If you can sort this out...

[BobPalma]

...and understand it, you're better than me! Sheesh...

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2019/05/17/plea-deal-infuriates-owner-of-the-wild-cherry-van?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Daily_News_Tuesday_May_21

[jnormanh]

It's easy to see why Carter thought it was "abandoned". Whether it was truly abandoned, according to California law, is the question. Carter apparently thought so, but did not post the required five day notice. He's therefor guilty of something, petty theft or grand larceny.

In California the definitions are petty theft (value under $950) or grand larceny (over $950).


From the photo my opinion would definitely be petty theft. And that's apparently what the court thought.

Though not a legal question, IMHO the owners of this rusting pile of junk are jerks.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Hard to "sort it out" from the info given and the way the info is given. It's almost as if the author is trying to make a reality TV show out of it

[skyway]

Belleville, IL, is just across the Mississippi from St. Louis.
To the best of my knowledge none of this made the news on the St. Louis side of the river.

[showbizkid]

I've been semi-watching this since the story first broke about a year ago. It breaks down like this:

- Lady parks a former movie car (van) outside in the desert to rot under a pile of logs for 20 years, then abandons the property and all that's on it.
- Dude finds said van sitting derelict under said logs, goes "whoa!", assumes it's abandoned in the desert (because it is), tows it home and dumps a ton of ca$h into it.
- Lady sees restored van, previously left to rot (see above), and wants it now that it's been turned into something nice.
- Dude says "if I can't have it, neither can you", trashes it and hides the bits.

Summary: dude and lady are both a couple of tools (and not the good Snap-On kind).

[8E45E]

To keep it 'Studebaker', a similar incident happened a year ago: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...-April-18-2018

Craig

[Bob Andrews]

This has been an interesting saga in the automotive enthusiast world. On one hand, a guy that loves vehicles saw and abused and neglected vehicle and it touched his heart, so he made the effort to rescue it. It certainly wasn’t done as a moneymaking venture. On the other hand, there are conflicting reports whether or not he had rights to take the vehicle in the first place. Meanwhile, on the other side, you have people that are an example of the old story, they think they can ignore a vehicle and it will never deteriorate; in fact, there is no actual proof that they gave a damn about it until they saw it fixed.

Did the restore jump the gun? Should he have gone out of his way to try to find the owners? Probably. But those of us that love vehicles love them the way people love animals – we hate seeing them neglected, and our heart makes us want to act to save them. If somebody sees a horse in a field tied up and being neglected, they’ll break in and rescue it and be thought of as heroes. To me, I don’t see the difference.

It’s too bad that the parties couldn’t come together; give the van owners 1000 bucks or something to release their claim, and they could have the satisfaction that the vehicle was saved. But, I guess that will never happen.

[bob40]

I see this often on Facebook pages that post pictures of cars sitting on property that no one lives on anymore. Long grass, house derelict.
Someone always posts to just go grab it because it’s on abandoned property.
There is no abandoned property. Someone owns it. Could be a single person,a bank or a county.
Taking something of another’s property is theft.

[Jerry Forrester]

I see this often on Facebook pages that post pictures of cars sitting on property that no one lives on anymore. Long grass, house derelict.
Someone always posts to just go grab it because it’s on abandoned property.
There is no abandoned property. Someone owns it. Could be a single person,a bank or a county.
Taking something of another’s property is theft.

Bob40, as usual, is the shining beacon of truth.

[t walgamuth]

This has been an interesting saga in the automotive enthusiast world. On one hand, a guy that loves vehicles saw and abused and neglected vehicle and it touched his heart, so he made the effort to rescue it. It certainly wasn’t done as a moneymaking venture. On the other hand, there are conflicting reports whether or not he had rights to take the vehicle in the first place. Meanwhile, on the other side, you have people that are an example of the old story, they think they can ignore a vehicle and it will never deteriorate; in fact, there is no actual proof that they gave a damn about it until they saw it fixed.

Did the restore jump the gun? Should he have gone out of his way to try to find the owners? Probably. But those of us that love vehicles love them the way people love animals – we hate seeing them neglected, and our heart makes us want to act to save them. If somebody sees a horse in a field tied up and being neglected, they’ll break in and rescue it and be thought of as heroes. To me, I don’t see the difference.

It’s too bad that the parties couldn’t come together; give the van owners 1000 bucks or something to release their claim, and they could have the satisfaction that the vehicle was saved. But, I guess that will never happen.

Could happen. Legal stuff is never over until it is over.

[jclary]

Well...I ain't gonna try to sort this one out. (Life's too short for such nonsense)...

'Cept to say it reminds me to appreciate where I live and the folks I associate with even more!

[8E45E]

Could happen. Legal stuff is never over until it is over.

Even 70 years later: https://forums.aaca.org/topic/280538...owners-family/

Craig