This Just Seems Scummy

I dont even bother with no title vehicles at all. I wouldnt even want one at my house, no matter how cheap it was. Even expired registration id pass most of the time.

sachilles wrote: Most states will not issue a title for a car over 15 years old. So not having a title is not out of line.

Pennsylvania is at least one exception...

all cars 73 and up have titles in NY and if they are purchased from out of state,they will get issued a NY title when registered here.

Florida has a new electronic title so you can register it and not worry about losing the title . Back in the day vw beetles where the most stolen car because of the dune buggy craze . This type of loss for the resto company could be their financial demise ouch .

Hmmm...

I had a VW bus when I was 21, and Allstate was my insurer.

I'm currently 48. You do the math.

Sadly, I'm not remembering reporting mine stole, but one never knows, do one?

In reply to carzan:

The law says that if one does not legally possess(Hold title) something they cannot legally transfer title or ownership. No matter how legal the latter title looked, it could never be legal, and the "owner" could never legally transfer title to someone else.

This is the same reason you don't get to keep something you bought when it ends up having been stolen. And you're out your money, and have to go after whoever sold it to you to get it back.

That doesn't make sense.

You have to have ownership to transfer ownership, but if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't offer titles, it wouldn't be possible to provide one.

The law can't require a standard of proof of ownership to transfer ownership that is higher than the standard the same law has to have ownership.

By your argument, I am not the owner of my 1960 El Camino, because my state doesn't issue titles for such vehicles. I can assure you, that is not correct, and based on the ad valorum taxes that my state charges me, they most certainly do consider me the owner. I can transfer the ownership whenever I please, completely legally.

Additionally, I can prove ownership, and if someone steals it from me, I most certainly can prosecute for theft. I am even able to purchase theft insurance for this vehicle.

OK I read the entire article.

It occurs to me (an is my opinion) that the shop took the risk, in fact I will infure that they knew it was probably stolen. Shipping over seas? that is another red flag right there.

turns out, though it is rarely caught, dealing in stolen goods is not a good business model.

that is my opinion, the shop may not have known, but I doubt it.

Datsun1500 wrote:

EricM wrote: stolen. Shipping over seas? that is another red flag right there.

When the dollar was strong you could make money shipping cars to the USA for resale (think original Minis). Now that the dollar is weak, you can make money shipping them out, no red flag, just supply and demand.

Quite true, no red flag on the overseas sale. Overseas sales have always been strong with VWs and even moreso with a weak dollar. Its not surprising or out of the ordinary at all.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to carzan: The law says that if one does not legally possess(Hold title) something they cannot legally transfer title or ownership. No matter how legal the latter title looked, it could never be legal, and the "owner" could never legally transfer title to someone else. This is the same reason you don't get to keep something you bought when it ends up having been stolen. And you're out your money, and have to go after whoever sold it to you to get it back.

Thanks, but I think I made it pretty clear that I knew the law is on Allstate's side in my original post. Along with that, I am well aware that the law leaves no provisions for compensation to someone who purchases property that was stolen.

This whole title debate seems to have stemmed from the assertion by some that the restoration shop a) didn't have title b) knew the car was stolen c) should have done this, that and the other and since they didn't, it is all their fault. I have read nothing that indicates they did anything but buy a vehicle to restore and sell, whether it was to someone overseas or their own mother. If the police had any evidence that anything else was going on, I doubt they would be describing the shop owners as victims and more likely be serving them warrants. Personally, unless the shop was proven to have done something wrong, I think they ought to be able to recover at least the cost of their materials after the auction, but again, I realize there is no law to support this. That doesn't make it right.

I might be more likely to believe the shop knew that it was stolen if the vehicle was, say, an '08 Mustang that was stolen a month ago, but a VW bus that was stolen 35 years ago? Can you think how many times it could have changed hands with each owner thinking they legitimately owned it in 35 years? C'mon.

But, Allstate is going to sell off a vehicle that they settled for whatever Allstate thought it was worth, wrote it off and forgot about 35 years ago. Nice score, Kind of like finding a bag of money...somebody else's money.

NYS didn't title cars until the '70's. The registration was proof of ownership.

In reply to carzan:

I was actually agreeing with you, no need for the condescending response...

Strizzo wrote: In reply to carzan: I was actually agreeing with you, no need for the condescending response...

From my point of view, it came off as being a lecture, but that not being the case, my humblest apologies.

In other news, I dug deeper into how this all came about which led to something that many may find useful. When the VIN was checked, it wasn't checked through any police database because most don't keep records dating back more than 10 years. So, how does one find out if their older car was stolen? According to the article I read, they went to the NICB website and used the "VINcheck" database. Obviously, nothing is going to give 100% assurance that a car isn't stolen, but if it could find the 35-year-old record of a VW bus, it sounds like it is way more reliable than depending on police databases. I didn't know about it, and if the shop in Arizona had known about it, used it and acted appropriately, things undoubtedly would have turned out differently for them. I hope this information is one good thing that will come out of this situation.

Here's more of the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574031,00.html?test=latestnews

Fox News said: 'Party Van' Stolen 35 Years Ago Found by U.S. Customs Agents, Owner Wants It Back Wednesday, November 11, 2009 By Miriam Jordan This stolen 1965 VW bus was heading to Germany when customs agents seized it in Los Angeles in October. Now, its owner wants her 'party van' back. Michele "Mikey" Carlson Squires was brushing her teeth Friday night when a TV news report about a Volkswagen microbus caught her attention. Stolen 35 years ago in her hometown of Spokane, Wash., the van was discovered by customs officers at the port of Los Angeles during a routine search of a container bound for Europe. "It looks like my car," she thought at the sight of the 1965 blue-and-white VW with an accordion sunroof. She had one just like it that was stolen back in 1974. "Wouldn't it be funny if that was my van," she told her boyfriend, Earl Roethle. On Monday, a call to the insurance company confirmed the 44-year-old bus was indeed hers. It was running perfectly and in pristine condition with 70,000 miles on the odometer. Now, Ms. Squires, 58 years old, says she's hoping to be reunited with her "beloved hippie mobile," which disappeared from a repair shop during the 1974 World's Fair in Spokane. Back then, she was a "wannabe hippie" who wore bandanas, bell bottoms and halter tops. Ms. Squires was 21 when she bought the bus in 1972 from a local car lot. She recalls being told it had only one previous owner. "I paid $600 to $1,000," she says. "I'm not sure." She used it to cart around five girlfriends who waited tables with her at Cathay Inn, a Chinese restaurant in Spokane. Several of the women have known each other since kindergarten and remain close to this day. They sometimes took joy rides to nowhere. They piled into the bus for "progressive dinners," stopping at one friend's house for cocktails, at another's for appetizers, at yet another's for the main course and so on. They did things they'd rather not reveal. "It was the '70s. We used this vehicle to go out and celebrate life with each other," says Janice Updike, a member of the original sextet. "It was kind of like a party van. This is before seat belts and all that safety stuff. We'd load up, head over to Idaho, have a good time and come back."

aircooled wrote: The restoration shop was pretty stupid. Certainly check the VIN. If they were a half way decent shop I am sure they could at least swap the VIN with another junk Van, I mean, how hard can that be on a 65 VW!?! A couple of rivits?!?

The riveted plate is only for convenience. The real VIN numbers are stamped into the body, usually somewhere on the firewall and a floorpan brace or two. If the riveted plate disagrees with the other numbers.........uh-oh.

Dr. Hess wrote: Here's more of the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574031,00.html?test=latestnews

Fox News said: They sometimes took joy rides to nowhere. They piled into the bus for "progressive dinners," stopping at one friend's house for cocktails, at another's for appetizers....

Lemme think back - "progressive dinners" is code for "special brownies" and "cocktails" is code for shroom tea.

Yeah, I lived in the 70's.

If the van is her's she should get back, in the same condition as it was when stolen.

oldsaw wrote: If the van is her's she should get back, in the same condition as it was when stolen.

I'm guessing it belongs to whoever insured it at the time. Though they probably don't want it and would be happy to give it to her for some good publicity in the local paper.

spitfirebill wrote: This is why I wouldn't touch cars often sold on ebay where the owner has never bothered to title the car in their name, or who say it would be "easy to get a title". In SC, you ain't doin nothin without a title. And boat is even worse. We have guys who have taken a day off work to go to the DNR office to title their boats. If I buy something without a title, it is a parts car and I am only taking the parts off I need. The rest is going to the crusher.

The only crusher in my 100K population town won't even buy a car from an individual without a title anymore. I'd have to invest in a stack of blades and a sawsall (not that I'm averse to owning the universal tool...).

Clem

CrackMonkey wrote:

oldsaw wrote: If the van is her's she should get back, in the same condition as it was when stolen.

I'm guessing it belongs to whoever insured it at the time. Though they probably don't want it and would be happy to give it to her for some good publicity in the local paper.

Or she could pay back the settlement the insurance company paid off after the theft...possibly.

Clem

Dr. Hess wrote: Here's more of the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574031,00.html?test=latestnews

Fox News said: 'Party Van' Stolen 35 Years Ago Found by U.S. Customs Agents, Owner Wants It Back Wednesday, November 11, 2009 By Miriam Jordan This stolen 1965 VW bus was heading to Germany when customs agents seized it in Los Angeles in October. Now, its owner wants her 'party van' back...

Wow...Yeah, I'm not really sure how this works. She settled with Allstate which, in my mind, excludes her from any claim against the vehicle. But, does it really...?