Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28

[resto4u]

There are cars out there with only original firewall pieces, copo camaro, yenko duece, ZL-1, yenko camaro, and on and on. Right or wrong, the guy can do what he wants.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Your example is perfectly legal as a repair, provided the VIN has not been removed from the original car (in the center).

NICB maintains records on people, driving records, motor vehicles, any past claims on them, especially fraudulent activity, etc. Anything that would affect the rights/remedies of an insurance company is added to the database and cross referenced by the VIN or biographical information. In other words, you can bet an insurance company would be interested if they are insuring a car for $600k that is worth only $150K due to VIN tampering/rebodying.
Did you read my response to your earlier post? I guess not. You have no actual experience with Federal law. I do. You can either believe what I tell you from my experience or not. I don't really care.

It's people who don't follow legal advice, that I make my living, dealing with.

I'm done. Anything more and I bill for my hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im response to all of this:

1. If you look at the areas of my post on page one that are bolded it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.

2. The B-J $600K rebody sale example shows that the bidders apparently didn't CARE that the car was rebodied and therefore by its sale proves that. Price guides for these old cars that lenders and insurance companies use for determining value are compiled from auction results and reporting old car dealers. The value of THIS car creates it's own comparible with it's sale at auction WITH full disclosure. There were multiple buyers (obviously) involved in the sales since it was an auction.

The whole point of this example is to show that the price of the car was NOT effected by the fact that it was a rebody. The car burned in a fore. The owner salvaged what they could. They bought another donor body and made one car of the remains of two. The same way that wreck rebuilders do from cars they purchase from insurance company sales.

3. Did you read the copy and paste from the Dynacorn FAQ section of their web site regarding the use of an existing V.I.N. plate for their replacement bodies? Do you think that maybe they had some pretty good legal advise on this issue?

4. Yes, I read yours and all others in this thread word for word. You don't know me or what my experience is so let me tell you. I spent 30 years in the auto business. I have seen every type of title senario there is. It was one of my jobs to watch for cars being traded that had problems e.g. stolen cars, V.I.N. tampering, etc. I was involved in the leader ads that were run in print, radio, and TV. I have had MANY conversations with the State's attorney general about what is legal and what is not. I personally had a 1966 Corvette that was stolen and recovered that the V.I.N. tag was removed and destroyed by the theives during the time it was missing. I was able to LEGALLY have an accurate reproduction V.I.N. plate made and re-installed on the car. So, I am familiar with these matters from a very professional, personal, and legal standpoint.

4. I know as an attorney it is your nature and job to argue your point, look for ways to twist and portray the law to the out come you are looking for. An attorney's OPNINON is just that, and the same for an opposing attorney on the other side of a case. I guess you can consider ME the other attorney in this case. It is a JUDGE'S job to listen to both sides and review the existing law and case law of other cases and make a decision based on the facts. It is pretty easy to see that the V.I.N. tampering law was created to thwart auto theives and chop shops and not effect restorers, repairers, and wreck rebuilders. The Federal law makers apparently thought enough about these law abidding citizens to write the exceptions to the law as spelled out on my post on page one to protect those people.

5. Maybe I should be the one sending a bill for legal advise. Oh, wait, that would be illegal for praticing law without a license.

Seriously, as I stated at the top of my opening post, I am not trying to influence you or anyone else with this information, but rather inform people as to what the law says. It is very clear to me that the INTENT of the law was to thwart CRIMINALS not the old car hobby. When it is all said and done the vlaues of these rebodied cars will seek their own value. The B-J Cuda example is just that, an example to the hobby of how some buyers don't consider it a problem. I have a long post saved regarding the perpetual rebody/restoration arguement that shows both sides of it, if you or anyone else is interested I can post it here.

[njsteve]

[ QUOTE ]


Im response to all of this:

1. If you look at the areas of my post on page one that are bolded it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.


[/ QUOTE ]


You seem to be basing your opinion completely on the above statement.

You are incorrectly interpreting the statute. No where in the Federal Statutes that you cite does it say that MOVING the VIN to another body is a legally permissible exception. I have yet to find a State statute that specifically permits it either. Have you?

The Federal statututory exception addresses removing the VIN during a repair, to affect that repair and then refers to replacing it on THE SAME vehicle during that repair process. It never mentions MOVING it somewhere else.

You have some very intelligently stated opinions, but as even you said, that is all they are, opinions.

As a restorer, I would rather err on the side of not facing the possibility of civil lawsuits or criminal penalties than err on the side of looking over my shoulder for the cops (less likely) or some disgruntled purchaser with a flock of lawyers for the next 10 years (far more likely).

If you really want to have a rebody exception to the Federal stautes, someone has to put that into a bill form and run it through their senator or congressman. I hereby nominate you to do that. That would settle the argument once and for all and I could finally put down my keyboard and mouse forever.

[x Baldwin Motion]

[ QUOTE ]
......... it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.


[/ QUOTE ]


and the allowance is.....
"maximum penalties of 42 years in prison"


Ok, time for my warm milk and a nice cozy bed. And nobody named bubba wanting to rub my feet!!

[beater68427]

I really did not want this to get to a personal issue, I usually like looking for rust free cars and on this venture I found the other end of the story a very original untouched car but rusty as all could be, I have never built a rebodied car but I feel this car would be the only way, I was curious on opinion, and well.. got more than needed... I have my own opinions as well, as to U.S. welded Taiwan bodies and U.S. marketed import parts but will keep them to myself... scamers will be scamers and due diligence when buying...

[njsteve]

Sorry that 73 Z didn't work out for you.

Heck, I wish there was a law against people leaving these cars out to rust away to nothing and refusing to sell them to someone who could save them before it was too late. I think we all have a guy or two near us who has one of those cars melting away in the side yard.

We could call it The Felonious Abandonement of Restorable Treasures (FART) Act. Punishable by the forfeiture of the car to the nearest enthusiast with a demonstratable ability to restore the car back to its original condition.

[67BelAir427]

Steve, I appreciate your excellent explanation of the law relating to rebodied cars. I think a permanent thread with your comments would be great. Every time the topic comes up I am amazed at the number of people who mistakenly think the practice is acceptable, legal, and ethical. Marc

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Im response to all of this:

1. If you look at the areas of my post on page one that are bolded it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.


[/ QUOTE ]


You seem to be basing your opinion completely on the above statement.

You are incorrectly interpreting the statute. No where in the Federal Statutes that you cite does it say that MOVING the VIN to another body is a legally permissible exception. I have yet to find a State statute that specifically permits it either. Have you?

The Federal statututory exception addresses removing the VIN during a repair, to affect that repair and then refers to replacing it on THE SAME vehicle during that repair process. It never mentions MOVING it somewhere else.

You have some very intelligently stated opinions, but as even you said, that is all they are, opinions.

As a restorer, I would rather err on the side of not facing the possibility of civil lawsuits or criminal penalties than err on the side of looking over my shoulder for the cops (less likely) or some disgruntled purchaser with a flock of lawyers for the next 10 years (far more likely).

If you really want to have a rebody exception to the Federal stautes, someone has to put that into a bill form and run it through their senator or congressman. I hereby nominate you to do that. That would settle the argument once and for all and I could finally put down my keyboard and mouse forever.

[/ QUOTE ]




I am interpeting the statuate as written. The REPAIR can be many different things depending on the condition of the subject vehicle and what it needs to effect that repair. If the dash, or door, door frame where the V.I.N. is attached needs to be replaced it appears to me to be legal under the law. Who is going to stand there during repair/restoration during this process of the work to determine what was necessary?

People that challenge these things on a particular vehicle would have to be THERE with witnesses at the time it is done to offer any PROOF of what has taken place. Very hard to PROVE in court if it ever got this far. Personally, I applaude the people that step forward and tell the truth about what they have done.

I would much rather have a car that was restored with a donor body, parts/model specific switching, rather than one that was RESTORED by welding togather a bunch of donor parts on a body that was full of rust and tweeked in an accident. That car is a train wreck waiting to happen in a future accident.

Well, the below underlined verbage spells it out for me. As you know, anyone can take anything to task in court, but I believe the below (from the Federal law) speaks for itrself.

a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair

a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law

if that person is the owner of the motor vehicle, or is authorized to remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the decal or device by— (i) the owner or his authorized agent

The thing we have to keep in mind for the HOBBY is the INTENT of the law. If you legally own BOTH cars and there are no stolen parts involved, then this is considered RESTORATION and has nothing to do with what the law was INTENDED for which is to twart car theives and chop shops.

Then there is the answer from Dynacorn that clealy state the expect many people to use their EXISTING V.I.N. on the new bodies they sell.

[njsteve]

A successful criminal prosecution or civil action does not require a human witness to the crime having occurred. Enough physical and/or circumstantial evidence is, in most cases, more than often enough to surpass the minumum standard - in a civil action which is the preponderance of the evidence, and in a criminal action, beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors just love that CSI stuff these days. They just eat it up. One of these cases would involve all sorts of cool toolmark and trace evidence testimony. Imagine someone's entire toolbox being used to convict them when they match the microscopic scratch marks on the back of the VIN plate to that favorite screwdriver in the top left drawer.

As for Dynacorn, they only refer you back to your local state statutes, their FAQ section would be of no precedential legal value in court.


By the way did anybody see this, just hot off of the CNN newswire:

"The leader of a group of African-American converts to Islam was fatally shot Wednesday, federal authorities said.
Luquman Ameen Abdullah was one of 11 men charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit federal crimes, including theft from interstate shipments, mail fraud to obtain the proceeds of arson, illegal possession and sale of firearms, AND TAMPERING WITH MOTOR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, the FBI said in a news release."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/...ing/index.html

[RichSchmidt]

Thats why if you are going to do this,get the right body{close to date correct and maybe even the same color} and do it right.Drill out the spot welds on any panel that has a hidden vin on both cars,weld the panels back together with the numbers on which car you want them,grind and work the metal to look flawlessly original,and then media blast the entire area so that the handiwork is undetectable.it can be done.If all else fails,use the firewall from the rusty car and graft it into the donor body.Keep your mouth shut and never tell ANYBODY.Good luck.