 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2009Volkswagen van stolen in 1974 finally found
A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And since it's in like-new condition it's probably worth tens-of-thousands $$$. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stolen-bus6-2009nov06,0,5595923.story When U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at the Port of Los Angeles opened a shipping container bound for the Netherlands, they discovered a 1965 Volkswagen bus stolen in Washington state 35 years ago. Far out, man! The unusual seizure of the bus on Oct. 19 came during a routine inspection of several Volkswagens that were being shipped by an Arizona restorer to customers in Europe. The vehicle identification number of the bus, which was swiped in Spokane on July 12, 1974, was still in police computers. "Pretty amazing, isn't it?" customs spokesman Jaime Ruiz said Thursday when the find was announced. The restorer, who was not identified, isn't a suspect in the long-ago theft, authorities said. "He's a victim himself. He was an innocent purchaser," said Mike Maleta, an investigator with the California Highway Patrol, who will attempt to trace the vehicle's ownership back through interviews and registration documents. "I'm going to try my best to find the crook," he said. Groovy. Maleta said Spokane police couldn't find the owner. "Allstate paid her $2,500 or so to settle the claim," he said. "Now it's worth $25,000. . . . It's in pristine condition. It looks like it's brand new. So Allstate wanted it." Bummer. > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And > since it's in like-new condition it's probably worth tens-of-thousands > $$$. Who's to say the restorer wasn't part of the plan? Since the insurance company already paid the claim, and wrote it off their books, they should have no claim on it. If anybody should reap the rewards of the value, it should be the owner who had it last. > > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by > > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > books, they should have no claim on it. If anybody should reap the rewards > of the value, it should be the owner who had it last. ??? How do you figure that. They basically bought the car from the original owner and are now the legal owners thereof. Localpaper says they will put it up for auction. Harry K Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said: >> A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by >> customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >books, they should have no claim on it. If anybody should reap the rewards >of the value, it should be the owner who had it last. Generally when a car is declared a total loss the insurance company takes title to the remains in exchange for paying the claim. Seems to me the rightful owner is the insurance company. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > takes title to the remains in exchange for paying the claim. Seems to > me the rightful owner is the insurance company. Like they're gonna keep the title on file on "THAT" vehicle? The only reason the insurance company wants it is because they can get a lot more for it at an auction. Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >The only reason the insurance company wants it is because they can get a >lot more for it at an auction. Why they want it is irrelevant. They paid for it and they are entitled to it. > > Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why they want it does not matter. A judge would break out laughing if you tried that argument. The fact is they own it and the original owner has no claim to it. Harry K > Why they want it does not matter. A judge would break out laughing if > you tried that argument. The fact is they own it and the original > owner has no claim to it. Depends. If the original owner's insurance paid for the loss, the original owner's insurance company (or its heirs and assigns) owns it. And I never heard of place where proof of ownership (title) is not required for vehicles, boats, homes, .... (I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that proof of ownership is probably required by somebody for any capital item worth more than some number.)  SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > And I never heard of place where proof of ownership (title) is not > required for vehicles, boats, homes, .... (I'm not a lawyer, but I > suspect that proof of ownership is probably required by somebody for > any capital item worth more than some number.) I forget the number, I think it's 20 or 25 or something, but beyond a certain age, a car may be sold without a title. -Dave >And I never heard of place where proof of ownership (title) is not >required for vehicles, boats, homes, .... (I'm not a lawyer, but I >suspect that proof of ownership is probably required by somebody for any >capital item worth more than some number.) Before around 1973 or so, cars didn't need titles, at least not in every state. And after whenever new cars needed titles, older ones didn't, at least until a certain date (varies by state) where a title was issued for all newly registered vehicles, whether or not they needed titles when new. I've bought and sold cars in New York, which had a system where the old owner was supposed to sign and give half the registration card to the new owner, and in Massachusetts, which just required a bill of sale (not much more than "I, <name> do hereby sell a 19xx <description of car>, VIN <vin> to <name> for the sum of $nnnn. <signature>") On Nov 7, 11:26 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >And I never heard of place where proof of ownership (title) is not > >required for vehicles, boats, homes, .... (I'm not a lawyer, but I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (not much more than "I, <name> do hereby sell a 19xx <description of car>, > VIN <vin> to <name> for the sum of $nnnn. <signature>") I've been buying cars as old as 1937 and my folks way back into the early 30s. Every one of them had to have a title to register it. I have bought and registered cars in several differenct states and every one of them required a title. Even abandoned cars needed a title. If one couldn't be found,you could get one by going through a Sheriff's auction (done that also for a 1938 chev). Harry K > I've been buying cars as old as 1937 and my folks way back into the > early 30s. Every one of them had to have a title to register it. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Harry K Must be your state. It's quite common for older cars to not require a title for sale or registration. -Dave > > I've been buying cars as old as 1937 and my folks way back into the > > early 30s. Every one of them had to have a title to register it. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Must be your state. It's quite common for older cars to not require a > title for sale or registration. -Dave Give me a cite to that. Possible correct as to sale but I know of no state where you can register one without it. Harry K >On Nov 7, 11:26 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> (not much more than "I, <name> do hereby sell a 19xx <description of car>, >> VIN <vin> to <name> for the sum of $nnnn. <signature>") >I've been buying cars as old as 1937 and my folks way back into the >early 30s. Every one of them had to have a title to register it. I >have bought and registered cars in several differenct states and every >one of them required a title. Even abandoned cars needed a title. If >one couldn't be found,you could get one by going through a Sheriff's >auction (done that also for a 1938 chev). Which state(s)? I believe the title system was created/used by several states before going national in the '70s. I still own a car that has _never_ had a title. I guess, back to the original story, what were the laws in Washington State regarding titles, if any, in 1965 and 1974. On Nov 8, 7:33 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >On Nov 7, 11:26 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Having owned and registered several cars in Washington, including a 37, 38, 41, 52, 54 (all before 1960, I can state with confidence that everyone had a title. The first car I bought was the 37 in 1952. First non-Washignton was 57 in 57 in NY. Also with title. I would like a cite to a state without a title. Harry K Harry K >On Nov 8, 7:33 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - >Having owned and registered several cars in Washington, including a >37, 38, 41, 52, 54 (all before 1960, I can state with confidence that >everyone had a title. The first car I bought was the 37 in 1952. >First non-Washignton was 57 in 57 in NY. Also with title. >I would like a cite to a state without a title. For new cars? None since the 1970s. For Mass. the title law went into effect Sept 1, 1972. The MassDOT website states how cars older than 1980 model year didn't need a title if bought before 11/26/1990. Which I remember since I bought an old car in 1992 w/no title, registered it, had to pay an extra fee and got a title for it. Like I stated, another car I still have never had a title, first registered around 1989. All I needed to register both was a bill of sale from the previous owners. On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >On Nov 8, 7:33 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks. Hrry K >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you tried that argument. The fact is they own it and the original > owner has no claim to it. It depends on the policy details if the original owner has a claim. That's likely why the insurance company is looking for the supporting paperwork and original owner. They wouldn't need to do that if the original owner had no possibility of a claim to it. > >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It only depends on if the company paid for the car. They did. Case closed. Even thelocal paper pointed that out. Harry K > It only depends on if the company paid for the car. They did. Case > closed. Even thelocal paper pointed that out. That means the stolen property now belongs to the insurance company. It is still stolen property. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >> > Why they want it does not matter. A judge would break out laughing if >> > you tried that argument. The fact is they own it and the original [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Harry K I agree in concept, but note that the insurance paid a depreciated amount, minus deductible. There may well be a clause in there allowing the owner to recoup at least the deductible if the car is found, and maybe even an option to "repurchase" it for the amount the insurance paid off. This must happen more often (though not to this scale) -- car stolen, insurance paid minus say $1000 deductible, found in good condition. I suspect at least some policies allow the owner the choice (and maybe even the insurance company) to get the car back somehow. So they would need to find the policy details, not because the original owner might have the right to the car outright, but because they might have a "buyback" option for the original payment. Josh > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:42:46 -0800 (PST), Harry K > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nope. First, deductible would not apply to a 'stolen' claim. Second, the payout would have been based on the value of the car as it existed (near as could be determined) just prior to the incident. As, I think it was Scott, pointed out policies contain clauses specifying 'replacement value'. You get the blue book (or less if you stand for it) of the car at the time, not what you paid originally. That is one of the drawbacks to having a new car stolen the day you buy it. You don't get your purchase price back, you get the blue book on a low mileage used car. Harry K > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And > since it's in like-new condition it's probably worth tens-of-thousands > $$$. It is now. But in 1974, it was only 9 years old. And these things were quite common back then. So I'm wondering where its been all this time? Probably unlicensed, or some DMV would have caught on by now. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ask me about my vow of silence. > > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by > > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quite common back then. So I'm wondering where its been all this time? > Probably unlicensed, or some DMV would have caught on by now. If the VIN is still in the police computers, how come the current owner (restorer) could not have checked out the VIN before buying it? I would say if the seller had a title - it would have been easy to check for forgery and if he did not have a title, then that's a great big warning sign that at the least ought to send a person to make sure that VIN is not in police computers. some of this kind of stuff is looking the other way on the transaction when you don't have to. > > > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by > > > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If the VIN is still in the police computers, how come the current > owner (restorer) could not have checked out the VIN before buying it? Where and how would you do that? > I would say if the seller had a title - it would have been easy to > check for forgery and if he did not have a title, then that's a great > big warning sign that at the least ought to send a person to make sure > that VIN is not in police computers. Cars that old do not need a title. -Dave > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 04:39:04 -0800 (PST) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ???? Where in the world do you get that from? Cite? Harry K > > Cars that old do not need a title. -Dave- Hide quoted text - > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Harry K It's common knowledge (not to everybody, obviously), but someone else posted more specifics. Going by what someone else wrote, prior to 1973, no title is necessary to sell or register a vehicle. After 1973, a title is required, unless the car is older. If the car is old enough, no title is required to sell or register the car. I believe the threshold is 20 years old? I've sold a few cars without titles and the new owners had no problem registering them WITHOUT a title. Comes from tinkering with classic muscle cars, and getting bored with them eventually... I don't know the specifics as it's never been necessary for me to know the rules in that detail. What I'm sure of though, is that a 60's era van would not require a title to be sold or registered. -Dave >>> > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by >>> > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Where and how would you do that? Carfacts. I used it once on finding out about a car. Don't recall what all they listed but it was enough to know it wasn't stolen. >> I would say if the seller had a title - it would have been easy to >> check for forgery and if he did not have a title, then that's a great >> big warning sign that at the least ought to send a person to make sure >> that VIN is not in police computers. > > Cars that old do not need a title. -Dave If you intend on selling it, you need a title. The title also proves it is yours, legally. There are also things known as salvage titles and sheriff titles. In arizona, most states, tow truck companies can claim an abandoned vehicle as theirs and get a title for it. Unless there was a real reason to run the VIN, the system would not be updated. > > Cars that old do not need a title. -Dave > > If you intend on selling it, you need a title. No, you don't. If it's old enough, you don't need a title to sell it, and you don't need a title to register it, either. > The title also proves it is yours, legally. Well that's one piece of evidence sure, if the car requires a title. -Dave Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said: >>> If the VIN is still in the police computers, how come the current >>> owner (restorer) could not have checked out the VIN before buying it? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I used it once on finding out about a car. Don't recall what all they >listed but it was enough to know it wasn't stolen. I've never heard of "carfacts." Did you mean "carfax?" Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> said: >> > A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by >> > customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If the VIN is still in the police computers, how come the current >owner (restorer) could not have checked out the VIN before buying it? Give me a break. When is the last time you called the police to check out a VIN before buying a used car? Not only have I never done that, I wouldn't even know who or where to call. Do I call my local PD? The FBI? The DMV? >I would say if the seller had a title - it would have been easy to >check for forgery In most cases there is a valid title which has been "laundered" through several states with lax documentation standards. How would you detect that? More importantly, how would you satisfy yourself before the seller got tired of waiting for you and sold the vehicle to someone else? > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the seller got tired of waiting for you and sold the vehicle to > someone else? Exactly. Joe Blow cannot call the local police and request a check on a vin. That is specifically prohibited and any officer caught running one 'for a friend' is in deep doo doo. I was the training officer for the local dispatch center for a few years. That was one of the things that was stressed heavily. Harry K > Exactly. Joe Blow cannot call the local police and request a check on > a vin. That is specifically prohibited and any officer caught running > one 'for a friend' is in deep doo doo. I was the training officer for > the local dispatch center for a few years. That was one of the things > that was stressed heavily. Most of the places I know anything about have laws against receiving stolen property and "I didn't know" is not an escape. Lots of the places I know a little about require dismantlers and restorers (aka "junk yards) to have a license and to run the every VIN through the local law enforcement or the local DMV. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >> Exactly. Joe Blow cannot call the local police and request a check on >> a vin. That is specifically prohibited and any officer caught running [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Most of the places I know anything about have laws against receiving > stolen property and "I didn't know" is not an escape. Laws in the USA are selectively enforced. If they pulled over some 17 year old in the inner city driving it, even if he had a valid title from another state and a bill of sale, he would be charged with at least receiving stolen property if not auto theft. But it was a small business that owned this van, and probably not one that was anyone's target. So, it's just a loss of money to them. It's who you are and who you know. > Lots of the places I know a little about require dismantlers and > restorers (aka "junk yards) to have a license and to run the every VIN > through the local law enforcement or the local DMV. That's because it's considered an auto sales business and the government is involved and controls access. If some body shop or average joe calls and wants to run a VIN, they'll be told to go fly a kite. [snip] > Exactly. Joe Blow cannot call the local police and request a check on > a vin. That is specifically prohibited and any officer caught running > one 'for a friend' is in deep doo doo. I was the training officer for > the local dispatch center for a few years. That was one of the things > that was stressed heavily. You don't call the cops. But some states (Washington in particular) sell the entire database to various organizations. Car dealers come to mind, as they repeatedly send me offers to trade my vehicles in. They know what makes, models and years they are. And ever since WA state mandated a home address on registrations (I had mine at a PO Box), they send them straight to my house. There are a number of outfits that can do title searches on a vehicle for you. The reason that the cops can't is that they would be competing with for-profit businesses. That appears to be a much more serious crime than occasionally shooting the wrong person. SignaturePaul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the seller got tired of waiting for you and sold the vehicle to > someone else? how about this: https://www.nicb.org/cps/rde/xchg/nicb/hs.xsl/vincheck.html >>> A 1965 Volkswagen van that was stolen in 1974 was discovered by >>> customs agents on a shipping container that was bound for Europe. And [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > some of this kind of stuff is looking the other way on the transaction > when you don't have to. You only need a license if you intend on driving it on the roads. Then it is safe to say, somebody stored it somewhere for some reason. Since it was in the hands of a restorer, who may or may not have been the owner,(or is that thief?) then it may not have been in all that good condition for some years. Could be the current owner is the same person who owns the other cars. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.