Cops Find Man's Stolen Mustang 37 Years Later

[bill pritchett]

Cops Find Man's Stolen Mustang 37 Years Later

Thursday , March 20, 2008

After 37 years a Los Angeles man may finally get his stolen Mustang back.

Eugene Brakke was recently told by the San Diego Police Department auto theft unit that his 1965 Mustang was found in their city, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

In 1970 Brakke reported it stolen and filed a report with the Burbank Police Department, the newspaper reported.

Police told the newspaper that a San Diego woman was given the Mustang as a high school graduation gift from her father in 1970. When she recently tried to sell it, she learned it was stolen.

But, according to the woman, it is unclear if Brakke wants to car back, because he told her it is "just not the same," the newspaper reported.

[Barry Wolk]

If he took a settlement from an insurance company he had to turn over the title and no longer owns it, the insurance company does.

If he still has or can get a replacement title, the car is clearly his.

I believe you left out the part where her father bought the car legally from a used car lot at a dealership.

I believe there should be a statute of limitations on this type of situation, like any other crime.

[oldcarfudd]

A ststute of limitations would keep the original car thief from going to jail. Considering that he was a young punk at the time and might now be a respectable citizen, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean the car doesn't still belong to the original owner (or his insurance company). Look at the looted art work that occasionally surfaces many years later. It may be worth a fortune. To whom does that fortune rightfully belong? Not to the thief, I hope, nor to his descendents, nor to the people who may have bought the stolen art along the way without doing due diligence.

[Barry Wolk]

The existing statute of limitations would already keep the thief from going to jail. I'm saying that there should be a limitation on one's rights to a stolen car, even if there was no insurance pay-out.

Why should the legitimate buyer be punished for making a legal transaction. She paid for plates on this car for 38 years. Is there no culpability on the part of the State of California for allowing this to go on for so long?

If you bought a stolen painting from a legitimate party, such as an auction house or gallery, why should you be punished?

That's why I don't think she should be punished. I would think that a reasonable solution would be for the previous and current, legal, owner to split the proceeds on a car she was planning on selling, anyway. That's how this whole thing started.

[RocketDude]

The original owner is now 80 years old, and isn't too sure he wants it, now that he found out it is no longer the original color.

It should be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out.

He was going to drive from Costa Mesa to San Diego today to see the car, but the Friday traffic scared him off, so he will go tomorrow. It's about an hour, hour and a half drive. Watch the news tomorrow....

[Matt Harwood]

There's also the whole factor of money and appreciation. There was a story like this not long ago where a '65 Shelby GT350 was stolen in the early 70s when it was just a used car. It was recovered recently in fully-restored condition and valued around $300K. Technically the insurance company owned it, but the original owner, if I recall correctly, had some kind of claim to it due to the appreciation. In a way, he had "sold" it unwillingly and had he kept it, that appreciation would be his. And then there's the guy who paid to have it restored who was thinking he was about to get a big score at auction--apparently, he's SOL because he didn't check his numbers (the Shelby Club keeps pretty meticulous records and know where most of these cars are).

Then there's the problem of income tax. The insurance company has already lost money on the car and will have to pay income tax on the appreciation of the car. But if the original owner gets it back, he doesn't have to pay income tax on it, since he already owned it (when he sells it, technically it would be capital gains).

I read about this situation a few months ago in Sports Car Market magazine (which is the smartest hobbyist magazine in the universe, by the way). What a bag of worms! If it's a garden-variety Mustang, I think it would be more of a headache than it's worth for this old gentleman. I hope it has a happy ending either way.

[JohnD1956]

The part that's missing is the woman did not make a legal transaction. She has a car that belongs to someone else. The story does not say if the original owner sold it and now wants to exert claim. It's that someone ripped him off and he had nothing to say about that.

I agree she may not have known it was stolen to begin with, and I certainly agree that the DMV (from any involved state) ought to be partially responsible. But the original owner of a stolen item ought to have the item back at anytime it is found.

Now this leaves out the theory that the car WAS voluntarilly sold in the first place, and that the original owner was working a scam on his insurance company. But who knows. Today, not much surprises me.

[Ivan Saxton]

What if the car is rare or unique? I know of an Isotta Fraschini. Someone took it for an approval test drive prior to sale about 1962, and never came back. It was sold to someone else 4 or 5 years later, and is still in the same hands. (Previous legal owner is no longer about now)

Ivan Saxton

[RocketDude]

According to the story in the LA times, the guy was "a young, single guy" who drove the car to work and parked it in the lot at the Lockheed plant in Burbank, Calif, in May, 1970. When he got off work, the car was gone.

A man bought the car from a used car lot one week later, and gave it to his now 55 year old daughter for a High School graduation present. He paid $1,114.00 from a lot in Bellflower. She has owned it since. it has been painted twice over the years, and just had the engine rebuild for the second time. A neighbor was looking at the car with the intent of purchasing it. He discovered the VIN tag on the door didn't match the one in the engine compartment. The lady notified the San Diego PD, and they gave the car a clean bill of health. The two tags still bothered her, so she contacted the DMV. One tag identified the car as having been built in San Jose, the other said it was built in Dearborn.

After contacting the DMV, she was contacted by detectives who informed her the car was stolen and they had identified the rightful owner.

The real owner purchased it painted "Honey Gold. He stated if he decides to keep it, he will have it repainted back to original.

The lady is sad, since she has owned it since she was 18, and recently spent over $4000. in restoration. It looks very nice, as far as you can tell on TV.

I'm sure it will have a happy ending. I'm predicting the ol' guy will do the right thing. Maybe he will will it to her in 20 years when he passes on..!

[RocketDude]

Damn..! All that hard work, and now I find the story..! Read it yourself..!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mustang21mar21,1,7073348.story?track=rss

[Shop Rat]

If this car is the orginal one that was stolen, it would be interesting to know the fate of the rest of the car that the door came from.

[CarlLaFong]

If he took a settlement from an insurance company he had to turn over the title and no longer owns it, the insurance company does.

Probably true, though the insurance company has probably long since destroyed all the records. No computers 37 years ago.

If he still has or can get a replacement title, the car is clearly his.

Evidently the Burbank PD has all the proof of ownership necessary, including a copy of the original title.

I believe you left out the part where her father bought the car legally from a used car lot at a dealership.

This was a fraudulant sale. What could possibly have been legal about the sale of a vehicle with two sets of numbers? The, almost certainly, long gone dealer is the culpable party. It was his responsibility to insure that the car was legal.

I believe there should be a statute of limitations on this type of situation, like any other crime.

There is a statute of limitation on the crime, but ownership of the stolen item remains

The existing statute of limitations would already keep the thief from going to jail. I'm saying that there should be a limitation on one's rights to a stolen car, even if there was no insurance pay-out.

Why should the legitimate buyer be punished for making a legal transaction. She paid for plates on this car for 38 years. Is there no culpability on the part of the State of California for allowing this to go on for so long?

Of course not. The State of California doesn't have vehicle inspections as many other states have. To them it was just another normal transfer of title

If you bought a stolen painting from a legitimate party, such as an auction house or gallery, why should you be punished?

Why should the legitimate owner be punished?

That's why I don't think she should be punished. I would think that a reasonable solution would be for the previous and current, legal, owner to split the proceeds on a car she was planning on selling, anyway. That's how this whole thing started.

Would you or anyone on this board settle for that if your car was the purloined vehicle. I think not.

[ted sweet]

she purchased a car from someone who didn't own, it was never legally her car.

[ex98thdrill]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The existing statute of limitations would already keep the thief from going to jail</div></div>That depends on where you are. In New York State you can commit a crime and there is a statute of limitations. If the statute of limitations expires in five years, and you leave the state the day after you commit the crime, the clock on the five years of the statute of limitations doesn't start until you come back into New York State. In simpler terms, if this theft occurred in New York, the thief could've left the state back in 1970, didn't come back into New York until 2005, and could still be charged.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you bought a stolen painting from a legitimate party, such as an auction house or gallery, why should you be punished?</div></div>In New York state if this person had a stolen vehicle, then they would be guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. In either case if the property is stolen, the item is stolen regardless of how you got it. Of course if you prove where the item came from, you can have a means to fight it.

[MarkV]

Well, no wonder why NY has a 'high crime rate' if you do not know something is stolen and you buy it unwittingly and w/o knowledge it is not your fault!

[nearchoclatetown]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Wolk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If you bought a stolen painting from a legitimate party, such as an auction house or gallery, why should you be punished?

</div></div>I NEVER get involved in threads like this, but I've got to ask. How does a "legitimate party" wind up with stolen property? If they were really legitimate they wouldn't be dealing in stolen paintings or cars, etc.

[Barry Wolk]

How would a buyer know it's stolen, like this case?

[MarkV]

You would not if the pink slip was forged years ago and new ones were issued and if it was reassigned.

[Barry Wolk]

Thank you. That's all I've been saying. She's not guilty of any crime yet she's being punished. She didn't knowingly accept stolen property. She even went so far as to check with the absolute authority, the state DMV. What more would any of us have done? What more have you done?

What ever happened to "possession" is 9/10th of the law? Doesn't that apply?

I believe the key to ownership is in an insurance payout, if there was one. He can't have his cake, and eat it too.

[ted sweet]

she had a car with 2 different VINS on it.

[MarkV]

But, did she know about that? I don't think so. My car was reassigned, with a new # yet, on the reg. it has the old vin, and I have the records on mine back to the 1950's so, mistakes and losses of records do happen, and sometimes no one knows about it and does not pay attention. She, probably never even noticed, because all the ford 'stang vins at that time had the same prefix just different last #'s so, if you did not read it all the way through, you would not know, also, whatever is on the DMV paper is king and if the car was in a major accident and 2 cars were smushed together, like what one of my friends does, it might have a firewall from one car a fender from another and parts from another, so, none of the numbers match and the DMV paperwork is different, did anyone ever stop and think that this car might not be the guy's but rather have some parts from it (remember it is a different color altogether)? and that the majority of the car was a different 'stang and just got into a bad accident and someone was dumb enough to leave on both #'s instead of just the one that matched the title! Why does everyone automatically think that it is the stolen one, rather than one with the stolen one's parts? There should be a way that we can brand cars and car parts w/o seeing the brand, just like cattle!

[nearchoclatetown]

You can justify it any way you want. I'd bet dollars to donuts the dealer her father bought it from was either the thief or bought it from the thief. She was just a kid that got a car given to her by her father.

[Barry Wolk]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nearchoclatetown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'd bet dollars to donuts the dealer her father bought it from was either the thief or bought it from the thief. </div></div>

So what? She, nor her father did anything wrong. They were given a clear title by the state.

[Matt Harwood]

There's no way she'll be held accountable in any criminal way. Since she had a legal title and the state issued plates, then she was not knowingly committing a crime. If she knew she had purchased a stolen car, that might hurt her. But since her deceased father gave it to her, well, how are they going to prosecute that guy, even if he knew the car was hot or was even the actual thief?

And honestly, do you really think something like this is going to be any kind of a priority for a prosecutor? I don't even think they'd hand this one to the new guy on day one. Regardless of what criminal acts were committed, it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever be prosecuted for a 30-year-old theft.

An interesting side note: the statute of limitations will not apply if they can find the thief. It isn't like things like this just go away if you can manage to hide until the statute of limitations is up. The statute is actually designed to ensure that the state delivers a speedy trial date instead of dragging their heels in order to imprison someone they "think" is guilty. It keeps them from doing an end-run around the Constitution. For instance, my brother, who uses my name and SS# when he gets in a bind, and who is now a 10 to 13-year guest of the state of Arizona, apparently got picked up for assault in Washington. That was nearly 10 years ago, and I still get pulled over all the time when the cop behind me at a light runs my plates. I don't think the statute of limitations on simple assault is that long.

What this lady will get is a big fat 0 because it isn't her car. She will probably lose the car to either the original owner or his insurance company, and she's out of luck on any money she has spent on it.

/not a lawyer but I play one on TV.

[CarlLaFong]

All the "ifs" and "what ifs" aside, the car isn't, nor was it ever, hers. It belongs to the original owner, Period. If there was a payout, then it belongs to the insurance company. When the law is broken, innocent people sometimes suffer. That's too bad, but it is a fact.The system isn't perfect.

If your child was kidnapped and raised by another person for ten years, should they be allowed to keep him? What if the child has bonded to the new "parent" and has forgotten you? I realize that a car and a human cannot be compared, but the ethics are the same. The car was stolen from the man in Burbank. It is his. There is no grey area here as far as legal ownership. The ultimate victim is the lady. That is unfortunate.

[Barry Wolk]

That would mean that a payout would be the final ownership question. That may not even be the case. Many times insurance companies sell off policies, much the same as banks sell off mortgages.

Many people don't know, but many of our classic car insurers are really not insurance companies. They are merely the broker and servicer of the policy. They will take a batch of policies and sell them off to a Lloyds of London or other large buyer, at a discount, and keep the difference in premium.

In reality, it is the person, or entity, that took the actual risk that owns the car in a payout. Some English Lord may actually own your car one day, if stolen.

[MarkV]

There are three possibilites:

It was a COMPLETE stolen vehicle

Parts from it were used from the stolen one

The dealer got the car from the thief and neither they nor the 2 owners from that time knew anything

Here in CA in the old days, they would have to write all of the registrations by hand and we had alot of cars today and then, and if the guy got his payoff 30+ years ago from the insurance company, he has no claim on it, also, that insurance company could have been bought and sold 20 times by now and may not have the records, so, why should a 20,000 car be returned to the guy when he never put that amount in and it was only worth 2 or 3 thousand at the time of the crime, that is an 18,000 profit! Off something that was long gone, if the guy takes it, he will be the thief!

[Barry Wolk]

I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a thief. However, he could be a mench and offer to split the proceeds with her. The Solomon solution.