Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

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

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

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. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

he had let his insurance lapse

he got zip

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

OK I didn't read that part. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

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.

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

Must be https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...iggthumpup.gif

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

[ 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 ]

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

[ 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.

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

[ 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.

Re: Man Reunited with Stolen Corvette After 39 Yrs
 

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