Court? What a joke. She would loose on the basis that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. It's a cold cruel world out there.Jim
He may legally own it, but she morally owns it.
Then she should at least be paid the amount of money her father paid for it and for all the upkeep such as the two motor overhauls and God knows what else.
Neither she nor her father stole it.
The way the small claims courts are awarding today, You never know. BTW Jim, loose means it is not tight, and lose means to not win. I doubt the original owner can even produce the original paperwok to prove the car is his.
I still think there should be some litigation as to whom the real owner is. She obviously had to have had some legit paperwork to keep registering it year after year while she owned it. I think there is a gap in our understanding about what paperwork was involved when the exchange back to him took place. Or, Maybe Jim is right and that the California DMV is FUBAR.
I have always heard that possession is 9/10 of the law.
I would to have an opinion for this (even though this is an old thread)i think what the child did is very noble though its been years since the car has stolen, but since the car is very old and the child gave the car back to the owner i think the best thing the car owner needs to do is to pay the child some reward...
Used Cars for sale - Ford Mustang classifieds - Forum Camaro FR