently http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

EDIT: oops, I see I was typing at the same time Jim provided many pertinent facts http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

the car was worth maybe $1000 in 1970

no one wanted an FI (they were being yanked off and carbs put on), no one wanted an "old" Corvette, the Sharks were out, everyone wanted one of those

regarding the databases, it appears so ...

[JChlupsa]

no one wanted an FI (they were being yanked off and carbs put on),

[/ QUOTE ]

I know wheres theres two never mounted GM boxed (sealed) ones and 2 complete used ones sitting next to the new ones. if the guys house ever catches fire im going in for parts he can get himself out http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TXZS]

Jeff, if you will give me the address, I will get the FI units out before the fire. Tex

[Kim_Howie]

Tom, I am sure the guy turned the claim in back then and was paid by his Ins. Co. Another case where the Insurance co. got SCREWED again by a lawyer. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[al8apex]

he had let his insurance lapse

he got zip

[Kim_Howie]

OK I didn't read that part. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[Fast67VelleN2O]

Am I the ONLY person to think that this is complete bs that it has to be returned to the original owner? A year ago in the news there was a woman who's father purchased a 65 or 66 Mustang coupe for her and she owned it since 1971. It was suddenly "found out" that it was stolen and it had to be returned to the original owner. I would completely fight that in court. Anyone who owns a vehicle that long should not have to just give it up regardless of its history. "Grandfather clause" should be in effect. This seems to be the same case. The original person that it was stolen from should not be given the car back.

[Kim_Howie]

Must be http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
the car was bought by my neighbor from a dealer in CA in June of 2009

the previous owner had it titled and registered in CA for the last 19 years

it was "totaled" in a garage fire 10 years ago
it was rebuilt

it is a 65 FI convertible

the dealer that sold it to my neighbor "jumped" the title
It is impossible for a dealer to "jump" title. Dealers don't put titles in there name, that is why titles have an area for dealer reassignment. It lets the DMV know where the car was between the guy that traded it and the new buyer when it is titled in his name. Now the previous owner that had it when sold to the dealer MAY have jumped title, but that is of no concern to the dealer as long as the guy selling it has a legal bill of sale and the title is signed by the owner of record on the title and itr is notorized if required.
When you buy a car from a dealer if you were able to do a title search you would only see the previous owner. If you had deeper access to DMV records it would show the dealer that sold it between you and that other owner, but you would already know who YOU bought it from.



the court hearings started in early November

my neighbor was out the $65k until it was awarded last week and he DID get a check from his insurance company ...
My GUESS would be that HIS insurance company will be looking to the dealer for reembursment.



way back when it was stolen, the owner let his insurance lapse

supposedly he was never compensated, that is why he got it back

the car WAS recovered in Chicago in 1970 and sold at a sheriff's auction

WHY they never bothered to contact neighboring states about it is hard to say ... there is a lot of murky facts surrounding that aspect of this car

This is the "hole" in the system that was discuss in another thread here recently. There apparently is no sharing of information of stolen cars between the NCIB and the state DMVs. There should be a database with all stolen cars V.I.N. that could be cross checked everytime a title changes hands and it would remedy all of this.



my neighbor has been through the wringer on this as he did nothing wrong

the NICB report did NOT have it listed, only the fire "total"

CA was fine with the car, title, etc

IF the buyer of the car lived in CA and re-registered it there, it would have still been there ... it had a good CA title and was still registered there

the scary part is that a car CAN be registered and have a good paper and even for 19 years without anything happening

bottom line is beware when buying cars, even those with good paper ...
EXACTLY. When you are dealing with an old car unless you have a history chain back to the original owner your are well advised to make two phone calls. One to the DMV office you plan to title it in, and the other to the NCIB. The same question for both, "has this car ever been reported stolen?"



oh, the 12k miles are pure BS, maybe 12k from the restoration, but the car was not a "survivor" in any stretch of the imagination

[/ QUOTE ]

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the ONLY person to think that this is complete bs that it has to be returned to the original owner? A year ago in the news there was a woman who's father purchased a 65 or 66 Mustang coupe for her and she owned it since 1971. It was suddenly "found out" that it was stolen and it had to be returned to the original owner. I would completely fight that in court. Anyone who owns a vehicle that long should not have to just give it up regardless of its history. "Grandfather clause" should be in effect. This seems to be the same case. The original person that it was stolen from should not be given the car back.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the original owner's "grandfather" rights"

I am guessing you have never had a car stolen that was not covered by insurance.
I have and I can tell you that it is not a pleasent feeling.

The law is very clear, if you are in possession of stolen property it is to be returned to the rightful owner. In fact, you CAN be thrown in jail for having possession of it. Ususally the only people that happens to are ones the authorities can prove they KNEW it was stolen when they bought it.

Is it a sad situation for an unknowing buyer? Absolutely. However, as I said in my previous post, "When you are dealing with an old car unless you have a history chain back to the original owner your are well advised to make two phone calls. One to the DMV office you plan to title it in and the other to the NCIB. The same question for both, "has this car ever been reported stolen?""

Sure the owner that has to return it to the original owner can fight in court, but the fight should not and will not be with the original owner, nor should it be, he has already had enough grief over the car. The fight should be with the person that sold it to the person that had to give it up. This can create a chain reaction back to the person reponsible for the theift or at least to someone that took possession knowing it was stolen. Judges can ask for confidential title info in this case, however many states only retain this info for a certain period of time.

[Bill Pritchard]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who owns a vehicle that long should not have to just give it up regardless of its history. "Grandfather clause" should be in effect. This seems to be the same case. The original person that it was stolen from should not be given the car back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt, I think you need to go back and read all the facts that Jim Rohn provided about this situation, and I doubt you will have the same opinion you voiced above.

[southernfriedcj]

Why don't they run the VIN each time a car is titled, registered, transferred or tagged?

[al8apex]

[ QUOTE ]
the dealer that sold it to my neighbor "jumped" the title
It is impossible for a dealer to "jump" title. Dealers don't put titles in there name, that is why titles have an area for dealer reassignment. It lets the DMV know where the car was between the guy that traded it and the new buyer when it is titled in his name. Now the previous owner that had it when sold to the dealer MAY have jumped title, but that is of no concern to the dealer as long as the guy selling it has a legal bill of sale and the title is signed by the owner of record on the title and itr is notorized if required.
When you buy a car from a dealer if you were able to do a title search you would only see the previous owner. If you had deeper access to DMV records it would show the dealer that sold it between you and that other owner, but you would already know who YOU bought it from.

[/ QUOTE ]

the dealer had it "on consignment" and never touched/reassigned/whatever the title, the check was made to the dealer but the title came directly from the consignor ...

[ QUOTE ]

[b]my neighbor was out the $65k until it was awarded last week and he DID get a check from his insurance company ...
My GUESS would be that HIS insurance company will be looking to the dealer for reembursment.

[/ QUOTE ]

his insurance company had investigators working on it from day one, reimbursement is unknown from ??? the dealer needs to lose his bond and go to jail for tax evasion too ...

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the dealer that sold it to my neighbor "jumped" the title
It is impossible for a dealer to "jump" title. Dealers don't put titles in there name, that is why titles have an area for dealer reassignment. It lets the DMV know where the car was between the guy that traded it and the new buyer when it is titled in his name. Now the previous owner that had it when sold to the dealer MAY have jumped title, but that is of no concern to the dealer as long as the guy selling it has a legal bill of sale and the title is signed by the owner of record on the title and itr is notorized if required.
When you buy a car from a dealer if you were able to do a title search you would only see the previous owner. If you had deeper access to DMV records it would show the dealer that sold it between you and that other owner, but you would already know who YOU bought it from.

[/ QUOTE ]

the dealer had it "on consignment" and never touched/reassigned/whatever the title, the check was made to the dealer but the title came directly from the consignor ...

[ QUOTE ]

[b]my neighbor was out the $65k until it was awarded last week and he DID get a check from his insurance company ...
My GUESS would be that HIS insurance company will be looking to the dealer for reembursment.

[/ QUOTE ]

his insurance company had investigators working on it from day one, reimbursement is unknown from ??? the dealer needs to lose his bond and go to jail for tax evasion too ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No real rules for a dealer that takes consignments as they are only acting as a "salesman" and if they never owned the car then they never had title to it. The transaction in the eyes of the law was between the owner/seller and the new buyer.

No reason to sue the dealer then. I don't know the specifics and why you would think the dealer was evading taxes?

Then Your neighbor's insurance company will probably be looking to the seller for reimbusememnt for selling a stolen car. As I said previously, this usually starts a chain reaction backwards.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't they run the VIN each time a car is titled, registered, transferred or tagged?

[/ QUOTE ]

They SHOULD, but there is still a hole in the system because the NCIB holds all the stolen car records for stolen insured cars and do not allow stat DMV offices access to their database. If they did these car would show up when trying to transfer title with the original V.I.N. intact.

[al8apex]

no taxes were paid by the buyer ...

[SuperNovaSS]

Jim,

Your friend had to know that the dealer was keeping themself out of the deal when he bought the car. I imagine there was a conversation involving making the car cheaper if the dealer was left out of the deal, etc., etc.

[al8apex]

he just was told that was how he could avoid paying sales tax in CA ...

the check was made to the dealer ... not the buyer

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
no taxes were paid by the buyer ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did this transaction take place in Arizona or California? As an AZ. resident you certainly know there is no tax paid on a private party sale, right? This WAS a private party sale and the dealer acting as a salesman is not under any obligation to collect any tax.

If the car was sold on a bill of sale in California but DELIVERED in AZ. there STILL is no tax due. These types of deals have been taking place legally for years.

[al8apex]

he bought it in CA

He made the check out to the dealer in CA (Sacramento?)

He had it delivered to AZ

the issue came up when he had produced the paperwork for AZ DMV, they didn't match

He did not have a receipt from the name on the title, only from the dealer and there was no reassignment of the title by the dealer

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
he bought it in CA

He made the check out to the dealer in CA (Sacramento?)

He had it delivered to AZ

the issue came up when he had produced the paperwork for AZ DMV, they didn't match

He did not have a receipt from the name on the title, only from the dealer and there was no reassignment of the title by the dealer

[/ QUOTE ]

I was the Director of Fleet Sales for Brown & Brown Nissan and sold 1000s of cars to autobrokers in the surrounding states. When you are trying to pay minimum tax (as taxes are different state to state) you can have a car transported to the state with the tax advantage and pay the tax there as it is DELIVERED there.

It would depend on how the receipt was written from the dealer. If he showed it as a consignment then he was simply orchastrating the passage of title for the seller. If AZ DMV had a problem with this they would have asked for a bill of sale from the owner of record. It would be up to the DMV offical to make the call. The main thing they would consider is the title and who's name it was in and if it was prpoerly signed off on. My GUESS would be that the buyer complicated things by providing a bill of sale for the car, which is not necessary to transfer the title from private seller to private buyer. Showing a bill of sale written on a dealers invoice WOULD raise a red flag for taxation in this case, but from what you have laid out here it is all "explainable."

[al8apex]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I suppose so

AZ DMV can be picky

it was difficult because of the way it was done I guess, THEN they got the news that it was stolen (39 years prior), then the police were called and everything went to "hell in a handbasket" real quick.

They weren't allowed to get anything of theirs out of the car (cell phone, water bottle, PURSE, etc) until the police arrived

the car was left OUTSIDE in the impound yard all summer (Yeah, a restored Corvette convertible sitting in the AZ summer sun and dust and monsons), apparently the inside storage is only for drug dealers cars ... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[talwell]

Here is another example of the same story - VW found after being stolen 35 years ago. In this case the insurance paid the owner for the car and it was given to the insurance company.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125790137076542665.html