Forum > Mustang Discussions

LA man gets his Mustang back after it was stolen 38 years ago

<< < (3/6) > >>

I would agree with the prevailing opinion that something stinks in California.  But before all you folks make up your mind who should have this vehicle I think an in-depth investigation into this vehicle is in order.  Having personally been involved in law enforcement for 30 years I suspect that there is definitely more to this story.  Why not hold off the opinions until the story is told?  Who knows, your current opinion could change after knowing all the facts, instead of all the inferences.

I have always heard that possession is 9/10 of the law.  And, I don't think we are going to hear anymore about this story. 


--- Quote from: Soaring on March 21, 2008, 05:31:29 PM ---He may legally own it, but she morally owns it. 
--- End quote ---

No such thing as "morally owning" anything.

--- Quote from: Soaring on March 22, 2008, 05:55:26 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

By whom, the individual that he bought it from? 

--- Quote from: Soaring on March 22, 2008, 05:55:26 PM ---Neither she nor her father stole it. 
--- End quote ---

You're right; it's called "receiving stolen goods."

--- Quote from: Soaring on March 23, 2008, 06:24:40 PM ---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.   ;D
I doubt the original owner can even produce the original paperwok to prove the car is his. 
--- End quote ---

Most small claims courts are limited to 5k or less.  I doubt one would even hear the case.  As far as the original paperwork goes, it's obviously a matter in the public domain.  In other words he is the owner of record and she is the recipient of stolen property, regardless of how that came to be. 

--- Quote from: Soaring on March 25, 2008, 10:46:24 PM ---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.   ;D

--- End quote ---

I have no doubt as to the “fubarness” of the DMV in the People’s Republic of California, however that doesn’t change the fact that the original owner was the original injured party and is entitled to his property.  The fact that someone else received stolen goods and kept it for all those years does not change that original owner’s aggrieved status.  As far as her “legit paperwork” is concerned; just because fraudulent papers floated around for many years doesn’t give them legal or “legit” status.  It just means that they’re old fraudulent papers.

--- Quote from: Soaring on March 29, 2008, 08:14:29 AM ---I have always heard that possession is 9/10 of the law. 
--- End quote ---

I've heard that to, but it doesn't fly in court.  This is no more than returning stolen property; any claims to moral ownership or any other emotional appeals would slam head-on into the harsh reality of legal ownership and be dashed on the rocks of reason.


Wow, this is an old thread.  Yeah, like I said, the car belongs to the man from whom it was stolen.  But, and I repeat....But, If I was him, I would just tell the woman to keep it if she would pay a fair market price for it.  No doubt they would both come out with a win-win situation that way. 

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...


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version