Wright Letters

[birdman42]

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill

[Potomac Yank]

This is beginning to border on the Supernatural.

[FrankWakefield]

Basic property law, guys... a bundle of sticks, each stick represents a right or entitlement to the property. A seller can only convey as good of a title as he acquired. A thief has no title, nor can he convey good title. Nor can any subsequent buyer. That is basic, fundamental stuff in law school.


With Unclaimed Luggage in Scottsboro, it is unclaimed. Abandoned. No crime. Not the same at all.

With police bike auctions you left out the part about where the police attempt to locate the rightful owner and return the bike. And then the part about the bike's nominal value versus storage costs, and the municipality's decision to sell or give away bikes after a certain period of time. (Usually to kids that can't afford bikes.) The police aren't auctioning off recovered stolen jewelry like that, now, are they???

I don't really want to digress down to the point where it matters whether either of you went to law school, or not, you obviously think that a good faith buyer should eventually acquire a true ownership interest in items that were stolen. But just so I'll know, did either of you ever attend law school anywhere?

[1lovediane]

Originally Posted by birdman42

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill

a little knowledge is dangerous; the police situation is preceded by court order; consult your lawyer; this is not rocket science; again, my question: how did the lot # 209 Halper auction, 9-99, become consigned to Hunt? Was the winner of the halper lot the grandparent of the hunt consignor? it's witchcraft. and what is the F.B.I. [Federal Bureau of Incompetence] doing with the halper tip? how can we be worried with such sharp people handling this matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank you of course correctly state the common law rule that a thief cannot convey good title even to a bona fide purchaser, but is there not also the possibility that an action by the true owner -- like any other cause of action -- could be barred by a statute of limitations?

EDIT TO ADD For example, based on very quick internet only research. 1. In New York the limitation period for stolen property is three years. The law upholds that an action for recovery of stolen goods (replevin) “against a person who lawfully comes by a chattel arises, not upon the stealing or the taking, but upon the defendant’s refusal to convey the chattel upon demand.” In other words, this law could be interpreted to mean that the clock on the limitation begins ticking when the current possessor refuses to return the object.

[FrankWakefield]

Peter,

I don't know what NY law is. I don't know if KY has something like what you've posted, or not. Statutes of limitations limit the commencement of civil actions. And what you have there says that the 3 year clock starts running when the possessor refuses the owner's request for return of the stolen item. Not when the owner knows it is stolen, or knows who has it, but only after the return has been requested and denied.

Did the NYPL know who bought the stuff, or just that it had been sold at auction? Did NYPL ever ask for it back?? Only if NYPL asked the current possessor and return was refused, then would the 3 years start to run. And if they've not yet asked for it back, then they still could seek replevin.

So how's a fellow to feel good about an item in his collection if he knows it was stolen? Even if the fellow bought the item with good faith, and at a fair value?? And would he feel the same way if the item was stolen from him and then ended up in someone else's collection after some good faith purchases???

[Freddie Maguire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/sp...?_r=1&emc=eta1

I think David Hunt had a change of heart. I suppose the FBI can be persuasive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank assuming what I found on the internet is NY law, I agree with your interpretation -- the statute wouldn't start running until a demand was made. Other states might have more restrictive rules, NY probably has special reason to be more pro-owner on this issue.

My only point was that there could be circumstances -- as Corey suggested --that a true owner cannot recover stolen property from a bona fide purchaser, even though that purchaser technically may not have "title."

As for the ethics of the situation I find that a tough call. Both the true owner and the BFP have sound claims and it seems unfair to penalize the BFP because he unwittingly bought from a thief, or more likely, from someone else who did. At the same time of course why should the owner suffer? I think there is no good answer -- as my torts teacher said, it is a situation calling for an arbitrary rule.

[FrankWakefield]

I wouldn't feel sorry at all for the BFP... he can go back against his seller once the true owner has recovered his stuff.


What a mess it would be if the law was that if you can steel it and keep it hidden for some period of time, then whoever you sell it to has good title... Nope, I don't wanna live there.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And if the seller/thief is in jail and has no resources, what then? Why should an innocent be punished?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I wouldn't feel sorry at all for the BFP... he can go back against his seller once the true owner has recovered his stuff.


What a mess it would be if the law was that if you can steel it and keep it hidden for some period of time, then whoever you sell it to has good title... Nope, I don't wanna live there.

Often times with enough passage of time it will no longer be possible for the BFP to go back against his seller. Also, and most important, we're talking here about the narrow instance of the rightful owner doing nothing while knowing good faith third parties are transacting the item.

In the end, as with all things in law, there is no perfect answer. Under any proposed solution, one can always come up with instances in which someone is going to get screwed. But with the laches defense by the BFP, at least in that instance a court can carefully balance the equities and have the option of ruling that under the appropriate set of circumstances, the BFP can retain ownership.