Note: If you buy a classic car.....

[ChgrSteve67]

Make sure you have it inspected before you pay for it or put any money into it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44996012/ns/us_news-weird_news/

Dockery said he bought the car for nearly $16,000 and added another $10,000 in upgrades, and he wants to take out the upgrades he installed. Utah officials said any further issues between Neeley and Dockery would have to be resolved in civil court.

[bull]

I've always wondered what happens to the first guy who bought the car thinking it was legit? Sure, we're told he didn't know it was stolen and if he really didn't know that he's out a bundle of cash. What can that guy do to get it back?

[ChgrSteve67]

What is there to do?

You can't expect the person that rightfully owns the car to pay back the people that put money into his car or expect the owner to take the car apart and give back the parts that were installed on it after the date it was stolen.

I think the person that was selling the car is lucky not to go to jail for owning stolen property.

Can you imagine what would happen if a judge ordered the righfull owner to give the guy that had his car 25K for it or take it apart and give back the parts?  

After all when the car was stolen it was a complete and drivable car.

[bakerhillpins]

It's just a bad situation that doesn't get any better. Once again it's the victims of the crimes that end up getting the short end of the stick, not the scumbag that actually did the crime.    Makes me want to round up a posse.   

I had the VIN and the registration of the car that I was going to buy run by my local police chief to check for anything nasty before I sent any money anywhere. 

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

What is there to do?

You can't expect the person that rightfully owns the car to pay back the people that put money into his car or expect the owner to take the car apart and give back the parts that were installed on it after the date it was stolen.

I think the person that was selling the car is lucky not to go to jail for owning stolen property.

Can you imagine what would happen if a judge ordered the righfull owner to give the guy that had his car 25K for it or take it apart and give back the parts?  

After all when the car was stolen it was a complete and drivable car.

If he didn't know the property was stolen, he is not criminally liable  My bet is on the thief taking the VIN to a state that does not require a title, then washing it through to a state that does... Once they had a title in their name, the probably sold to the person in Utah who in turn, put the money into the car in good faith.

It isn't right, but I bet the person in Utah didn't know. Sad, either way... 

[41husk]

I think the person who had the car stolen should have to pay the guy who unkowingly bought repaired and maintained the car what ever money the original owner retrieved through his inssurance Co.  I am sure they collected a settlement and purchased another vehicle with that money

[Stretch]

Couldnt the athorities track the owners through the D.M.V. untill they find the guy who had it after the guy who it was stolen from. They have two vins. now. I'm sure it's a long shot but it might work. Although who is going to pay for that?

[ChgrSteve67]

I think the person who had the car stolen should have to pay the guy who unkowingly bought repaired and maintained the car what ever money the original owner retrieved through his inssurance Co.  I am sure they collected a settlement and purchased another vehicle with that money

And if the person who had his car stolen dosen't have the money to pay the guy that put the money in it? Does that mean he dosen't get his car back and the other guy gets to keep it?

The settlement issue brings up another point, shouldn't that mean the insurance company owns the car now and the origional owner should have to pay that money back with interest to get the car back? Or the car is delived to the insurance co and auctioned off.

Couldnt the athorities track the owners through the D.M.V. untill they find the guy who had it after the guy who it was stolen from. They have two vins. now. I'm sure it's a long shot but it might work. Although who is going to pay for that?

The big issue with that is the police is not going to spend the time or care about solving the crime. They are just going to consider it a insurance matter and move on.

In the end if you put money into a car make sure its a ligit car first.
There are several places that contain the VIN number, just make sure they all match and are not tampered with.

[Silver R/T]

Doesn't title go through DMV so it would raise a red flag if it's stolen?

[Budnicks]

My thoughts would be now the car is the insurance companies responsibility, that is if they paid off on the original stolen car claim, the middle man buyer who resold a stolen car is just screwed, or maybe he could take the guy he bought the car from, to small claims or maybe even turn in a claim with his insurance company if he had the car insured already...   The lawyers are the only ones that are going to make out on that deal, unless the original owner gets the car back with no insurance payback issues...

[moparstuart]

  nightmare for sure

[41husk]

I couldn't imagine.   

[rt green]

didn't the same thing happen to a woman and a vw bus that was getting sold and going overseas? i believe the insurance company ended up auctioning it off.

[bakerhillpins]

I think the person who had the car stolen should have to pay the guy who unkowingly bought repaired and maintained the car what ever money the original owner retrieved through his inssurance Co.  I am sure they collected a settlement and purchased another vehicle with that money

And if the person who had his car stolen dosen't have the money to pay the guy that put the money in it? Does that mean he dosen't get his car back and the other guy gets to keep it?

The settlement issue brings up another point, shouldn't that mean the insurance company owns the car now and the origional owner should have to pay that money back with interest to get the car back? Or the car is delived to the insurance co and auctioned off.

I don't recall reading that the original owner received anything from his insurance co.?  May have not been insured at all. 

[aussiemuscle]

maybe he could take the guy he bought the car from, to small claims

that is absolutely what he has to do if he wants a legal resolution.

unfortunately the story never said if the car was originally insured, as i'd be interested if the insurance co would do (probably nothing since it was genuinely stolen) but given he was 18, i think it's likely it was not insured.