some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Eric-I strongly disagree with you. If someone broke into your house and stole your collection would you feel that you should bear the total loss because you had not "secured" it? A believed he left the collection in a secure place.

Absolutely. Who else should, assuming the buyers didn't suspect they were stolen?

Maybe one of us misread the scenario. But it looks like M paid full retail for the cards, the 3rd sale down the line (first sale by brother locally, then to Dealer B, then to M). That burden shouldn't be on M. Yes, maybe B will step up and then the first buyer will also. But that should be worked out first. Then yes, M should help with the process and loses any profits, same as B and first buyer.

Not to mention that maybe A will eventually be made whole by the brother (maybe parents adjust inheritance or court garnishments).

[BearBailey]

The cards are where the cards are the dealers did nothing wrong unless they knowingly bought stolen cards. The brother would no longer be my brother.

[slidekellyslide]

I am currently mixed up in a situation where I unknowingly purchased stolen items. A lady came into my store and sold me some customized McFarlane football figurines that were all made into former Nebraska football players. The customs were in packages and were professionally made, I gave her a substantial amount of money for them. I placed all 15 of them on ebay and they were up to about $500 after 3 days. I got a question from an ebayer asking me where I'd gotten them. I told him that I bought them from someone who came to my store. He then told me they were stolen from him 3 years ago. I asked him to send me the police report and the next day he did. I called the police and they told me I needed to contact the police in his town (about 100 miles from me). They asked me a bunch of questions and then they asked the Lincoln police to come and take pics of the items. I also gave them her info as I only pay people via check and get their driver's license. I assume paying by check and taking ID deters thieves from even trying to sell to me. The cops told me that the lady has a warrant, but they didn't tell me what it was for.

I do believe these items were stolen from the guy, they all matched up with what was on the police report from three years ago although there were hundreds of items listed that the lady did not bring to me. The police do not seem very interested in pursuing this and said the guy was paid by insurance for the theft. I'm not so sure the local police are pursing it either because the lady came back into my store a few days ago trying to sell me baseball cards (no baseball cards were on the police report list). I took her aside and explained to her that the items she brought me a few weeks ago were stolen, she then told me a different story than the original story she gave me when she sold the figures to me. She said the figures were in her dad's possession and he had passed away. This time she told me she bought them from some guy she didn't know. As she was leaving I took her license plate down and gave it to the police, but still haven't heard anything from them.

The original owner has not contacted me since sending me the police report, but I'm wondering what the legal ownership of these items are since he was paid via insurance for them. If he was paid for what he valued the items at then it was more than I would have expected to get for them on ebay. He also had a lot of common NASCAR and Star Wars toys stolen from him that he overvalued as well. The police report states that the storage unit they were stolen from had no damage to the lock, and they found the lock on the inside of the unit.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I am currently mixed up in a situation where I unknowingly purchased stolen items. A lady came into my store and sold me some customized McFarlane football figurines that were all made into former Nebraska football players. The customs were in packages and were professionally made, I gave her a substantial amount of money for them. I placed all 15 of them on ebay and they were up to about $500 after 3 days. I got a question from an ebayer asking me where I'd gotten them. I told him that I bought them from someone who came to my store. He then told me they were stolen from him 3 years ago. I asked him to send me the police report and the next day he did. I called the police and they told me I needed to contact the police in his town (about 100 miles from me). They asked me a bunch of questions and then they asked the Lincoln police to come and take pics of the items. I also gave them her info as I only pay people via check and get their driver's license. I assume paying by check and taking ID deters thieves from even trying to sell to me. The cops told me that the lady has a warrant, but they didn't tell me what it was for.

I do believe these items were stolen from the guy, they all matched up with what was on the police report from three years ago although there were hundreds of items listed that the lady did not bring to me. The police do not seem very interested in pursuing this and said the guy was paid by insurance for the theft. I'm not so sure the local police are pursing it either because the lady came back into my store a few days ago trying to sell me baseball cards (no baseball cards were on the police report list). I took her aside and explained to her that the items she brought me a few weeks ago were stolen, she then told me a different story than the original story she gave me when she sold the figures to me. She said the figures were in her dad's possession and he had passed away. This time she told me she bought them from some guy she didn't know. As she was leaving I took her license plate down and gave it to the police, but still haven't heard anything from them.

The original owner has not contacted me since sending me the police report, but I'm wondering what the legal ownership of these items are since he was paid via insurance for them. If he was paid for what he valued the items at then it was more than I would have expected to get for them on ebay. He also had a lot of common NASCAR and Star Wars toys stolen from him that he overvalued as well. The police report states that the storage unit they were stolen from had no damage to the lock, and they found the lock on the inside of the unit.

I believe if the insurance company paid the claim, they are the new owner of the items... not unlike totaling a car, insurance pays the claim and they take the car...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

I believe if the insurance company paid the claim, they are the new owner of the items... not unlike totaling a car, insurance pays the claim and they take the car...

I think that's right because most insurance policies will have what's called a right of salvage provision.

[autograf]

I'm aware of all the A, B & M parties as others on the thread are. My understanding is that A wouldn't press charges against the brother so he gets off scott free. My thoughts are maybe M should have given the cards to someone to hold in escrow until A, B & M could figure something out (my undertstanding is another dealer is also between the brother and B).

Without holding the brother accountable, who's to say this won't happen again and put dealer D and collector K in the mix too? A's REAL beef should have been with his brother and sounds like nothing ever happened there unless I don't have all the story. In addition, looks like B, M and the other dealer between the brother and B should have somehow shared the misery three ways, maybe? I don't know.

Not sure how, especially at a card show, or how these guys buy groups of cards and collections of cards that you can fully insulate yourself from buying stolen merchandise. I know when I've sold stuff to dealers at shows no one's ever gotten my ID nor in few cases paid with a check. Seems like it's a perfect situation for moving stolen goods..........a shame for all in the loop really. I'm sure B has lost a LOT of business based on their actions as well.

[Jacklitsch]

Tom, how can you say B has lost a lot of business when most of us don't know who B is?

[drcy]

Legally, M doesn't return them or have direct financial obligation to A. With stolen property, you move step-by-step down the chain of custody and M returns them for refund from the person he bought them from. That's if you want to solve this by rule of law-- if the parties wish to work it out some other way the could do that.

This is why you are supposed to keep the receipt. Becuase if something turns out to have been stolen (even if five owners earlier), you get the refund from the person you bought the item from.

A's main course of action, it seems to me, is with his brother that originally stole/sold them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

M definitely should return the cards, now that he knows they are stolen. He can't legally, or ethically, keep stolen property. Cross reference NYPL discussion.

So the question becomes now how does one sort out the mess among the other players.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

M definitely should return the cards, now that he knows they are stolen. He can't legally, or ethically, keep stolen property. Cross reference NYPL discussion.

So the question becomes now how does one sort out the mess.

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

Yeah and I think M is entitled to the refund too because B really had nothing to sell him in the first place. It just bothers me that B then gets stuck holding the bag, assuming B has no recourse against the brother (or was there another intermediary to whom B can now go?).

[timn1]

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Being able to sleep at night -- priceless.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by timn1

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

[timn1]

He tried. B basically lawyered up and wouldn’t talk to him.

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

M.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

He went to B. B called his lawyer to see what he was obligated to do.

Chris Bland

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

M had to give them back. A does not have to wait for the cards to go back up the chain, they are A's cards and A gets them from whoever has possession. But that does not preclude M from going after B now.