And I would think that if someone's stupid enough to dump a bunch of money into something I own (that they sold to me no less) without asking me that's their tuff luck...I owe them nothing...How would this person explain the bill of sale (if there is one..I think I read there was) this is theft..he knew he sold it....you can't claim it back just because it wasn't registered with DOT or what ever its called down there...big trouble for someone here
I want to sell my car so i Sign the back of the title under the owner portion the new buyer will sign under the buyer portion.
the buyer has two bussiness days to register the vehicle in their name or fines and yadayada
IF like in the case of a friend of mine where he bought a Beretta, got it impounded, when to jail and the previous owner paid the fees to get it out and then later resold it on Craigslist for about 3times what my friend paid (motor and trans swap sealed the deal) due to the fact that even tho my friend had paid me to install a new 3100 engien and auto trans, paid for the car, and put other money into it, the law states and is followed as such in many states aswell that UNLESS the car is titled in your name, you do not own the car.
even when my friend got out of jail, gatherd his belongings from my garage storage and went to the wreckers lot that impunded the car title in hand, they said sorry no dice cant help you and the cops cant either.
So as i see it, even tho X paid 500 for a beat up Fiero, he never titled it in his name in the two years he had it in his possesion so that by default makes it still Keens. Take him to court but as i see it, there may not be anything you can do.
I want to sell my car so i Sign the back of the title under the owner portion the new buyer will sign under the buyer portion.
the buyer has two bussiness days to register the vehicle in their name or fines and yadayada
IF like in the case of a friend of mine where he bought a Beretta, got it impounded, when to jail and the previous owner paid the fees to get it out and then later resold it on Craigslist for about 3times what my friend paid (motor and trans swap sealed the deal) due to the fact that even tho my friend had paid me to install a new 3100 engien and auto trans, paid for the car, and put other money into it, the law states and is followed as such in many states aswell that UNLESS the car is titled in your name, you do not own the car.
even when my friend got out of jail, gatherd his belongings from my garage storage and went to the wreckers lot that impunded the car title in hand, they said sorry no dice cant help you and the cops cant either.
So as i see it, even tho X paid 500 for a beat up Fiero, he never titled it in his name in the two years he had it in his possesion so that by default makes it still Keens. Take him to court but as i see it, there may not be anything you can do.
im gonna go title my to cars like asap LOL thats really not funny but ya im definatly gonna go do that.
This lying prick sold the car 9 months before he left, lied to the place that thought he was the owner as he was looking to get something for nothing, lied to an officer ( if ) he really filed a report saying that it was "stolen" from his barracks. Never mind the fact that he's on here crying a river of tears looking for sympathy for something he knew was an out and out lie. This dude is just trash...
I'd like to know what JAG's thoughts on the whole thing would be. I know they dont look kindly on things like this at all. [/COLOR]
My exact thoughts. I know that a Commanding Officer the JAG and other senior leaders in the Armed Forces really frown on this sort of behavior. Some on here make it sound immoral but legal - the senior leaders in the military pride themselves on leading moral , honest and law abiding troops. IMHO, Keen is far from that by lying about ownership, and the car being stolen. I am not suprised that Keen has not responded to this thread. I imagine the area defense counsel has probably told him to keep silent until after the military is done with thier investigation and any potential litigation. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice probably has an article or two that deals with this sort of behavior.
Buyer - You must transfer title within fifteen days of the date of sale.
But what about this?
quote
From the Washington State form:
Seller’s report of sale - The seller must file a report of sale within five days of the date of sale, excluding weekends and state holidays, at any vehicle/vessel licensing office for a fee.
So, did Keen report the sale within five days? If so, how could he then report the car as stolen and how could he also reclaim the car? If he didn't report the sale, then he's obviously broken at least this law/regulation (as if most of us don't already feel he's a crook).
EDIT: Ross, you posted while I was setting up my post.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-05-2010).]
I just find it interesting that the rules and regulations are so different from state to state. After reading the WA DMV site, I am not so sure that my original theory of ownership is correct.
This is a mess, and it will be interesting as to how it comes out. We all are learning a lesson here.
I do understand what you are saying, but if that is the case, then a junkyard couldn't sell parts from a car (that they have the signed title on file) cause they don't own it. Also if signing the title over doesn't mean that you are transfering ownership, then one would need to continue to insure the car until the the buyer retitled the car in his name. In the eyes of the state of Wa, the owner of record is the seller until the documents are transrered.
Junkyards keep the title as a record. (They are required by law to stamp or write "scrapped" or "Destroyed" across the face of the title.) The VIN is reported to the state as scrapped, The owners information is then removed. They do not get a new title or transfer the original one, they just fill out a form and report the VIN to the state. They cannot sell a car with the title that they have. If you buy a car from a junkyard, You have to apply for a title and it is a salvage title because the VIN is recorded as such. If you repair/restore the car you need to apply for a new title before you can register it for driving on public roads. Same goes for if your car is "totalled" by an insurance company. They report the car/VIN as a loss to the state and if you buy it from an insurance auction, you have to apply for a salvage title.
The point with the above is the VIN is recorded to it's disposition (scrapped or totalled) and the owners name is removed.
I doubt that Keen filed a police report. Chances are he received a call that the car was at an impound lot and he was the owner on record. So he most likely just paid the impound fees and got the car.
Xzotic just posted the car was missing for a "few months" before this thread. So did he report the car as stolen to the police? Since he did not tranfer the title and had expired plates on it I'm guessing he did not file a police report. (sounds like he did not file one the first time either, He just called local towing companies) If so, My guess is the police found the car abandoned (again)and towed it. The towing company tracked down the owner of record to get their fees. Sorry but Xzotic did not file paperwork, transfer the title, or register the vehicle properly. He in effect abandoned the vehicle once it was missing "for a few months".
As for Archie and Mr. Norm, Why do they need to comment on the discussion of the ownership of the car? Keen gave them a car to have work done and he has/is paying for the work. It is not a requirement for a business to verify ownership. A customer brought a car in for work, work was done, work was paid for. Ownership of the vehicle has nothing to do with it.
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 11-05-2010).]
My exact thoughts. I know that a Commanding Officer the JAG and other senior leaders in the Armed Forces really frown on this sort of behavior. Some on here make it sound immoral but legal - the senior leaders in the military pride themselves on leading moral , honest and law abiding troops. IMHO, Keen is far from that by lying about ownership, and the car being stolen. I am not suprised that Keen has not responded to this thread. I imagine the area defense counsel has probably told him to keep silent until after the military is done with thier investigation and any potential litigation. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice probably has an article or two that deals with this sort of behavior.
I do not believe the Military will do anything. (He could however seek legal advice from them to aid himself.) After Xzotic posted his "story" it can be proven he theoratically abandoned the car. Keen just took possession of it. What "story" Keen posted online about it being stolen doesn't matter. If he did report it stolen they may have a moral issue, But I doubt there is any theft report on that car from either the owner or the buyer. Either way it doesn't matter as there wasn't a "crime" it is a civil matter between the buyer and owner. The Military does not generally get involved in civil matters.
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 11-05-2010).]
Question, what is preventing me from selling a car friday night, then reporting it stolen 2 days later? 15 days later? 30 days later? When does it come the time that the cops tow it?
Question, what is preventing me from selling a car friday night, then reporting it stolen 2 days later? 15 days later? 30 days later? When does it come the time that the cops tow it?
Most states have a time limit as to how long the buyer has to transfer the title. If you sell a car and do not give a bill of sale or sign the title or the buyer does not follow the states regulations/requirements, you can screw the buyer. If the buyer has a signed title and/or bill of sale and it is within the legal time frame, you would be charged with filing a false police report. The point here is both side need to follow the laws and regulations provided by the state to protect each other.
Here is something of interest: Per the Sate of Washington, A towed vehicle is considered abandoned after 5 days in the towing companies possession. Also the documented owner IS responsible for all fees unless there is a police report for a stolen vehicle or a bill of sale was registered. The vehicle was found abandoned and if Xzotik did not file a stolen car report with the police, he legally abandoned the car. Remember, in his own words the vehicle was missing for a "few months" and he was looking for another Fiero. He abandoned the car and aside from the expired plates (which were not even registered to that car when they expired) it could not be legally traced back to him. Keen was responsible for all fees since the title was not properly transfered and a bill of sale was not registered.
What would Xzotik have done if the towing company auctioned off the car? Say Keen had filed the bill of sale and Xzotik did not claim it for a "few months"? The towing company could have put the car in an impound auction. If another PFF member bought it at auction and suddenly Xzotik saw it on here would all this discussion even happen?
Based on Xzotiks own post, He abandoned the car, Keen, being responsible for all fees by law, aquired the car back by paying all the fees. It is Keen's car and Xzotik has no claim against the vehicle. It was Xzotik's own fault that he lost possession of the vehicle. Keen owe's no money to Xzotik.
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 11-05-2010).]
That is a likely outcome Orief but keep in mind that until the case is litigated your theory is just that. No way to know until the judge declares it one way or the other.
I think it is a consensus that what happened was morally wrong, without question,.. but legally ?
As much as i hate to admit it i think Keen is going to be on the winning side of this battle. The fact that XzotikGT did not title the car means that Keen is the legal " registered owner of the car" until he does so. In the eyes of the law he is the owner until that paperwork is filed.
That is why they have you file at least bill of sale until you register a vehicle. It relieves a seller of any responsibility should the buyer go out drive and crash the car before he has it registered in his name. It also gives some proof that the car has changed ownership for the buyer.
If no police reports were filed this further complicates the matter. The car could be considered abandoned, which opens a whole other can of worms. If all of this is true i probably think keen sort of felt like someone who just saw someone drop a $100 bill and just decided to keep his mouth shut pick it up and pocket it.
Pretty crappy, but,........
I know this is a big principal issue, but guys we are talking about a $500 dollar car. While i do think he needs to be taught a lesson ($), i don't think ruining his military standing is the answer. I think he has done a pretty good job of exposing himself as is, IF all of the accusations are true.
I think the best thing for Keen to do would be to PAY XzotikGT for the car and any parts he is out, apologize to the forum and the victim, and include a schmooz bonus $. XzotikGT it sounds like the car was more trouble than it was worth anyways. I can understand your outrage over the balls this guy had. The funny part is he actually posted a thread about it. Not sure what he could have been thinking.
[This message has been edited by exoticse (edited 11-05-2010).]
I think it is a consensus that what happened was morally wrong, without question,.. but legally ?
I am not chiming in to beat this guy down so I will just ask if anyone else is wondering about the claims of a stolen car made by keen? At first he did not mention legally selling the car, then finding it later after it was stolen from the new owner. The new owner was able to prove the car was sold to him legally. Is anyone thinking of a calculated cover up to a theft repo?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 11-05-2010).]
Despite what anyone thinks Keen at least deserves a chance to tell his side of the story.
A friend suggested and it occurs to me that without Keen, xzotikGT probably would likely not have been able to get the car out of impound, without the proper registration, even with a copy of the title.
Mentioning the car was stolen did get his storage fees reduced, from some ridiculous amount that probably had the car destined to be crushed.
Maybe things just snowballed from there ?? Whatever the case, i just hope the parties can get the matter worked out. I am out.
** Correction - actually he said mentioning that he just came back from overseas got the rate reduced, not the fact it was stolen **
[This message has been edited by exoticse (edited 11-05-2010).]
It's reads like they are both did several things wrong and they both did things that were illegal. Illinois just started making the sellers notify the Secretary of State when they sell a car because too many people were buying cars to flip and not putting them in there name before selling them.
Despite what anyone thinks Keen at least deserves a chance to tell his side of the story.
A friend suggested and it occurs to me that without Keen, xzotikGT probably would likely not have been able to get the car out of impound, without the proper registration, even with a copy of the title.
Mentioning the car was stolen did get his storage fees reduced, from some ridiculous amount that probably had the car destined to be crushed.
Maybe things just snowballed from there ??
I don't think you have the entire story, facts? Do you know how many times this car was stolen? Who was in possession of the car when it was stolen each time? I am thinking a stolen car did not get him reduced rate at the impound.
But, I am looking forward to his side of the story too. Because the "my car was driven for several thousand miles in the hands of a thief" REALLLLLY sticks out and I want to hear the reason he thinks a legal sell of a car constitutes a theft?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 11-05-2010).]
I don't think you have the entire story, facts? Do you know how many times this car was stolen? Who was in possession of the car when it was stolen each time? I am thinking a stolen car did not get him reduced rate at the impound.
But, I am looking forward to his side of the story too. Because the "my car was driven for several thousand miles in the hands of a thief" REALLLLLY sticks out and I want to hear the reason he thinks a legal sell of a car constitutes a theft?
Keen has been in the service for more than a few years now and just getting back in the states after a year in the sand box. Are we even sure it was Keen who "sold" the car? Thinking back I never asked for an ID for the last car I purchased, they could have been anyone. The title was already signed when it was handed to me so who knows who signed it.
[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 11-05-2010).]
Ask me what I did for a living for 28 years. Before I retired from the military
You were not the only person who was in the military.
In all legal aspects, Keen is the owner of the car. Xzotik has already admitted he basically considered the car gone which means he abandoned the vehicle. If he filed a police report, then he may have something to claim. But a 2 year old bill of sale and an untransferred title will not pull much weight. Especially since the state considered the vehicle "abandoned". It was also noted that by the laws of the State of Washington Keen is the legal owner and was responsible for all fines/fees associated with the vehicle.
If someone complained to his C.O. or went to JAG, all he has to do is show the state considered the vehicle abandoned, that He was the legal owner and responsible for all fees (which he paid) and legally obtained the proper title and properly registered the vehicle. One more thing to consider, This sale happened prior to his military service. What he has done recently to obtain the vehicle was done in accordance with all local laws.
If you bought a vehicle and it you abandoned it, You cannot claim it as property after someone else has obtained it legally.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
I don't think you have the entire story, facts? Do you know how many times this car was stolen? Who was in possession of the car when it was stolen each time? I am thinking a stolen car did not get him reduced rate at the impound.
But, I am looking forward to his side of the story too. Because the "my car was driven for several thousand miles in the hands of a thief" REALLLLLY sticks out and I want to hear the reason he thinks a legal sell of a car constitutes a theft?
My question is was this car ever actually reported as "stolen" to the Police???? From the sounds of Xzotik's posts, he did not. He just called local towing companies. I doubt Keen actually filed a Police report. I believe he just received a call from the towing company stating they found his car abandoned and he was legally responsible for the impound fees.
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 11-05-2010).]
Isn't that kind of like someone buying a new Ipod but not registering it with Apple...who owns it the store that sold it because it was never registered? up here when you buy/sell a car each party has to sign whats called a transfer paper..once thats done the person paying the money owns the car..makes no differance who the motor viechle branch has on file as owning it...may come down to basic contract law ...very interesting.
[This message has been edited by samt (edited 11-05-2010).]
registering a product gives you " bonuses " free tech support, a warranty etc. Same as a car but for a car the perks are it being legal to drive on the road. Your proof of purchase or credit on the bank account is what proves you bought the ipod and that you own it. Also it can be entered into the OS. A car title proves you own the car, frame, etc. Without a title in your name you own squat. ( atleast in ny and I believe most places...other wise there is no point for the title to even exist )
bill of sale is a very powerful item in contract law..that much I know from my studies....money changed hands both parties had a coming of mind its a legal contract...it was a civil matter not sure about that now...
Isn't that kind of like someone buying a new Ipod but not registering it with Apple...who owns it the store that sold it because it was never registered? up here when you buy/sell a car each party has to sign whats called a transfer paper..once thats done the person paying the money owns the car..makes no differance who the motor viechle branch has on file as owning it...may come down to basic contract law ...very interesting.
If you leave the Ipod in the lost and found at the mall for 6 months do you think you will get it back?
bill of sale is a very powerful item in contract law..that much I know from my studies....money changed hands both parties had a coming of mind its a legal contract...it was a civil matter not sure about that now...
The difference here is the car was sold which completed the contractual agreement of the Bill of Sale. Buyer paid the money and the vehicle was given to the buyer. Therefore the bill of sale contract was legal and completed. Problem is the buyer did not transfer the title properly then technically abandoned the vehicle two years later. Once a vehicle is abandoned, It's basically up for grabs. In the State of Washington the vehicle was legally labeled as abandoned. No stolen vehicle report was filed. The buyer already admitted it was a "few months". Even in Canada if a vehicle is abandoned and not claimed in a specific time frame, they auction it off.
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 11-05-2010).]
if my ipod was stolen and I find it at a pawn shop..I have a bill of sale will I get it back?
If you can prove it was stolen (police report) and you have the bill of sale yes you get your Ipod back. If you lost it (abandoned it) or did not report it stolen then no you cannot get it back. That is the main point. The vehicle was NOT reported stolen by the buyer. (his own admission)
....in this case as I said it was a civil matter...the police would have most likly said give the guy back the money he paid you for the car and carry on..but now we have some fruad involved as far as I can see....I'm not sure you can legally claim something back as yours just because the person you sold it to didn't register it or file a police report saying it was stolen...at very least he should have told the police that he sold it and who to..very bad judgement here...Bill of sale is just that a paper saying the two parties agreed on price and terms a binding contract in court..of course that being said contract law isn't my specialty but it would be an interesting argument for sure...
[This message has been edited by samt (edited 11-05-2010).]
My question is was this car ever actually reported as "stolen" to the Police????
Yes it was as stated earlier in this thread. The FIRST time it was stolen he called the towing companies and got it out of impound with the signed title. It would be interesting to find out if Keen reported the sale which is ALSO required within a short number of says. Xzotik did not adandon the vehicle, it was stolen and he was not notified when it was found where the thief abandoned it.
Originally posted by Oreif: My question is was this car ever actually reported as "stolen" to the Police????
There was a police report filed. I believe it was stated 2 pages back.
quote
Originally posted by Oreif: In all legal aspects, Keen is the owner of the car. Xzotik has already admitted he basically considered the car gone which means he abandoned the vehicle.
Filing a police report stating that it has been stolen is not an indication of abandonment. I do believe that is an affidavit to which you are stating that its been taken, and you would like the authorities to assist in its recovery.
quote
Originally posted by exoticse: A friend suggested and it occurs to me that without Keen, xzotikGT probably would likely not have been able to get the car out of impound, without the proper registration, even with a copy of the title.
The first time the car was stolen, X did pick it up at Skyway Towing with the bill of sale and the signed title. He didnt need Keen as he sold X the car.
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Keen has been in the service for more than a few years now and just getting back in the states after a year in the sand box. Are we even sure it was Keen who "sold" the car?
I wondered about this also - the thing was that he sold the car in December of 08, and he said that he was deployed for a year. If he returned by his own admission in Aug of 2010, that means he left Aug of 09 ( plus / minus ) which still leaves about 8 / 9 months that the car would have been gone. I'd think, and you know what happens when people start that, that it would have been reported as stolen during this time - to which it was not... He sold it to X so there was no reason to do so.
