Missouri man recovers stolen car in Utah, 16 years later

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 23, 2011 12:11 p.m.

    Sounds like some investigative work is needed to apprehend the original thief and chain of custody of the vehicle. Maybe there are legal investigative means or other ways to resolve liabilities and settlement for all the injured parties.

    Or maybe the simple resolution is to let it go and move on. It is possible that the Missouri owner may be sympathetic to an appeal from the Utah 'care-taker' of the vehicle, and reimburse him for maintenance and upgrades, but in this cynical world, its best to not hold out hope.

  • Chieftess Ivins, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 11:48 p.m.

    The seller, the man from Syracuse, will have to start his own investigations now. Hopefully he can get e-bay to help him track the seller and find out how long the car was in the e-bay seller's possession and so on. Good luck.

  • Let's be real Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 20, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    Re: Rifleman

    Where in the world did you get the notion that I think he is not entitled to his car back? Bizarre! I said that I felt bad that the present owner is going to lose his car that he just sunk $26K into. Nowhere did I say that the original owner should be punished, nor did I think it. It is his car! I was suggesting that if he is in the position, I think he should pay the former owner some of the money. He kept it up, did modifications to maintain the value. It does not appear to be wrecked in any way or in bad shape. If it were me and I could do so, I would try to pay the guy some money for the upkeep and hassle of losing a car that he put $26K into it already.

    I also believe that the DMV or other agency should be the one that has exposure for not doing their job(s). A reckless mistake cost a person $26K.

    If I were you, I would read a comment more carefully and not read between the lines. It can make a person seem foolish.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 19, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    Re: Let's be real | 11:01 a.m. Oct. 19, 2011

    The legal owner of a car has no obligation to pay for unauthorized modifications made to a car that was stolen from him. Punishing the original victim to make another victim whole isn't the answer.

    Your comments make it sound like you think the legitimate owner isn't entitled to get his car back.

  • Let's be real Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 19, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    Wow, I kind of feel bad for the guy that spent $26,000 dollars on the car to be able to let the original owner take it. I wonder if the original purchaser got paid for it after it was stolen by an insurance company. If so, he owes the insurance company money. He should be willing to cough up some money to the guy that put another $10K in it to spiff it up. What is going to happen to the person with the DMV or Tax Commission that made a terrible mistake? Perhaps send him on a cuise or something? They have a stake in this also. They make a mistake and now someone else is paying for it. Oh well, that is what government immunity is for, right?