A mistake in Arizona

[JB400]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/call-12-for-action/2014/06/14/classic-car-arizona-mistake-call12/10537381/

This would stink

[polywideblock]

just love how the authorities are  not responsible for their own  mistake 

[myk]

just love how the authorities are  not responsible for their own  mistake 

Of course not, it's like taxes.  If WE are late paying anything to the government they charge us interest the second we're overdue.  If the government somehow screws up and doesn't pay its citizens in a timely manner then the it's the citizen that's outta luck.

That whole story stinks.  Every step of the resolution of that story became worse and worse for the family that restored the car.  The previous owner and his friend are douche-bags too...

[John_Kunkel]

The victim probably couldn't afford a "junkyard dog" lawyer.

[1974dodgecharger]

that's fcked up.....really fcked up...I know the gov. can take anything they want its their law and they wrote it and they can amend it, period. 

[RallyeMike]

What the hell does the State of AZ think that its residents pay car licensing and title fees for?  Specifically for this!  If the State won't enforce and track titles, there is not need for titling system.

I guess AZ has forgotten that their function is provide services, not just collect revenue.

[myk]

Politicians gotta get paid! 

[b5blue]

As someone who had 2 cars stolen I ask myself what would I do? 

[myk]

As someone who had 2 cars stolen I ask myself what would I do? 

Difficult to say.  Personally, it would depend on how long it took for the car to be recovered, what shape it was in, etc.  I most certainly wouldn't TRY to support a decision that puts someone else out in some way, like it did with the family that restored the car.   Or would I? 

[Mike DC]

  
It sounds like the car's (rightful) owner & the guy who found it pulled some real douchebag moves on the family that restored it, too.  He could have at least given the restorers a few grand for all the work they put into it.  The restoring family was totally innocent and the freshly restored car in 2014 is probably worth a lot more than the unrestored car was in 1995.  


Couldn't the restoring family and the state track the car back to who stole it now?  Or far enough back to hit at least one previous owner who bought it under suspicious circumstances?  The state is aware of somebody who had it w/o a title at one point; they could start there.  




Also, did the car even get very far from the 1995 owner in all these years?  I would be pretty surprised if one of my friends randomly spotted & recognized my stolen car on a public street 19 years later.  Car thieves with even 1/4th of a brain aren't going to keep (or sell) a unique classic car right in the same area they stole it from.  

And then the owner turns around and GIVES the car to the friend who spotted it?  Just like that?  He won't even think of doing anything to help the family that bought it legally and spent a ton of money beautifully restoring it, but he'll give it away to a friend a few hours later?  


This whole thing smells funny.  

[wingcar]

The story sucks for all involved....except the previous owner, who appears to be a bigger thief than the individual that originally stole the car!  There is something that really smells about this story.  Just another sad story of poor government and how we as law abiding citizens always seem to come out on the short end.  Not to mention what lesson this gives to the young guy about "the system".......

[Aero426]

It sounds like the owner from back in 2000 was in bed with the state inspector who issued the state VIN and was "unable to find the factory VIN".      

[Troy]

What a sad world we live in.

Even if their employment records don't go back that far the inspector signed something. You can't just generate a VIN without someone's name attached. Too bad the people who lost the car didn't have a better lawyer.

The final owner is a huge prick. I bet his paperwork to buy the car doesn't say a thing about the parts! To go after the guys who built the car that he got for a "token amount" for parts that the original owner never owned is disgusting. Honest people always lose the most in these deals. If they were criminals this guy would probably end up in the hospital and everything he owed burned to the ground. He'd likely deserve it.

Troy

[Homerr]

It would be nice if this guy in the video could get his car insurance to settle with the insurance of the guy who had the car stolen.  It would be less insulting, even if he could get 50 cents on the dollar.

I know the state was the one that messed up but since government agencies can never be held liable for anything, really, it would be great for insurance to cover this type of stuff - much like title insurance with a house would.

[Todd Wilson]

I would be curious to know if the original owner in 1995 had insurance on the car and got paid when it was stolen?! If that's the case then the car is the insurance companies and not the 1995 owner. I would dig into that and throw some stink back his way if that was the case.


Todd

[Troy]

I would be curious to know if the original owner in 1995 had insurance on the car and got paid when it was stolen?! If that's the case then the car is the insurance companies and not the 1995 owner. I would dig into that and throw some stink back his way if that was the case.


Todd

If it was a derelict project I doubt the guy had any insurance.

After reading the article again, the guy who now owns the car is the one who sold it to the guy who had it stolen. So maybe he has some "sentimental" attachment to it and, maybe, there was one of those agreements like "if you ever sell the car give me first dibs".

Also, the car in the picture with the article isn't the one that was stolen. It's something like this one (Hagerty list the value at about $15,000 max).

Troy

[Mopar Nut]

 

[rt green]

wow. the whole  thing stinks

[myk]

After much consideration, I can't imagine I'd be any different from the original owner though.  I mean think about it: God forbid that one of our cars disappears one day, and we write off all of the blood, sweat, tears and money that we put into it, only to have the car pop up again somewhere down the line.  I'm not too ashamed to say that yes; I would take my car back in a heartbeat, even knowing that someone else had put in their own version of blood, sweat, tears and money into my car.  Should I burn in hell for that?  Maybe...

[JB400]

I see no problem of giving the car back to the original owner.  What I do see a problem is, is that there was no compensation for the guy that was restoring  the car.  He thought he had ownership fair and square.

[myk]

Who would then be responsible for giving the compensation?  We all know our lovely government won't spend a dime, but on the other hand I'm sure the common classic car owner isn't in a great state of wealth either...

[Mike DC]

   
The common classic car owner wouldn't be hurting so bad if someone else did the entire resto for them. 


I will say this, though:  We only assume that the 1995 owner ever intended to dump a lot of money into fixing up the car in the first place.  That's our 2014-Mopar-fan bias.  That car was an Oldsmobile in Arizona 20 years ago.  Not nearly so out of place & rare as it would have been for an old Charger in the rust belt.  Maybe the owner intended to fix it up, maybe he didn't wanna invest the money.  Maybe he didn't even have a strong opinion about it.  We don't know.



The only person we can truly blame (besides the actual car thief) is the state worker who made a mistake on the job 14 years ago.  Not much hope of restitution there. 

But it seems like quite a mistake to make.  As aero426 pointed out, it begs the question if that worker was somehow persuaded to fumble the job in 2000.  The state VIN-finder couldn't find the VIN, on a common GM platform, on a car that just happened to be stolen and still intact.  Fishy. 


   

[myk]

   
The common classic car owner wouldn't be hurting so bad if someone else did the entire resto for them. 



   

They would be if they were suddenly expected to compensate the party that restored the car...

[1974dodgecharger]

the whole thing is fishy the only person I felt who was no, 'in' on this is the recent owner.  That car just fckin happens to be in the same neighborhood it was stolen....yeah ok.

[6spd68]

The previous owner and his friend are douche-bags too...

RIGHT???  Things like this seem to happen all the time though...

[WHITE AND RED 69]

What a shitty situation.  

In the comments section the "new owner" is defending himself by saying the article is not giving all the facts:
-The car was not insured at the time it was stolen so no insurance money was paid out
-Him and his dad did a lot of previous work on it, that's why it was "sold" to him
-The car is not restored. Paint looked similar to the day it was stolen and is not anywhere near running condition (explains how the guy recognized it and why the article didn't post up a real photo of the car)
-Interior was not restored and has the same panels and seats installed years ago
-He did not threaten to sue the guy to get missing parts, he offered to purchase the trim that was removed for body work

If any of that is true then that changes how I look at the story. They made it sound like he had a fully restored car taken from him when in reality it was a beater. It still sucks but having a project taken is a bit different than having a fully restored car taken away. I doubt the guys who found it planned some 20 year scam to get back, that's a lot of faith in your scam to get back a project car.

I feel bad for the guy and his kid that were working on it, they did nothing wrong and got royally screwed. The state should at least give the guy something. Hell, offer him something out of the impound lot.    

[Mike DC]

   
How about looking into the inspector who gave it the new VIN in 2000? 

How about starting with the owner of the car in 2000 and trying to pin down the original thief? 

That might help just a little.

[6spd68]

   
How about looking into the inspector who gave it the new VIN in 2000? 

How about starting with the owner of the car in 2000 and trying to pin down the original thief? 

That might help just a little.

Exactly...  The inspector not so much; as the governing body of the state has more power then we ever could.  I'd be turning over every stone to find the shady fellow that sold me the car in the first place though.

[Mike DC]

 
The inspector's mistake might not have been an accident, he might have been paid off or something.  

Once would be hard to prove.  But guys who do that, usually don't stop at once.  You might establish that your case is one more suspicious action by someone who is already linked to other shady stuff.  


Financial restitution isn't likely but at least it might help get someone jailed for your loss.