How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Jim Reilly Your Own Question

Jim Reilly
Jim Reilly, Crim Defense Atty
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1801
Experience:  CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.
11056146
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Jim Reilly is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Auto theft stolen car. Theft by taking and theft by deception

Customer Question

Auto theft = stolen car. Theft by taking and theft by deception can include a stolen car, but it does not necessarily have to be a stolen car, but if stolen property is an Auto than it is Auto theft. If that is correct, why the District Attorney is unwilling to try my case as a Auto Theft but is willing to charge the thief with Theft by Taking or Theft by Deception?
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
The DA can choose to charge the crime that he thinks best fits the exact circumstances of the case. Without more information, it's hard to say why he might have made the choice in this case, but I would guess that it was not a stranger theft and perhaps more of a fraud situation.

If you provide more infomation about the circumstances, I can give you a more specific answer. Also what state you are in.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Stolen car at my shipper to Europe by seller. I reported to police, they did not look it after, said it is civile matter. But the seller (dealer) sold it over the auction to another dealer in same day. I have recovered my car selling again on eBay and have made second report to sherif office. AND the car is still NOT STOLEN.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
stolen in GA selling in TX. I am in switzerland
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Let me make sure I understand the circumstances correctly.

You were buying a car from someone if GA for delivery to you in Switzerland. You paid for the car. Rather than shipping to you, the seller essentially stole the car by selliing it to another dealer the same day. You then found the car being sold on eBay and recovered it.

Did you pay for it a second time when recovering it on eBay?

If those circumstances are correct, this could reasonably charged as theft by taking under Georgia Crimes Code section 16-8-2, which reads:

A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.

Or theft by deception, section 16-8-3:

(a) A person commits the offense of theft by deception when he obtains property by any deceitful means or artful practice with the intention of depriving the owner of the property.

Or perhaps even theft by conversion, section 16-8-4:


(a) A person commits the offense of theft by conversion when, having lawfully obtained funds or other property of another including, but not limited to, leased or rented personal property, under an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application of such funds or a specified disposition of such property, he knowingly converts the funds or property to his own use in violation of the agreement or legal obligation. This Code section applies whether the application or disposition is to be made from the funds or property of another or from the accused's own funds or property in equivalent amount when the agreement contemplates that the accused may deal with the funds or property of another as his own.

Unlike some other states, Georgia does not have a specific code section for theft of an automobile.
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Let me make sure I understand the circumstances correctly.

You were buying a car from someone if GA for delivery to you in Switzerland. You paid for the car. Rather than shipping to you, the seller essentially stole the car by selliing it to another dealer the same day. You then found the car being sold on eBay and recovered it.

Did you pay for it a second time when recovering it on eBay?

If those circumstances are correct, this could reasonably charged as theft by taking under Georgia Crimes Code section 16-8-2, which reads:

A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.

Or theft by deception, section 16-8-3:

(a) A person commits the offense of theft by deception when he obtains property by any deceitful means or artful practice with the intention of depriving the owner of the property.

Or perhaps even theft by conversion, section 16-8-4:


(a) A person commits the offense of theft by conversion when, having lawfully obtained funds or other property of another including, but not limited to, leased or rented personal property, under an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application of such funds or a specified disposition of such property, he knowingly converts the funds or property to his own use in violation of the agreement or legal obligation. This Code section applies whether the application or disposition is to be made from the funds or property of another or from the accused's own funds or property in equivalent amount when the agreement contemplates that the accused may deal with the funds or property of another as his own.

Unlike some other states, Georgia does not have a specific code section for theft of an automobile.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
You understand the circumstances correctly. Exactly as you said, the sheriff's investigation report even says “Theft by Taking” but the District Attorney in GA sees a difference between “Auto Theft” = “stolen car” and “Theft by Taking”

Only your last statement can explain the question: “Georgia does not have a specific code section for theft of an automobile”. DA is unwilling to try my case as a Auto Theft.

Your statement says “Theft by Taking” in GEORGIA is “Auto Theft”, does not it?
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
If the property which is stolen in a "theft by taking" is an automobile, then that auto was a "stolen car". The fact that Georgia doesn't have a specific "auto theft" provision doesn't really matter in terms of the status of the vehicle.

I'm not sure, though, why this quirk in the legal terminology makes any difference to you. If the seller is prosecuted for "theft by taking" of this vehicle and is convicted, the legal result will be exactly the same as if it would be if Georgia had a specific "auto theft" statute. Why is this distinction without a difference significant to you?
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Yes it is the point, and I understand same as you did, but the investigator of sheriff office say to me following:

"Leopold,

     I have spoken with our District Attorney about your case, and they are unwilling to try your case as a Auto Theft. They are willing to charge the two brother with Theft by Taking or Theft by Deception. I have arrest warrants on them, and the DA’s office has agreed to extradite them anywhee in the United States. Expo Motors bought the car at fair market value, and if we classified the car as stolen we would simply be transferring the loss from one Victim (you) to another Victim (Expo Motors). I know it may sound unfair to you, but that is how we are proceeding in this case."

As you can see, they MAKE DISTINCTION - why?

Distingtion is:
1) if it is stolen the Expo holding the car, has to be charge or must give the car back
2) the Autochek has to be report "as a stolen car" to stop selling it to next private person





Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Dear Mr. Jim, let me know, if you will or can give me an answer. Are you on line?
Regards
Leopold
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Sorry, Leopold, I was away most of the day.

Okay, I see what you have been driving at here. You're not concerned with the criminal prosecution as much as the civil consequences that would otherwise follow.

The DA's position on prosecution, however, will make no difference as to the civil consequences. A seller cannot pass good title to stolen property. Once your purchase was complete, you owned the car and no matter what the seller did, Expo Motors could not obtain clear title to the vehicle (even if the vehicle is registered by them).

If you sued in civil court, you would get the car back from Expo and they would have to look to the seller for recompense. I once handled a case almost exactly like this for a purchaser who lived on the Isle of Man. We ended up suing in California to recover the vehicle from the person in whose possession it was found. He had what appeared to be facially valid title and had the vehicle registered in California. The court ruled (correctly) that valid title to stolen property cannot be passed. My client got the car back and the purchaser in California, even though a good faith purchaser (that is, he had no idea the vehicle was stolen) lost out and had to go after the person who sold it to him to recover his loss.

Nothing the DA does in the criminal case can "transfer" the loss from one victim to another. The loss on on Expo no matter what.

None of this has anything to do with AutoCheck either. It may be that AutoCheck will not characterize the vehicle as stolen unless the DA does, and therefore will not protect the next good faith purchaser on the basis of the facts as they stand. Nevertheless, Expo Motors cannot pass good title to this vehicle, regardless of what AutoCheck says.
Jim Reilly, Crim Defense Atty
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1801
Experience: CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.
Jim Reilly and 9 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
I accept yor answer. Thanks very much Jim, it is very clear an logical answer, but it is only the qestion, if others (DA) will accepted it.

I will start another qestion; Are there possible to get the car back on the way of criminal prosecution, because the elements are clear fill a statment by DA?

Tell me how I should start the NEW question, and if you are ready to aswer as clear and precise as the first one?
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
You're welcome and thanks for the accept. You can continue with your new question in this thread if you like and, if you want to accept my answer to that question, you can do so again just by clicking on the green "accept" button.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the DA accepts what I have said. While he has complete control of the criminal process, he has nothing to say about any resulting criminal case and the title laws are independent of the criminal proceedings.

As for getting the car back through the criminal process, there is no guarantee that will work. If the defendant is convicted, the court can order restitution, but cannot specifically order than he return the car if he no longer has possession of it. The court can order him to repay you the purchase price of the car, but that's all.

Actual recovery of the car can only be ordered by a civil court which has jurisdiction over the vehicle. That would mean suing Expo Motors rather than the seller (though you could and should sue both in civil court, just in case you have to rely on monetary damages).

In the case I mentioned to you above, my client's car was stolen in the mid-1980's by an individual he had consigned it to for sale in the US. The theft took place in Florida, the vehicle was transported to and sold in California with false papers. We sued both the person who stole it and the person then in possession, but could not locate the seller. The judgment was against the person in possession, who was ordered to turn the car over to my client. It was a classic -- Aston Martin DB4.

You haven't mentioned what kind of car you're talking about here or how much you paid for it. But, if you want the actual vehicle rather than just return of your purchase price, the only way you can be sure of getting it is to file a civil case.
Jim Reilly, Crim Defense Atty
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1801
Experience: CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.
Jim Reilly and 9 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
It is Mercedes SLK 280 (2007) payed 36,900. It is file a civil case stared at 2/2/2009. I fired my Attorney, he has not informed me about the first hearing (injunction) and I donot know what evidance I have bring to the court (Auction buy procedure of Expo, which is not clear and other things)if in your point of vieved the case is clear.
For the DA and Expo must be file a creme, becouse he is holding a stolen car. Way did not done nothing against Expo (TX) by DA?
It is allmost 2 o'clock in the night,wenn you get sleep?
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Wink I am a bit of a night owl .... shuffled off right after posting my last response.

For your civil proceeding, the most important evidence is that which proves that you purchased the vehicle. Once you have proved ownership, it won't be necessary to prove what happened with Expo. On the other hand, if you have that evidence, you should bring it, too, in case some issue comes up in that regard.

Has there been any discovery in this civil case? The other side should be asking what evidence you intend to present ... and of course you should be doing the same regarding the defense evidence.

What is clear to me is not always clear to others and in legal matters there is always room for argument and discussion. That is why you should have all of your evidence ready.

What exactly is the civil case and what are you trying to get? Is it against the seller to recover the purchase price? Or against Expo to recover the vehicle?

It would be difficult to convince a DA to file a criminal case against Expo if they were a good faith purchaser (that is, had no knowledge that the vehicle was stolen). If they made a good faith purchase, defending against an attempt to recover the vehicle would not be criminal. While the ethical thing might be to return the car to you and pursue their own legal rights against the seller, there is no legal obligation that they do so.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Gratulation for Obama.

I understand your summary explanation in following way; “Auto Theft” Code does not exist in Georgia, through “Theft by Taking” (in case a vehicle) has meaning as “Auto Theft” in Georgia, which is “stolen car”.

Now, if the a) on offence-place police intervention’s Memorandum said “vehicle was taken in possession” b) Sheriff investigator’s Report said “Theft by Taking” it must be in my cognition “stolen car” in Georgia.

the “stolen” vehicle does not change its status if is selling on Auction in Georgia (www.ovi.com) or is transported to Texas; the vehicle in possession of Expo remain stolen, even if they were a good faith purchaser.

Again asking now on different way:
Why the DA in Georgia does not inform the DA in Texas about; the car is stolen? Clear, defending against an attempt to recover the vehicle by Expo is not criminal but possessing a stolen car with their knowledge is.
The knowledge has to be brought to them by DA Texas. Right, ethical filling to return the car are out of Rule, the civil process for Expo is in. But I think never holding the stolen vehicle. It should be made a deposit (arrest) of the vehicle by the police.
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
The election result was interesting, if not surprising. While I personally don't have a high level of agreement with our new president on most issues, I think he is a honorable man and that it is good for our country to have a minority elected president. I also think it will improve the wolrd view of the US.

Your understanding of my response is correct. And yes, this IS a stolen vehicle by any definition of the term, even though bought in good faith.

To answer your new question, the DA in Georgia could advise the DA in Texas of the status of the vehicle. Or any of the other law enforcement agencies involved could do so. But, this is a rather esoteric point of law that many police agencies would overlook unless it is specifically brought to their attention. The DA's, on the other hand, should be familiar with it.

Law enforcement in Texas, if presented with the proper facts, could take the possession of the vehicle and hold it pending legal proceedings. There is, however, no way to compel them to do so. You could, however, seek a temporary restraining order from the civil court in Texas to prevent further sale of the vehicle pending a determination of legal ownership.
Jim Reilly, Crim Defense Atty
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1801
Experience: CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.
Jim Reilly and 9 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
If I bring the status of the car (“stolen”) to DA’s attention in Texas or/and to attention of Attorney of Expo, will than Expo be charge for holding knowingly a stolen car, or not; as the offence of Auto-Theft reported by Sheriff can be change by civil court (seller remain an owner, so he has not stolen = Theft by Taking was a wrong Code)?
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
I think that making a case of receiving stolen property against Expo would be difficult, though I suppose an argument could be made that continuing to maintain possession of property once you become aware that it is stolen does constitute receiving/possessing stolen property. I have never heard of such a case being filed, but it would seem to meet the legal requirements.

Texas has chosen to consolidate all forms of theft and receiving stolen property into a single class of crimes, called "theft". You can see the Texas law in this regard at:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000031.00.htm#31.03.00

The consolidation section is 31.02. And section 31.03 defines the crime that might be involved here:

§ 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another ....

If you put
Expo on notice of the stolen status of the vehicle, that could be used as proof that they knew it was stolen. Whether or not that would be enough for the DA to act, I can't say. However, there is no downside with notifying both the DA and Expo of what's going on.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
<p>Sorry, you last Answer is a little out side the matter.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A fundamental difference is between "stolen car" and "Auto theft" thought-out "Auto theft = stolen car" can not be set; „stolen car" is status of the vehicle, "Auto theft" is offence</p><p>If the difference between "Auto Theft" = "stolen car" <strong>and</strong> "Theft by Taking" has been made by District Attorney in GA, beside your attension to that Georgia does not have a specific code section for theft of an automobile, we have to understand that the DA is waiting for the civil judgement in Texas.</p><p> </p><p>In your statement:" If the seller is prosecuted for "theft by taking" of this vehicle and is convicted, the legal result will be exactly the same as if it would be if Georgia had a specific "auto theft" statute", is not clear if your are thinking about a crime or civil process, because <strong>the legal result to the object </strong>as a characteristic (stolen car) can be only declared after verdict (so good civil as crime) </p><p> </p><p>The Sheriff statement "DA are unwilling to try your case as a Auto Theft. They are willing to charge the two brothers with Theft by Taking or Theft by Deception" is in look irrelevant. When they will charge the two brothers, which escaped to Jordan? Maybe never would, because they are outside of US.</p><p>The DA will not classify the car as stolen; "we would simply be transferring the loss from one Victim (you) to another Victim (Expo Motors)"- which is as you said; a civil result - "nothing the DA does in the criminal case can "transfer" the loss from one victim to another"</p><p>Or further "DA he has nothing to say about any resulting criminal case and <u>the title laws are independent of the criminal proceedings."</u></p><p>And if so, DA is waiting for the civil result (it is wrong I started with - the Sheriff consider I do it). </p><p>To your question; "has there been any discovery in this civil case?"</p><p>Expo put only one argument, OCGA 40-3-31 (d), that ownership has been not transfer.</p><p>Consequently is not a Theft?</p>
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
A fundamental difference is between “stolen car” and “Auto theft” thought-out “Auto theft = stolen car” can not be set; „stolen car” is status of the vehicle, “Auto theft” is offence
If the difference between “Auto Theft” = “stolen car” and “Theft by Taking” has been made by District Attorney in GA, beside your attension to that Georgia does not have a specific code section for theft of an automobile, we have to understand that the DA is waiting for the civil judgement in Texas.

In your statement:” If the seller is prosecuted for "theft by taking" of this vehicle and is convicted, the legal result will be exactly the same as if it would be if Georgia had a specific "auto theft" statute”, is not clear if your are thinking about a crime or civil process, because the legal result to the object as a characteristic (stolen car) can be only declared after verdict (so good civil as crime)

The Sheriff statement “DA are unwilling to try your case as a Auto Theft. They are willing to charge the two brothers with Theft by Taking or Theft by Deception” is in look irrelevant. When they will charge the two brothers, which escaped to Jordan? Maybe never would, because they are outside of US.
The DA will not classify the car as stolen; “we would simply be transferring the loss from one Victim (you) to another Victim (Expo Motors)”- which is as you said; a civil result - “nothing the DA does in the criminal case can "transfer" the loss from one victim to another”
Or further “DA he has nothing to say about any resulting criminal case and the title laws are independent of the criminal proceedings.”
And if so, DA is waiting for the civil result (it is wrong I started with – the Sheriff consider I do it).
To your question; “has there been any discovery in this civil case?”
Expo put only one argument, OCGA 40-3-31 (d), that ownership has been not transfer.
Consequently is not a Theft?

Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Leopold,

Your first comment above is very perceptive ... a subtle point, but well-taken. "Stolen car" is a statement of the status of the vehicle; "auto theft" is a statement of the offense which created that status.

However, I would be surprised if the DA in Georgia is going to take any action based on the civil judgment in Texas. Typically, that would not be the case in any event; but in Georgia it would not be necessary to wait because the Georgia crime is "theft by taking", which is established by the actions of the accused, not the status of the vehicle.

My comment about the result of conviction for "theft by taking" being the same as a conviction for "auto theft" was intended as an observation on the criminal process, not the civil. That is, the person convicted would be punished for stealing the automobile, the same as if there was a specific crime of auto theft.

However, the status of your vehicle as a "stolen car" became so the moment it was stolen and does not rely on a criminal conviction (which addresses only the issue of who stole it, not whether it was stolen).

The State of Georgia could prosecute for the theft (except for the fact, as you have now noted, the thieves have fled the country, which makes it difficult to prosecute them).

Actually, the DA has nothing to say about any resulting civil case and the title laws are independent of the criminal proceedings. The civil case can proceed independently of whether or not any criminal case is filed or prosecuted. I would be surprised if the DA is waiting on the result of the civil case.

There is no Georgia code section 40-3-31 (d) --- this was probably intended to be a reference to Georgia Motor Vehicles and Traffic Code section 40-3-31 (4), which reads as follows:

(4) If two or more innocent persons are the victims of the fraud or mistake of another and none of the victims could have reasonably taken steps to detect or prevent the fraud or mistake, the victim who first acquired an interest in a vehicle through any certificate of title shall have such victim's interest protected.

On the other hand, the Georgia Commercial Code, Section 11-1-403 states the normal law:

§ 11-2-403. Power to transfer; good faith purchase of goods; "entrusting."
(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer ....


Once the vehicle had been sold to you, the sellers no longer had any interest to sell to Expo and the latter acquired no interest in the vehicle because the sellers had no interest left to sell.

Georgia case law is consistent with this principle. For example, Generaly Fire & Casualty v. Kuffrey, 115 Ga.App. 121 (1967), held that a possessor of stolen goods, no matter how innocently acquired, can never convey good title and that the "sale" of such property, even to a bona fide purchaser, does not pass good title nor divest the proper owner of title.

The Motor Vehicle code statute appears to conflict with the the normal rules regarding transfer of ownership interest in stolen vehicles. Did Expo in fact obtain a facially valid certificate of title from the sellers? Even if they did, I would argue that section 43-3-31 does not apply because Expo could not, under Georgia law, have acquired an interest in (the) vehicle" because it was stolen.

Texas law on the subject is Transportation Code section 501.051, subdivision (4), which requires the Texas department of motor vehicles to refuse to issue a certificate of title if:

(4) the department has reason to believe that the motor vehicle is stolen ....


These are points which will have to be resolved by the court in the civil suit in Texas.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Sorry it was OCGA 40-3-32 (d)


[e]xcept as provided in Code Section 40-3-33 and as between the parties, a transfer by an owner is not effective until this Code section and Code Section 40-3-33 have been complied with; and no purchaser or transferee shall acquire any right, title, or interest in and to a vehicle purchased by him unless and until he shall obtain from the transferor the certificate of title thereto, duly transferred in accordance with this Code section.
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
Okay, Leopold, I looked at this code section, too, and believe this may create a problem for you vis-a-vis Expo.

The case of State v. Banks, 215 Ga. App. 828, 452 S.E.2d 533 (1994) has a good discussion of this code section. You can see the case in its entirety at:

http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/29688/


The pertinent portion of the case appears in section 1 of the opinion, where the court says:

The fact that it is the substantive law of contract (and not the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act) which creates and defines property interests in motor vehicles is recognized by the express language of OCGA 40-3-32 (d), which provides in pertinent part: "Except as . . . between the parties, a transfer [of an interest in a motor vehicle] by an owner is not effective until this Code section and Code Section 40-3-33 have been complied with; and no purchaser or transferee shall acquire any right, title, or interest in and to a vehicle purchased by him unless and until he shall obtain from the transferor the certificate of title thereto, duly transferred in accordance with this Code section." (Emphasis supplied.) See also OCGA 40-3-32 (b), which imposes upon the transferee the duty to apply for a new title certificate "promptly after delivery to him of the vehicle and certificate of title." The express statutory exception must mean that, as between the parties, a transfer of an interest in a motor vehicle is effective despite the fact that registration requirements have not yet been complied with. Consequently, Jimmy Banks, as a party to the sale in the case sub judice, acquired his property interest by his contract. The remaining language of OCGA 40-3-32 (d), i.e., that a transferee acquires no "right, title, or interest . . ." establishes a priority in favor of lienholders of record as against buyers who fail to obtain the certificate of title, properly transferred of record. It is our view that, the State and the dissent err in confusing the creation and existence of a property interest with the priority of that interest in a contest with recorded security interests or with bona fide purchasers for value who take without notice of that interest.

I interpret this language to mean that as between the buyer and the seller in the State of Georgia, the normal rules regarding transfer of ownership interest in property applies, but that for motor vehicles in Georgia that code section means that if Expo became a lienholder of record by obtaining a certificate of title, their claim will have priority over yours because you did not "obtain the certificate of title, properly transferred of record".

How this would play in Texas is hard to say, though it is possible that the court in Texas would follow the Georgia law in this regard, rather than the Texas law to the contrary.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Jim:

It means, that the vehicle has not been stolen (Theft by Taking), because the ownership has not been transfer. The DA, or Sheriff will have to change their charge. It is what I said; they are waiting for civil judgment.
Upon your clear explanation before „the court ruled (correctly) that valid title to stolen property cannot be passed.” Now should be irrelevant in this case, due to fact, which after a civil rule OCGA 40-3-32 (d) it was not a crime.

Please clear all what has been said before and I will stay with you to find another way to get my car back, and put you some questions about.
Leopold
Expert:  Jim Reilly replied 6 years ago.
A quick answer this morning, Leopold, as I am leaving for a weekend trip in a few minutes.

As between you and the sellers, the law remains the same even under Georgia law. It does appear, however, that Georgia has made a special exception for this kind of situation with respect to vehicles only, which says that between two bona fide purchasers, whoever registers the vehicle first has priority.

The vehicle is still stolen, but the Georgia statute says that the subsequent bona fide purchaser can still obtain title.

Is there any chance Expo was not a bona fide purchaser? That is, that they had some reason to be aware of the previous sale to you?

And, no, 40-3-32 (d) has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. It was still a theft by taking for the seller to do what was done to you. As between you and the seller, it was still a crime, still a theft by taking and, if the fight was between you and the seller, you would get the vehicle under 40-3-32 (d).
Jim Reilly, Crim Defense Atty
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1801
Experience: CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.
Jim Reilly and 9 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
For RunTam38

Your Statements (a) “The vehicle is still stolen, but the Georgia statute says that the subsequent bona fide purchaser can still obtain title” and (b) “40-3-32 (d) has nothing to do with the charge of the crime”

I could only understand (a),(b) this way; that Georgia is an exception to all other States in US, thought appears to be a conflict with the normal rules regarding transfer of ownership interest in stolen vehicles.

-Do you mean “normal rules” applied in other Stats?

-And are they “normal rules” you provided in following Explanation with evidence set in (normal rules but not motor vehicle case):
“Georgia case law is consistent with this principle. For example, Generaly Fire & Casualty v. Kuffrey, 115 Ga.App. 121 (1967), held that a possessor of stolen goods, no matter how innocently acquired, can never convey good title and that the "sale" of such property, even to a bona fide purchaser, does not pass good title nor divest the proper owner of title”?

If it is true, how should I understand this?
1.     “Did Expo in fact obtain a facially valid certificate of title from the sellers? Even if they did, I would argue that section 43-3-31 does not apply because Expo could not, under Georgia law, have acquired an interest in (the) vehicle" because it was stolen”???
2.     Under Code section 501.051, subdivision (4), the Texas department of motor vehicles refuse to issue a certificate of title if a Vehicle is stolen. Does it mean that good title for Expo in GA is not to use in TX?

Leopold
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Relist: I prefer a second opinion.
Auto Theft in GA in not "stolen car", as said; in GA, there is not specificaly coded case.
The DA does not report as a "stolen car", thus the AutoCheck is presenting a clean title for the stolen car.
What is wrong?

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
< Last | Next >
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RE/retiredlawyer/2012-6-6_19326_franL.64x64.jpg Fran L.'s Avatar

    Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RA/ratioscripta/2012-6-13_2955_foto3.64x64.jpg Ely's Avatar

    Ely

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    2079
    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/NA/nathanmoorelaw/2011-5-31_21375_headshotbig.64x64.jpg Nate's Avatar

    Nate

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1625
    Over 10 years of criminal defense practice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawTalk/2012-6-6_17379_LawTalk.64x64.JPG LawTalk's Avatar

    LawTalk

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1434
    30 years legal experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PH/philip.simmons/2012-6-7_161915_BIGPhilipSimmons.64x64.jpg P. Simmons's Avatar

    P. Simmons

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1418
    16 yrs. of experience including criminal law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/marshadjd/2009-6-1_194320_marshajd.jpg Marsha411JD's Avatar

    Marsha411JD

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1380
    Licensed attorney with 27 yrs. exp. in criminal law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RO/RobertJDFL/2012-6-6_175352_7538220120606.64x64.jpg RobertJDFL's Avatar

    RobertJDFL

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1300
    Experienced in multiple areas of the law.
 
 
 

Related Criminal Law Questions

Chat Now With A Criminal Lawyer
Jim Reilly
Jim Reilly
Private Practice Attorney
941 Satisfied Customers
CA Atty since 1976, primarily criminal law. 150+ jury trials.