Unknowing Purchase of Stolen Motorcycle Parts

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

If the original owner made an insurance claim for the motorcycle and the insurance company paid out on the claim, there's a strong chance that the party entitled to possession of the motorcycle is actually the insurance company. Of course, it's not going to be easy for you to figure out whether an insurance claim was made or what insurance company was involved unless the title owner volunteers that information, but if you have a friendly deputy working on the case perhaps that's something they'll try to determine in relation to the investigation of what should be done with the motorcycle.

---

It was not insured by the previous owner (nor by me), and it's not covered under homeowners..... The deputy and detectives have been great thus far. They know the scenario here inside and out, but they still aren't sure what to do. So our detective is actually speaking to the DA today about another case and he's going to try to poke and prod to see what he can uncover.

I'll definitely report back on what happens. At this point, I'm happy to re-purchase the frame from the previous owner, or sell him the parts I added to it....I just really don't wanna see either side get 100% of the bike without some form of payment. I'm happy to compensate them for the pieces I purchased (even though I already paid for them), but I imagine they won't be happy to pay me for the parts and labor I put into it. I suppose worst case I could always bill them for my labor and try to recover some money that way, but even then....it's a long shot.

Like I said, $2,200 isn't gonna make me or break me....it's just a crappy scenario, and I do feel for the previous owner. It's not the same bike that got stolen anymore though, so my feelings only go so far for them, and not far enough for me to just hand them $2,200 without putting up a bit of a stink in the process. I feel less bad when I know it got stolen off their front porch, so they didn't even attempt to secure it.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

You can argue perhaps he was unjustly enriched by the enhancement of the parts.

---

Unfortunately, a claim of unjust enrichment wouldn't apply here. Unjust enrichment cases in these situations are those in which the party that is being unjustly enriched knows or has the opportunity to know that the plaintiff was improving his property and stood by and did nothing to stop it. He cannot simply let the other person make the improvements and claim the benefit without compensating that person. That’s the unjust element of it — he’s taking advantage of the other by staying silent and watching the work get done. Here, the true owner had no way to know what was being done to his bike frame. He's not to blame for this.

The true owner is entitled to his frame back. Presumably the OP can strip off the stuff he added and least reduce his loss from this. Or he can perhaps make a deal to buy the frame from the true owner at a price that makes it worth doing.

Quote:

---

Quoting MotoGod

---

Yeah I suppose you're right, but that just doesn't feel "right" in this case. Now if I didn't have receipts and photo documentation about what I have done to it, then I would agree with you 100%. Heck even if it was a full bike when I purchased it...I would totally side with the previous owner as well. This wasn't a few upgrades to a stolen bike, it was a build a bike from the ground up scenario.

At this point, I'm not really expecting anything to come of this, but considering the "stolen" parts only amount to $50 out of my $2,250 "investment" here...the scales are a tad tipped the wrong way. I just have a gut feeling this is going to turn into a civil matter in the end, and it probably wouldn't even be worth my time. I guess time will tell.

---

If nothing else, the frame belongs to the other guy. There is no tipping of scales because you put more into the bike than what the alstolen frame was worth. The frame is the other guys

i think you have a few problems others have dismissed. While it isn't a huge difference, you paid $50 but you later said if you took your parts and put them on a $150 frame you would have a complete bike. I suspect you used more than just the frame but what it suggests is you did not pay market value for what you did purchase. On top of that the seller advertised a 65cc bike yet it ended up being an 85cc bike. That is suspect. Then given the engine size differences the entire bike is a different sized bike.

All of those add up to red flags that suggest you may not be considered a "bonifide purchased" but one that had enough red flags to suspect the sale was not on the up and up. That puts you at a disadvantage in anything you do here.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The true owner is entitled to his frame back. Presumably the OP can strip off the stuff he added and least reduce his loss from this. Or he can perhaps make a deal to buy the frame from the true owner at a price that makes it worth doing.

---

op isn't going to be allowed to remove anything. It's in the hands of the cops. They aren't going to return it to the op.

Quote:

---

Quoting MotoGod

---

It was not insured by the previous owner (nor by me), and it's not covered under homeowners..... The deputy and detectives have been great thus far. They know the scenario here inside and out, but they still aren't sure what to do. So our detective is actually speaking to the DA today about another case and he's going to try to poke and prod to see what he can uncover.

I'll definitely report back on what happens. At this point, I'm happy to re-purchase the frame from the previous owner, or sell him the parts I added to it....I just really don't wanna see either side get 100% of the bike without some form of payment. I'm happy to compensate them for the pieces I purchased (even though I already paid for them), but I imagine they won't be happy to pay me for the parts and labor I put into it. I suppose worst case I could always bill them for my labor and try to recover some money that way, but even then....it's a long shot.

Like I said, $2,200 isn't gonna make me or break me....it's just a crappy scenario, and I do feel for the previous owner. It's not the same bike that got stolen anymore though, so my feelings only go so far for them, and not far enough for me to just hand them $2,200 without putting up a bit of a stink in the process. I feel less bad when I know it got stolen off their front porch, so they didn't even attempt to secure it.

---

How do you know it isn't the same bike that got stolen? Do you somehow know the condition of the bike when it was stolen? It was stolen 18 months before you purchased it. A bike can get pretty trashed in a year and a half, especially when it as being ridden by somebody that paid nothing for it.

Your argument about feeling less bad about the true owner losing the bike because it was stolen from their porch is ridiculous. I don't think you would feel that way if they stole it out of your open garage or an unlocked garage. Your garage was closed and locked, right?


and your statement of suing them for the parts and labor. The parts; maybe but labor, not a chance since it is not a loss to you.

Agreed. There were more parts than just a frame. I guess I was summarizing a bit. The guy I bought it from knew it wasn't complete, and he just wanted it gone. I needed some nuts and bolts and such for my sons bike, and trust me I've sold many "piles of parts" for way less than they were worth as well. So it didn't really seem too suspect to me. Especially when his story was his buddy owed him money and ended up giving him this bike instead. I don't think the guy I bought it from stole it either, but who knows at this point. He very well could have.

The 65 and 85 do look VERY VERY similar. So it's not a huge stretch to think that he confused them. I thought it looked a bit bigger than a 65, but only when I got home did I even confirm it was an 85 after some research and stuff. Yes oddities for sure though.

I'm definitely not arguing that the frame is his. I will HAPPILY strip off all the stuff I did to the bike and give him back what I bought. I have 0 issues with this route, but I doubt it will happen. It's a waiting game now.

My statement about it not being the same bike anymore, was referring to the condition I bought it in, versus it's current condition. They said it was a full bike when stolen, but you're right...people treat bikes VERY badly when stolen. It blew up at some point, and they stripped a TON of parts off it and did whatever with them. Sold them, build something...I have no idea.

If the bike got stolen out of my unlocked or open garage, then I'm a moron. You don't leave an easily and highly desirable item like a dirt bike outside for people to steal...just like you don't leave your TV set in your driveway and such. It's a crappy scenario for sure. I'm perfectly happy to either give him back the parts I originally bought, or purchase them from him for a fair market value....but that decision isn't up to me at the moment. :-(

You are not likely to be given the opportunity to strip the bike. You likely won't be a to touch it again. That's just not how things work. The cops do not have the authority to allow you to work on somebody else's bike.


Honestly i cannot say what the resolution is. Hopefully the guy will work with you and either allow you to purchase his bike or pay you for your parts.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You are not likely to be given the opportunity to strip the bike. You likely won't be a to touch it again. That's just not how things work. The cops do not have the authority to alloy you to work on somebody else's bike.


Honestly i cannot say what the resolution is. Hopefully the guy will work with you and either allow you to purchase his bike or pay you for your parts.

---

Yup. It's in a holding pattern right now. Unless the previous owner is awarded the ENTIRE bike, they will not be happy though. So my guess is they won't take any offers I make on their parts since it will be SIGNIFICANTLY less than the value of the bike that got stolen from them. Nor will they want to pay for all the parts and such I put into the bike because it's @ half the retail cost they probably already paid for the bike before it was stolen.

I'll post back when I hear anything for sure. It's a curious scenario. Most people I have run it by immediately say I'm screwed, but then as they think about it and get all the info....they don't know anymore. So far just about everyone has said it could go either way. lol

Still no word back, but we have started chats with a lawyer just to get some consultation on this matter. Apparently, in his 20 years of practice he has never seen this type of scenario come up either so he's going to do some research, but his initial reaction was he didn't think the police could legally give the entire bike back to the original owner due to the fact that we've got all these parts (with receipts) bolted on that are worth WAY more than what we originally purchased, and especially since what we originally purchased could not be classified as a "vehicle" at the time of purchase.

Again, all speculation right now as no ruling has been made either way. Just figured I'd update the thread with info as I got it. It does sound like the original owner is being quite belligerent with the police at this point though demanding the bike back and not listening to even the story of how it came to be the way it currently is. So we'll see. We all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease most times, but the detective on the case has expressed to us his gratitude for being patient and more importantly kind human beings. lol So he's pretty sick of the original owners at this point, but he wants to make sure this is handled in the right manner.

So just another update here. The DA has released the bike to the original owner, but in speaking with her she essentially said that if we take it to a civil suit (ie small claims court) the session will last all of 30 seconds and we should win. Sooooo off to small claims court we go I suppose ;-)

It would be interesting to hear the legal theory that the prosecutor believes will allow you to prevail in court. You don't have a contract with the owner of the motorcycle, so you have no contract-based theory of recovery, and claims of quasi-contract (e.g., "unjust enrichment") you must normally show that the person receiving the benefit either induced you to make the expenditure or consciously received something he knew did not belong to him (e.g., a contractor hired to perform work on your neighbor's house makes a mistake of address and performs work on your house, while you stand by and watch). "The recipient of a benefit voluntarily bestowed without solicitation or inducement is not liable for their value." Rhyne v. Sheppard, 224 N.C. 734, 737, 32 S.E.2d 316, 318 (1944).

My understanding of it revolves around the fact that I didn't purchase a complete bike to start with, but I did purchase a chassis upon which I built a motorcycle. I guess we shall see. I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. We've consulted a lawyer who believes the same as the DA, so we shall see what happens in the end I suppose. The DA and the detective on the case tried to do everything they could to get it released to us instead, but since they are on the criminal side of things...there is no person charged with it...and really nothing they can do at this juncture.

What is your lawyer's legal argument for why you should prevail?

When you go into court, you can't expect the judge to simply say, "Well, you say a lawyer and a prosecutor told you that this was an easy case and I should give you money? Alright -- judgment for plaintiff!". While I grant, small claims court experiences can be odd and the outcomes at times have little to do with the actual law that the court should follow, small claims courts do make an effort to apply the actual law to any given case.