Going out to WCF tomorrow so that the Fieros West members are on the same page as me. Chris said that local PD would not deal with it untill sufficient evidence is presented to them, I plan on severly increasing local PD's work-load

Go Chicken. If I can help in anyway, let me know!

quote Originally posted by Songman: OK.. Just got off the phone with Steve. And this story really kinda sucks. This is the same car. The guy who has it listed is the registered owner in CA. But that is where the problem starts. Steve bought this car quite a few years back from the owner in Illinois. That owner is a friend of Steve's and since Steve intended to store the car and show it occasionally, he never registered it in his name. The car was legally still an Illinois car. Steve put his old KY plate on there because it matched the red paint and looked better at shows than having no plate. This car has not been driven in quite a while. Steve had it parked in a security lot at his friend's apartment building. There is a normal parking area and then there is a 'storage' area. Steve's car was properly tagged and legally parked in the storage area. No one knows why yet, but a wrecker service came and towed the car away and sold it at a lien sale. Steve checked with the people at the apartment building and they never called anyone about the car and knew that it was there legally. So, the question falls to this wrecker service. They came onto private property with no permission and hooked up to a car and took it away. Also, they filed a lien against the car and sold it. If you have ever done lien stuff, you know that you have to try to contact the last registered owner. That is Steve's friend in Illinois. Steve checked with him and no such contact was made. So basically, it appears that some con job wrecker service stole the car and then illegally filed a lien against it and sold it. But we don't know how this new guy got it. Was he involved with the wrecker service from the start or is he just some guy they duped? As we said earlier, the car was not running when Steve parked it there. So this guy bought it, fixed it, got it registered and smogged and is now selling it so quickly for a lot of money! Sound fishy to me. Steve has been down at the Police Dept trying to get something done. They are giving him a hard time because a signature is missing off the papers from when he filed about the car being stolen. There is a precedent about stolen cars being sold to innocent people and even many years later when the car is found the original owner gets it back. That happened recently about an old 50s T-bird that had been missing for over 30 years. They found the original owner and gave him his car back. But I think Steve is going to need a lawyer to help him with this one. Worst case scenario, the listed owner is Steve's friend so they should give the car back to him and he would give it back to Steve. FierOmar, where are you? We need legal advice..

Well, I have done a quick read of the posts, and think I have a handle on the facts. Car stolen (or reported stolen) in mid May, 2008; smogged by new owner on 6/2/08; new registration on 7/03/08.

I have handled similar issues involving cars in the past. Although I have not updated my research on lien sales, it seems to me that the car could not have been held long enough by the tow company to qualify for a lien sale. Regarding the issue of whether the tow company had a right to take the car, the general rule in California is that a party cannot enter onto private property of another to effect a tow (not even for purposes of repossessing a vehicle) without the consent of the owner (or manager) of the property. Doing so without consent constitutes a trespass. A good faith belief that one has consent is not a defense, if consent was not, in fact, given by the property owner or his authorized agent.

It may be possible for Steve to get the car back. Irrespective of whether he ever registered the car, he did have title to the car. Even if he can not get the car back, he could recover the fair market value of he car in an action for conversion.

For starters, I would be interested in the identity of the tow company that removed the car from its parking space. Here in California, it is not unusual for tow companys to work a deal with apartment owners to "police" their parking lots for the purpose of remove unauthorized cars. The tow opeators make their money from the tow, the storage, and the lien sale. Sometimes these tow operators end up being just a bit overly exuberant. In any event, if I recall correctly, the tow company is required by law to notify the local police agency that they have towed a vehicle from private property (so that the police don't waste their time on a stolen vehicle report).

Hope this helps some.

------------------
FierOmar

Thanks Dave. That is about what I thought, but it is good to hear it from someone who actually knows. Hopefully it will all work out for Steve to get his car back. It would be bad for any one of us to lose our Fieros. But at least they are mostly replaceable. Steve's is not one you can just go out and buy anywhere to replace it.

Great work guys! ttt

California Vehicle Code section 22658 controls the removal of vehicles from private property in this state. Here is the text of the section:

"22658. (a) The owner or person in lawful possession of private
property, including an association of a common interest development
as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, may cause the removal
of a vehicle parked on the property to a storage facility that meets
the requirements of subdivision (n) under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) There is displayed, in plain view at all entrances to the
property, a sign not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with
lettering not less than one inch in height, prohibiting public
parking and indicating that vehicles will be removed at the owner's
expense, and containing the telephone number of the local traffic law
enforcement agency and the name and telephone number of each towing
company that is a party to a written general towing authorization
agreement with the owner or person in lawful possession of the
property. The sign may also indicate that a citation may also be
issued for the violation.
(2) The vehicle has been issued a notice of parking violation, and
96 hours have elapsed since the issuance of that notice.
(3) The vehicle is on private property and lacks an engine,
transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other major
part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways, the
owner or person in lawful possession of the private property has
notified the local traffic law enforcement agency, and 24 hours have
elapsed since that notification.
(4) The lot or parcel upon which the vehicle is parked is improved
with a single-family dwelling.
(b) The tow truck operator removing the vehicle, if the operator
knows or is able to ascertain from the property owner, person in
lawful possession of the property, or the registration records of the
Department of Motor Vehicles the name and address of the registered
and legal owner of the vehicle, shall immediately give, or cause to
be given, notice in writing to the registered and legal owner of the
fact of the removal, the grounds for the removal, and indicate the
place to which the vehicle has been removed. If the vehicle is stored
in a storage facility, a copy of the notice shall be given to the
proprietor of the storage facility. The notice provided for in this
section shall include the amount of mileage on the vehicle at the
time of removal and the time of the removal from the property. If the
tow truck operator does not know and is not able to ascertain the
name of the owner or for any other reason is unable to give the
notice to the owner as provided in this section, the tow truck
operator shall comply with the requirements of subdivision (c) of
Section 22853 relating to notice in the same manner as applicable to
an officer removing a vehicle from private property.
(c) This section does not limit or affect any right or remedy that
the owner or person in lawful possession of private property may
have by virtue of other provisions of law authorizing the removal of
a vehicle parked upon private property.
(d) The owner of a vehicle removed from private property pursuant
to subdivision (a) may recover for any damage to the vehicle
resulting from any intentional or negligent act of a person causing
the removal of, or removing, the vehicle.
(e) (1) An owner or person in lawful possession of private
property, or an association of a common interest development, causing
the removal of a vehicle parked on that property is liable for
double the storage or towing charges whenever there has been a
failure to comply with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a)
or to state the grounds for the removal of the vehicle if requested
by the legal or registered owner of the vehicle as required by
subdivision (f).
(2) A property owner or owner's agent or lessee who causes the
removal of a vehicle parked on that property pursuant to the
exemption set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (l) and fails to comply with that subdivision is guilty
of an infraction, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars
($1,000).
(f) An owner or person in lawful possession of private property,
or an association of a common interest development, causing the
removal of a vehicle parked on that property shall notify by
telephone or, if impractical, by the most expeditious means
available, the local traffic law enforcement agency within one hour
after authorizing the tow. An owner or person in lawful possession of
private property, an association of a common interest development,
causing the removal of a vehicle parked on that property, or the tow
truck operator who removes the vehicle, shall state the grounds for
the removal of the vehicle if requested by the legal or registered
owner of that vehicle. A towing company that removes a vehicle from
private property in compliance with subdivision (l) is not
responsible in a situation relating to the validity of the removal. A
towing company that removes the vehicle under this section shall be
responsible for the following:
(1) Damage to the vehicle in the transit and subsequent storage of
the vehicle.
(2) The removal of a vehicle other than the vehicle specified by
the owner or other person in lawful possession of the private
property.
(g) (1) (A) Possession of a vehicle under this section shall be
deemed to arise when a vehicle is removed from private property and
is in transit.
(B) Upon the request of the owner of the vehicle or that owner's
agent, the towing company or its driver shall immediately and
unconditionally release a vehicle that is not yet removed from the
private property and in transit.
(C) A person failing to comply with subparagraph (B) is guilty of
a misdemeanor.
(2) If a vehicle is released to a person in compliance with
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the vehicle owner or authorized
agent shall immediately move that vehicle to a lawful location.
(h) A towing company may impose a charge of not more than one-half
of the regular towing charge for the towing of a vehicle at the
request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful
possession of the private property pursuant to this section if the
owner of the vehicle or the vehicle owner's agent returns to the
vehicle after the vehicle is coupled to the tow truck by means of a
regular hitch, coupling device, drawbar, portable dolly, or is lifted
off the ground by means of a conventional trailer, and before it is
removed from the private property. The regular towing charge may only
be imposed after the vehicle has been removed from the property and
is in transit.
(i) (1) (A) A charge for towing or storage, or both, of a vehicle
under this section is excessive if the charge exceeds the greater of
the following:
(i) That which would have been charged for that towing or storage,
or both, made at the request of a law enforcement agency under an
agreement between a towing company and the law enforcement agency
that exercises primary jurisdiction in the city in which is located
the private property from which the vehicle was, or was attempted to
be, removed, or if the private property is not located within a city,
then the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction
in the county in which the private property is located.
(ii) That which would have been charged for that towing or
storage, or both, under the rate approved for that towing operator by
the California Highway Patrol for the jurisdiction in which the
private property is located and from which the vehicle was, or was
attempted to be, removed.
(B) A towing operator shall make available for inspection and
copying his or her rate approved by the California Highway Patrol, if
any, with in 24 hours of a request without a warrant to law
enforcement, the Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney.
(2) If a vehicle is released within 24 hours from the time the
vehicle is brought into the storage facility, regardless of the
calendar date, the storage charge shall be for only one day. Not more
than one day's storage charge may be required for a vehicle released
the same day that it is stored.
(3) If a request to release a vehicle is made and the appropriate
fees are tendered and documentation establishing that the person
requesting release is entitled to possession of the vehicle, or is
the owner's insurance representative, is presented within the initial
24 hours of storage, and the storage facility fails to comply with
the request to release the vehicle or is not open for business during
normal business hours, then only one day's storage charge may be
required to be paid until after the first business day. A business
day is any day in which the lienholder is open for business to the
public for at least eight hours. If a request is made more than 24
hours after the vehicle is placed in storage, charges may be imposed
on a full calendar day basis for each day, or part thereof, that the
vehicle is in storage.
(j) (1) A person who charges a vehicle owner a towing, service, or
storage charge at an excessive rate, as described in subdivision (h)
or (i), is civilly liable to the vehicle owner for four times the
amount charged.
(2) A person who knowingly charges a vehicle owner a towing,
service, or storage charge at an excessive rate, as described in
subdivision (h) or (i), or who fails to make available his or her
rate as required in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision
(i), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment
in the county jail for not more than three months, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
(k) (1) A person operating or in charge of a storage facility
where vehicles are stored pursuant to this section shall accept a
valid credit card or cash for payment of towing and storage by a
registered owner or the owner's agent claiming the vehicle. "Credit
card" means "credit card" as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
1747.02 of the Civil Code, except for the purposes of this section,
credit card does not include a credit card issued by a retail seller.

(2) A person described in paragraph (1) shall conspicuously
display, in that portion of the storage facility office where
business is conducted with the public, a notice advising that all
valid credit cards and cash are acceptable means of payment.
(3) A person operating or in charge of a storage facility who
refuses to accept a valid credit card or who fails to post the
required notice under paragraph (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more
than three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(4) A person described in paragraph (1) who violates paragraph
(1) or (2) is civilly liable to the registered owner of the vehicle
or the person who tendered the fees for four times the amount of the
towing and storage charges.
(5) A person operating or in charge of the storage facility shall
have sufficient moneys on the premises of the primary storage
facility during normal business hours to accommodate, and make change
in, a reasonable monetary transaction.
(6) Credit charges for towing and storage services shall comply
with Section 1748.1 of the Civil Code. Law enforcement agencies may
include the costs of providing for payment by credit when making
agreements with towing companies as described in subdivision (i).
(l) (1) (A) A towing company shall not remove or commence the
removal of a vehicle from private property without first obtaining
the written authorization from the property owner or lessee,
including an association of a common interest development, or an
employee or agent thereof, who shall be present at the time of
removal and verify the alleged violation, except that presence and
verification is not required if the person authorizing the tow is the
property owner, or the owner's agent who is not a tow operator, of a
residential rental property of 15 or fewer units that does not have
an onsite owner, owner's agent or employee, and the tenant has
verified the violation, requested the tow from that tenant's assigned
parking space, and provided a signed request or electronic mail, or
has called and provides a signed request or electronic mail within 24
hours, to the property owner or owner's agent, which the owner or
agent shall provide to the towing company within 48 hours of
authorizing the tow. The signed request or electronic mail shall
contain the name and address of the tenant, and the date and time the
tenant requested the tow. A towing company shall obtain within 48
hours of receiving the written authorization to tow a copy of a
tenant request required pursuant to this subparagraph. For the
purpose of this subparagraph, a person providing the written
authorization who is required to be present on the private property
at the time of the tow does not have to be physically present at the
specified location of where the vehicle to be removed is located on
the private property.
(B) The written authorization under subparagraph (A) shall include
all of the following:
(i) The make, model, vehicle identification number, and license
plate number of the removed vehicle.
(ii) The name, signature, job title, residential or business
address and working telephone number of the person, described in
subparagraph (A), authorizing the removal of the vehicle.
(iii) The grounds for the removal of the vehicle.
(iv) The time when the vehicle was first observed parked at the
private property.
(v) The time that authorization to tow the vehicle was given.
(C) (i) When the vehicle owner or his or her agent claims the
vehicle, the towing company prior to payment of a towing or storage
charge shall provide a photocopy of the written authorization to the
vehicle owner or the agent.
(ii) If the vehicle was towed from a residential property, the
towing company shall redact the information specified in clause (ii)
of subparagraph (B) in the photocopy of the written authorization
provided to the vehicle owner or the agent pursuant to clause (i).
(iii) The towing company shall also provide to the vehicle owner
or the agent a separate notice that provides the telephone number of
the appropriate local law enforcement or prosecuting agency by
stating "If you believe that you have been wrongfully towed, please
contact the local law enforcement or prosecuting agency at (insert
appropriate telephone number)." The notice shall be in English and in
the most populous language, other than English, that is spoken in
the jurisdiction.
(D) A towing company shall not remove or commence the removal of a
vehicle from private property described in subdivision (a) of
Section 22953 unless the towing company has made a good faith inquiry
to determine that the owner or the property owner's agent complied
with Section 22953.
(E) (i) General authorization to remove or commence removal of a
vehicle at the towing company's discretion shall not be delegated to
a towing company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle
unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane,
or in a manner which interferes with an entrance to, or exit from,
the private property.
(ii) In those cases in which general authorization is granted to a
towing company or its affiliate to undertake the removal or commence
the removal of a vehicle that is unlawfully parked within 15 feet of
a fire hydrant or in a fire lane, or that interferes with an
entrance to, or exit from, private property, the towing company and
the property owner, or owner's agent, or person in lawful possession
of the private property shall have a written agreement granting that
general authorization.
(2) If a towing company removes a vehicle under a general
authorization described in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) and that
vehicle is unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in
a fire lane, or in a manner that interferes with an entrance to, or
exit from, the private property, the towing company shall take, prior
to the removal of that vehicle, a photograph of the vehicle that
clearly indicates that parking violation. Prior to accepting payment,
the towing company shall keep one copy of the photograph taken
pursuant to this paragraph, and shall present that photograph and
provide, without charge, a photocopy to the owner or an agent of the
owner, when that person claims the vehicle.
(3) A towing company shall maintain the original written
authorization, or the general authorization described in subparagraph
(E) of paragraph (1) and the photograph of the violation, required
pursuant to this section, and any written requests from a tenant to
the property owner or owner's agent required by subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), for a period of three years and shall make them
available for inspection and copying within 24 hours of a request
without a warrant to law enforcement, the Attorney General, district
attorney, or city attorney.
(4) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail for
not more than three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(5) A person who violates this subdivision is civilly liable to
the owner of the vehicle or his or her agent for four times the
amount of the towing and storage charges.
(m) (1) A towing company that removes a vehicle from private
property under this section shall notify the local law enforcement
agency of that tow after the vehicle is removed from the private
property and is in transit.
(2) A towing company is guilty of a misdemeanor if the towing
company fails to provide the notification required under paragraph
(1) within 60 minutes after the vehicle is removed from the private
property and is in transit or 15 minutes after arriving at the
storage facility, whichever time is less.
(3) A towing company that does not provide the notification under
paragraph (1) within 30 minutes after the vehicle is removed from the
private property and is in transit is civilly liable to the
registered owner of the vehicle, or the person who tenders the fees,
for three times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
(4) If notification is impracticable, the times for notification,
as required pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3), shall be tolled for
the time period that notification is impracticable. This paragraph is
an affirmative defense.
(n) A vehicle removed from private property pursuant to this
section shall be stored in a facility that meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) (A) Is located within a 10-mile radius of the property from
where the vehicle was removed.
(B) The 10-mile radius requirement of subparagraph (A) does not
apply if a towing company has prior general written approval from the
law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction in the
city in which is located the private property from which the vehicle
was removed, or if the private property is not located within a city,
then the law enforcement agency that exercises primary jurisdiction
in the county in which is located the private property.
(2) (A) Remains open during normal business hours and releases
vehicles after normal business hours.
(B) A gate fee may be charged for releasing a vehicle after normal
business hours, weekends, and state holidays. However, the maximum
hourly charge for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours
shall be one-half of the hourly tow rate charged for initially towing
the vehicle, or less.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for purposes of
this paragraph, "normal business hours" are Monday to Friday,
inclusive, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., inclusive, except state holidays.
(3) Has a public pay telephone in the office area that is open and
accessible to the public.
(o) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of
subdivision (k) to assist vehicle owners or their agents by, among
other things, allowing payment by credit cards for towing and storage
services, thereby expediting the recovery of towed vehicles and
concurrently promoting the safety and welfare of the public.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of
subdivision (l) to further the safety of the general public by
ensuring that a private property owner or lessee has provided his or
her authorization for the removal of a vehicle from his or her
property, thereby promoting the safety of those persons involved in
ordering the removal of the vehicle as well as those persons
removing, towing, and storing the vehicle.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature in the adoption of
subdivision (g) to promote the safety of the general public by
requiring towing companies to unconditionally release a vehicle that
is not lawfully in their possession, thereby avoiding the likelihood
of dangerous and violent confrontation and physical injury to vehicle
owners and towing operators, the stranding of vehicle owners and
their passengers at a dangerous time and location, and impeding
expedited vehicle recovery, without wasting law enforcement's limited
resources.
(p) The remedies, sanctions, restrictions, and procedures provided
in this section are not exclusive and are in addition to other
remedies, sanctions, restrictions, or procedures that may be provided
in other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, those
that are provided in Sections 12110 and 34660."

------------------
FierOmar

Does he not have a bill of sale from teh illinois owner, Thats proof you purchased the car.

I read through this whole thing and damn. This kind of detective work is on par with the NSX_Nick fiasco. I hope you get this figured out and I'll be keeping a keen eye on this thread.

Are there any new developments? This in very interesting I want to know what the outcome is.

Steve Morehead is now involved and has been with the Police ALL DAY - more to follow....

------------------
Recanizin' Flat-Buns Since 2001

Eric Nelson
Internet Sales Manager
Power Ford Valencia
nelsone@autonation.com

My burning question is: Can anyone at the apt. complex confirm/vouch for/verify that the car was legally parked in said space?

Kit

quote Originally posted by Chicken McNizzle: EXACT MATCH The car was smogged days before it was stolen? WTF? CarFax shows it's lifetime in Illinois before 2005? I'm callin shinanigans here

before it was REPORTED stolen. Steve kept in in a locked storage facility and didn't see it for weeks at a time.

Kit, Steve's friend lives at the apartment complex and the car was paid for and stickered to be parked there. So yes, it was legally parked there and the apartment complex did not call anyone to come tow it.

I just got an email for the person that has the car admitting that this is the one and stated that he works close with the police.

------------------

Indy#64~FieroNews~Boots~Bag s~Wallets~Headliner~Spare Cover~
Visors~Sunshads and T-Top Sunshades~

"CSI Fiero Edition" lol

Read farther in his email and stated he works with the DMV as well. He knows about the tread as well.

------------------

Indy#64~FieroNews~Boots~Bag s~Wallets~Headliner~Spare Cover~
Visors~Sunshads and T-Top Sunshades~

Good, then he knows that he has no claim to this car and that it is stolen. Does he say anywhere that now that he knows that it was taken illegally that he plans to do the right thing?

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 08-14-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: Good, then he knows that he has no claim to this car and that it is stolen. Does he say anywhere that now that he knows that it was taken illegally that he plans to do the right thing?

This person probably believes it is a legitimate sell via a loop hole. Or is going to say that all the facts are not posted in this thread?
Makes you think about boats, motor homes and RV's parked. Can a tow truck drive off with your $100,000 RV and sell it on some loop hole?

------------------

quote Originally posted by Fiero Thomas: I just got an email for the person that has the car admitting that this is the one and stated that he works close with the police.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Thomas: Read farther in his email and stated he works with the DMV as well. He knows about the tread as well.

If he knows the history and the story behind this car, then why is the Craigslist ad still up? -Jason

[This message has been edited by Fierofreak00 (edited 08-14-2008).]

This guy sent me some additional pics if anyone wants them

[This message has been edited by chane (edited 08-14-2008).]

Here is what I sent him on the second email.

You know what I just found online a boat load of controversy on this car and will not be making the effort to get this car. I hope that the issue gets cleared up and then I might reconsider but I will not touch this car at this point.

here is his full responce

yeah i know all about whats going on with the drama about the car. and i kinda feel bad for the previous owner, but he messed up and lost the car. he has no recourse or claim to the car. the car is registered to me and i had it smogged and got new plates for it. Nothing weird or shady. heck i work with the police and dmv. all is clear and cool. let me know when you change your mind again.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Thomas: Here is what I sent him on the second email. You know what I just found online a boat load of controversy on this car and will not be making the effort to get this car. I hope that the issue gets cleared up and then I might reconsider but I will not touch this car at this point. here is his full responce yeah i know all about whats going on with the drama about the car. and i kinda feel bad for the previous owner, but he messed up and lost the car. he has no recourse or claim to the car. the car is registered to me and i had it smogged and got new plates for it. Nothing weird or shady. heck i work with the police and dmv. all is clear and cool. let me know when you change your mind again.

He's going to be working a lot closer with the police than he thinks with that smart ass attitude. Does this bonehead really think that the collective sum total of all of us members don't know "people"?

Send me this guy's info and I can have the Secretary of State PERSONALLY read this dumb **** the riot act. The car WILL be returned to its rightful owner....trust me!

Since he is looking at this thread let me reiterate the facts for him - A car has to sit for 90 days at a tow company before it can be sold through a lien. Of course, that is considering that the car had been picked up legally. So his 'facts' have two holes in them at least. One, the car was repaired, smogged, and for sale barely a month after it was picked up. Two, it was picked up illegally.

It is my opinion that the guy is asking for a buttload of trouble following this path. FierOmar is not just some ambulance chaser. He is WELL versed and connected with the law in L.A. and he agrees that this new owner has no legitimate claim. If this new owner sells this car knowing that this is all going on, he can be guilty of knowingly selling stolen property. As I said before, it appears to me that his connections to the DMV and police (and probably this wrecker service) are the reason he was able to get this car without following procedure.

Read the true facts guy - This is Steve's car. It was taken illegally. No matter what you have done to it or spent on it makes it yours.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 08-14-2008).]

here is his email

PioneerSX1010@aol.com

This is where I jump off.

I'd like to hear the story of how he got the car. Too bad he'll never post here, and if he did, he wouldn't last long. One moral: when you buy a car, title it in your name!

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-21-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: FierOmar is not just some ambulance chaser. He is WELL versed and connected with the law in L.A. and he agrees that this new owner has no legitimate claim.

Dale: Thanks for the compliment, but please tone it down just a little before people start thinking that we are related. And, the only reason I don't chase anbulances is due to the fact that I need a faster car.

I still don't have all the facts yet, and based upon some things I have learned, the facts may not be exactly the same as previously posted.

I handled a case like this about 8-10 years ago. It involved a 1960 Corvette that had been left at a reputable Corvette shop for several years. The shop owner was ready to retire and sold his business to a new owner who remains in business today. The Corvette stayed in the shop when the business was transferred, and after more than a year of attempting to find and contact the owner, it was sold at a lien sale. Thus, the facts are different in that there was no issue regarding the.legitimacy of the possession in the hands of the shop, and the lien sale was properly conducted. In fact, the legal action was not even filed for several years after the lien sale had been completed. The outcome: the new owner settled by paying my client full value for the vehicle; after having expended a ton of money on attorney's fees.

I have also handled several other conversion cases, including one against a school district that had taken several hundred thousand dollars of personal property from a parcel they had acquired by way of eminent domain, and moved it onto another nearby parcel. Thereafter, the school district tried to extract rent for storage of the personal property from my client. After we filed suit to recover the property, the school district sold it all for scrap (about $25k). The client ended up recovering more that twelve times the scrap sale price with the vast majority coming from the school district.

I actualy handled one case against a major police department in which they seized personal property worth about $80k pursuant to a search warrant. Instead of booking the property into evidence, the police returned it to the person they thought was the rightful owner. The property eventually disappeared. When it was proven at trial that the seized property did, in fact, belong to my client the jury returned a verdict (12-0) against the police department and its officers. Once again, the client recovered the full value of the personal property; most from the city who employed the police officers, and the rest from the person who had identified the items that my client had allegedly stolen (and who was smart enough to settle before trial).

An act of conversion will support an award of punitive damages. However, it may well be that the current owner of the car is entirely innocent of any "wrongdoing" in the sense that he had absolutely no knoweldge of any defects in the towing or the lien sale Under such circumstances, the courts would be reluctant to award punitive damages.

FWIW, I am reserving judgment until after I have had an opportunity to hear the other person(s) side of story in its entirety.
------------------
FierOmar

[This message has been edited by FierOmar (edited 08-14-2008).]

Sorry Dave. We're not related. I am just impressed with your knowledge! haha. But guess I should keep those opinions to myself. Don't want to seem to be putting words into your mouth.

You are absolutely correct that the new owner may be innocent in the acquisition of the car. I said that early on when this first started. His attitude since, and the fact that he now knows perfectly well that all of this is going on, makes me think he is less than innocent. If not in the acquisition itself, at least on a moral ground. But moral and legal are all too often different things.

Either way, in my humble opinion, this new owner's assessment that the previous owner "screwed up" is baseless and just hateful. The wrong-doing starts when the car is towed out of the storage lot. Who was involved in that, and how far after that wrong-doing occurred, remains to be seen.

Dave, outside of this case since I know you want to hold judgement until the facts are all in - if a person has property that he hears is most likely stolen but then proceeds to sell the property anyway, can he be charged with selling stolen property? Just as a general rule.

this whole ordeal is just totally screwed up!!!!

one of my good friends fathers owns the largest towing company in charleston WV, when they tow a car, it sits on their locked lot UNTOUCHED for 6 months before they do ANYTHING with the vehicle, if its worth anything then they try to contact the registered owner and see if the owner will sign over the title and wave all towing fee's for the title to the car, *IF* they dont legally own the car, they are allowed to crush it once the tow bill exceeds the clear value of the car.

at $15 a day storage fee after 30 days the vehicles have a $500 bill on them $50 for the tow, and $450 for the storage.

my hopes are that the car is rightfully returned, the current owner should be able to sue the towing company for selling him an illegally obtained car.

matthew

I have the personal information regarding Moshe, the new owner of the vehicle - as does Santa Monica PD

------------------
Recanizin' Flat-Buns Since 2001

Eric Nelson
Internet Sales Manager
Power Ford Valencia
nelsone@autonation.com

quote Originally posted by Songman: Sorry Dave. We're not related. I am just impressed with your knowledge! haha.

If you wont to see how weally smot I m, ask me anythin about the Fiero.

quote Originally posted by Songman: Dave, outside of this case since I know you want to hold judgement until the facts are all in - if a person has property that he hears is most likely stolen but then proceeds to sell the property anyway, can he be charged with selling stolen property? Just as a general rule.

Yes.

There is a whole list of conduct that may constitute theft. One of the more interesting sections from the Penal Code:

"485. One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft."

More to the point of your question, I offer the following penal code section::

"496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in
the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor,
punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year.
A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted
pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both
pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
(b) Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value in excess of
four hundred dollars ($400) that has been stolen or obtained in any
manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that
should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more
than one year.
Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value of four hundred
dollars ($400) or less that has been stolen or obtained in any manner
constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that should
cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision
(a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual
damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and
reasonable attorney's fees.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any act
prohibited by this section, except an offense specified in the
accusatory pleading as a misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year."

Subdivision (c) is particularly significant to the victim of a theft.

Even if an accused were to deny actual knowledge, circumstantial evidence may lead to the conclusion that the person had such knowledge.

------------------
FierOmar

quote Originally posted by Chicken McNizzle: I have the personal information regarding Moshe, the new owner of the vehicle - as does Santa Monica PD

OK - Seriously this is no joke what I am about to write: back in 1977 - 1979 I knew a very nice guy who was named Moshe (I think that is how it was spelled and you said it like "Mosh"). Anyway, he was from Liberia!!!! Is this the new Liberian scam? Have they decided the email thing isn't working anymore? (ok - the last 2 sentences were a joke, but not the first part)

Looks like to me, he used his connections with the DMV to get this car - He knows all the tricks... Was probably tipped off by the towing company and/or is in cahoots with them. He needs to go to jail I think.

is there any hope of this car getting back to it owner?

For the following statement, I am assuming the facts are as I see them written here.

If Steve wants to make sure that he gets his car back, his best bet would be to purchase the car from the new "owner", and then pursue the Penal Code 496c to recollect the purchase price times 3. Even if the police drop the case, doesn't he still have a potential civil suit against him and/or the towing company?

quote Originally posted by CowsPatoot:Even if the police drop the case, doesn't he still have a potential civil suit against him and/or the towing company?

Definitely, yes! However, a plaintiff is not required to prove all the elements of Penal Code section 496(a) in order to recover in a civil action for conversion. If the plaintiff does prove those elements, he is entitled to recover treble damages and attorney's fees by the statute. Costs are always recoverable by the plaintiff who has prevailed. Even if he were to recover his car at this time, he could bring an action for trespass to personal property, although the actual damages would likely be reduced substantially.


------------------
FierOmar

[This message has been edited by FierOmar (edited 08-15-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Chicken McNizzle: I have the personal information regarding Moshe, the new owner of the vehicle - as does Santa Monica PD

"New Owner" in quotes. Email me his info. If he has a towing license I guarantee it will be under investigative review by Monday Morning.

i always love seeing this forum pull together as a family, yet i always hate it when a pissing match begins.

eitherway this thread brings a tear to my eye, and hopefully the happy ending im hoping for will make me sob.

matthew

wow, i bet this is making a lot of us paranoid as hell about our cars. i know i am now. mine is all alone at my apartments in a not so great area. just chillen there like the only peach on the peach tree....... god i hope no one comes and touches my baby.......

there are so many questions running through my head to help this guy identify that it is his, like any special markings on it anywhere hidden under a body panel? a paper or something with a message on it hidden away in some cavity on a part of the car? some love stains anywhere? (seriously, not trying to be funny) i mean a convertable 88 gt is not a common thing. and im sure where ever it was covertabled at would have info about the owner at the time of the conversion. or if one man did it on his own, there has to be some kind of documentation somewhere.

------------------
1987 Fiero GT built by my brother, merlot566jka, 3500 LX9 from 06 Malibu, WOT-TECH.com 1280 grind stage 3 cam, LS6 valve springs, 1227730 ECM conversion, Darrel Morse solid aluminum cradle mounts, Truleo headers modified to fit the 3500, 36# inectors, 70mm 4.3 throttle body adapted to 3500 intake, ported heads, upper and lower intakes, lightly polished, tcemotorsports.com crank trigger wheel, CenterForce dual friction clutch, Flowtech Afterburner muffler, 2.5" piping, cat deleted, EGR deleted, SinisterPerformance tuning, C6 Corvette exhaust tips. projected to be 35 MPG with a guesstimate of 250 hp to the wheels

[This message has been edited by americasfuture2k (edited 08-15-2008).]