Got a call about a car that was stolen from me years ago. 1975 model. Wasn’t insured apart from 3rd party. Police have informed me it was picked up in system when the current owner went to try and register it.
Unfortunately for him he has spent $$$$ on restoring it. Car is being held in by police until I pick it up. Need to know if the guy that did it up can lawyer up to try and get money or car/parts back from me?
i don't think he could legally claim any repairs. the car was stolen. maybe he could take back removable additions to the car.
suggestions to offer it back for nothing or at a low price are ridiculous. the OP has suffered a significant financial loss 18 years ago because it was not insured.
But what was it worth back then?
Exactly. It's not the OP's fault his car was stolen and it's almost certain he's not a charity. Why should someone get what's HIS for free as if it cost him nothing!? No insurance meant he had to either save up or get a loan (maybe even a SECOND LOAN i.e. so he would have been making repayments on TWO loans) for a replacement car. So he lost his car and spent thousands more than necessary while someone else got to drive it around for free and/or sell it and/or its parts.
The one who restored it should have done a VIN check BEFORE buying. Only a weakling would just say, "Meh keep it." They could even be the original thief. That behaviour rewards thieves and increases the number of people too silly to check cars aren't stolen. For goodness sake it's one simple phone call… anyone dumb enough to spend thousands restoring but not make a (probably free on their phone plan) call to check deserves to lose out.
I've had stuff stolen and there's no way I'd pass up the chance to get some back after all the financial/emotional/mental suffering it caused. Now if they could track it back to put the first scumbag who stole it in gaol and get reimbursed that's a different story.
@[Deactivated]: Well said - if it was flagged when they tried to register, he should have done a check before buying it and it would have flagged (presuming he didn't steal it himself). OP is the innocent party, the guy working on a stolen car didn't do a basic check.
Why should someone get what's HIS for free
They are not getting it for free. They would have paid the person they bought it off.
@PleasureMe: Buyer guy didn't pay the owner. And some were saying the OP should just let buyer guy keep it because he spent money on it. The car is worth tens of thousands, but stolen, still belongs to OP not the buyer. So buyer guy would get tens of thousands of "free" money while paying the owner nothing. Hence: "Why should someone get what's HIS for free?"
IANAL, but my basic understanding is that the guy would have zero claim. The fact that the authorities acted on the fact that it was stolen kinda reinforces things.
This would be a good question to ask in the AusLegal reddit. I'd love to hear what the more learned folk say.
Can't ask questions on r/auslegal because the mods keep banning everyone.
But it was stolen wtf is wrong with the law.
Is this baked in case law somewhere?
How can he claim those additions or restoration.
Tricky situation. Given its an antique the current user might be some poor soul that purchased it from the guy that stole it… (Still it's not the OP's fault, but im telling its tricky indeed)
@kaleidoscope: The restorer can actually be charged for receiving stolen goods which can have penalties from a $5500 fine to 2 years in jail (in Sydney at least).
He'd be better off cutting his losses and not pursuing costs from the original owner.
I'd summarise case law as:
Technically you need to be able to prove a chain of title to claim ownership of anything… which allows the true owner if they can prove it to get their belongings back… but
Possession is literally 9/10ths of the law in common law for chattels personal, the onus is on someone else to prove it is theirs to be able to deprive the person in possession of it.
In this case, the OP reported it stolen, it had previously been registered in their name linked with the VIN numbers etc to the authorities, the police report stayed on file, so that goes a long way towards evidence it was theirs.
Hmmm isn't OP also the poor guy who had his car stolen 18 years ago? Just because it was stolen 18 years ago, doesn't changed the fact that it was stolen from the rightful owner.
Total garbage. he couldn't claim a thing.
What if it's the same bloke who stole it? :P
What if the car as sentimental value, like it's OPs dead dad's car or whatever. I say the person who restored it should have done their due diligence before even buying it, let alone restoring it. They should buy it from OP for the full possible value of the car before restorations started (40k+ according to someone below), and if the car has sentimental value to OP or someone OP knows then the person who restored it is SOOL.
I'm not sure what sort of idiot spends big dollars on a car without doing a REVS check on it. Last time I bought a vehicle I used the plate to get the VIN and did a check on the VIN before I even went and inspected it. There was no point even going to look at it if it wasn't clear.
I think that depends a lot on:
(A) if the guy that restored it either stole it, or has any connection to the person that stole it; and
(B) did he do his due diligence and do a REVS check that would have flagged it as stolen, just as it did when it was being registered??
OP is innocent in this… not sure we can assume the guy trying to register it is
The answer to B is obviously no. So either he's a moron, or a thief. Possibly a moronic thief.
Why is this getting so many upvotes? Was the person who still owns and restored it the person who stole it?
It's easy enough to check the registration status of a car, so there's no excuse for not knowing its history.
Lol 🤣 take your car back. It's yours not his. As far as you know this guy could be the one who stole it.
too bad you can't edit comments right haha
Bugger that, it's YOUR car OP.
People need to check the ownership of cars front up to prevent exactly this.
Geez 115 neg votes to balance the 139 postive votes.
Maybe the new owner can pay OP for 18 years of car rental plus whatever the value of the car was when stolen with interest, and then it's a fair deal.
I'd like to steal your car and store it for a 18 years, as then it would be mine to keep, right?
Depends where the guy got it from. If you get the chance to talk to him and his story seems very questionable, I'd tell him he can keep it if he paid you the value from 18 years ago, indexed to today's value haha.
Yeah, if the current “owner” can provide you with a receipt or somehow prove he didn’t know it was stolen, then I’d let him “buy” it for $1 so they get a real receipt etc
If you are desperate to be “made whole” for losing the uninsured car in 1975, I guess you could set the sale price at the value of the car when it was stolen from you… it’s a hard sell for the other person though. Not something I’d be comfortable with personally, but at least you wouldn’t be trying to make a profit
losing the uninsured car in 1975
Car was a '75 model stolen in 2005.
I totally missed the 18 years bit!
I guess the same could still apply - ask for what it was worth in 2005?
I'm guessing its worth sweet f-a!
Edited: Too early, missing words.
2005 is 18 years ago??? F my life
1975 model
Lost 18yrs ago is 2005
2005 was just yesterday
So true.
Uhhh since 2005, I've went through primary school, high school, and graduated university.
@iDroid: What does that have to do with how long ago 2005 was? Yes time is relative but 18 years ago is objectively not just yesterday.
@ProlapsedHeinous: No, it's not my second language. Only excuse for what? Not understanding "Twas hooma"? Google'd that and got nothing. I figure Twas is "It was* . No clue what's hooma, nothing on Urban Dictionary.
Considering that this car would be worth north of $40k today, you'd have to be incredibly wealthy to just let it go out of conscience for a total stranger who couldn't even be bothered to run a title check beforehand
Cars built in 75 be lucky to have a title.
Fair point, but if it was picked up by the police when he went to register it, then surely that would show up on a registry?
Built in 1975, but was stolen in 2005. If it didn't have a title or any other identification then how'd the cops know it was stolen when they tried to register it?
@sheamas88: Been 25 years since I’ve registered a car (classic I put back on the road). And they asked for body tags or engine block, by memory. Sounds dumb, when I say it out loud.
Exactly. I bought a 1975 model vehicle that needs full resto. Revs did not return anything (at all). The RTA (in person) didn't either. It's a very desirable model, so the ourchase price wasn't jnsignificant, but I'll check again before spending any more on it.
stop saying title, this ain't 'merica.
What if it is now a vintage model Mercedes that costs $300k?!? Would you still sell it for a $1?!?!?
Sell the title of the car to that person for a token amount or for the value of the car when stolen.
yea, i think this would be fair
Sure then police can charge him twice for proceeds of crime.
The car was worth, what, $7K back then? Now it's probably worth at least $40K.
If it was worth 7k as a 30 year old uninsured vehicle in 2005 (which sounds like a stretch), you can safely assume it's worth the cost of towing the thing to the scrap yard today
It's only going to be worth "at least 40k" today based on restorations being done by [not the OP]
Not at all. Many 70s classic cars (which I assume this is if someone has bothered to put $$$ into restoring it) are an order of magnitude more expensive now than they were 20 years ago. Eg. I bought a classic Celica for $700 in 2003, I'd be lucky to buy the same condition car for $7000 today based on what I see for sale now.
@Major Clod: I think you're dramatically overvaluing the OPs 260Z in the likely condition it was in during 2005 as a uninsured stolen vehicle - it would be nice if he gave us more detail, though
I'm not saying "every" car that was 30 years old in 2005 isn't worth good money today
Can confirm that I bought a ‘72 Valiant Charger in 2002 for $3000. You don’t see them on Car Sales any less that $50,000 these days.
That 18 years will have done A LOT in terms of car value appreciation.
You haven't seen the price of some of the 80's and early 90's Commodores have you…
@MS Paint: Yep I remember making my dad by a VL Calais Turbo in 1990 when no one was interested in them! He sold it in about 2005 just before they started getting crazy popular with the hoons!
@JTTheMan: I thought I was the only one a few years back with the bright idea of grabbing an old Bronco/Silverado, doing it up.
There was like 5 options for the whole country, the price was rude… ok, I’m still looking… they were TRASH. Ugly, cheap, dodgy mods done to them.
Plus inflation, plus appreciation of v vintage car
Absolutely they can. Don't trust the police, they barely understand the rules they enforce let alone the complexities of Nemo Dat.
If the purchaser of the car did so in good faith, they could own it (assuming they didn't steal it).
The person that tried to register it certainly has grounds to make a claim. The basic test will be if they acquired it in "good faith".
For Google fu, search for 'Nemo Dat exceptions'. If they make a claim, contact a lawyer.
The Nemo Dat rule is that you cannot sell what you don't own. The exemptions are all the times that you can. It's a complicated bit of law. Don't try and bush lawyer it would be my advice.
"The purchaser makes all relevant investigation and has no reason to believe otherwise"
The "new" owner would have to get over this hurdle IMO
Surely if this was done pre sale the stolen car would have been identified and therefore how can the new owner claim they are a Bona fide purchaser. If they have proof they did then its a different story
Question was weather they can "try" and get cash or the car back. There is certainly an argument they can. There is certainly an argument title remained with the OP.
But this is the answer the OP needs and the issues that would need to be explored should a claim be made.
I'm not arguing a position either way.
For nemo dat to not apply under the "good faith" exception, the purchaser would have had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that there was no question as to whether the person who sold it to him had good title to pass on. For example if he checked on PPSR, and it incorrectly told him the car was not stolen because the original owner had not reported it as being stolen.
In was likely in the PPSR given the issue was flagged during a registration application. On the known facts OP would probably have the better claim to title.
The risk to OP at this point it time and money defending a claim.
Yeah this, the fact that it was eventually flagged in a database shows that the new 'owner' could easily have checked.
Checking the vin of a car before sale is a reasonable and expected step to take…
Purchasing a car in good faith is not the same as due diligence. If the purchaser did due diligence and the normal checks did not pick it up then the issue becomes did someone not do their due diligence on the other end. This would mean they have a claim against e.g. those that administered the PPSR, not against OP.
The OP is safe in theory, I fail to see how the real owner has to somehow pay the person who purchased stolen property. The best case scenario for the purchaser is a claim against those that sold it to him (police should be investigating that) and/or anyone that advised the car was not stolen (e.g. if PPSR/DOT checks done). If he's purchased it in 'good faith' he hasn't committed a criminal act, however if he knew or ought to know it was stolen then he would additionally face cirminal charges.
Don't try and bush lawyer it would be my advice.
So basically ignore all legal dribble that others try to offer online?
How do we know that the guy who did it up, stole it?
He might also be a victim.
Seems like he's been sitting on it this entire time, or it switched hands whilst unregistered…
I doubt he would have just gone and try to register it if he did steal it
You’d be surprised. Some thief’s think that you can just wait out things.
Victim yes, but a PPSR (back then probably REVS) check would have prevented the guy buying a stolen car. Sucks, but the guy made a mistake not to do one to save a few bucks
Then he needs to claim the loss from the person he purchased it from, not the OP
Of course. Who said otherwise?
OP is entitled to have the car returned.
Person who did it up should be entitled to remove the items he added.
Person who did it up may be allowed to return it to the condition "pre-done up"
OP says he's happy to pay doer-upper for the works done, but that's going to be the problem, assessing the value of those works.
If you buy a car without registering it and without checking its title are you really a 'victim' when its true owner comes along and takes it back?
By that reckoning, people who get scammed because they trust other people, aren't really victims either
Why the hell would this guy give his stolen car to the guy who bought it without checking that he could get clear title to it???
What is with these people?
i am in this camp. If Nazi stolen art was recovered you would not let the family that had it keep it simply because they like restoring paintings and bought them from the decendants of some SS officer.
THIS.
I'm also completely blown away by the majority sentiment in this thread of just letting the new car owner take the car with nothing in exchange. Onus is on the buyer to do their research on the origin of a vehicle ESPECIALLY when buying vintage cars of value. This isn't a difficult process, it's straight forward and highly advised by every car authority there is..AND IT'S LESS THAN $5 COUNTRY WIDE.
Best of luck @yogihogi - Don't let the virtue signalers tell you otherwise.
Just let the guy that restored it keep it.