Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

This is just such a bogus arrest because the guy knew that the van wasn't stolen. He did what he did because of the fight they had.

So just let me ask you that have been so critical of the OP, exactly when was the van stolen? When was the crime committed? Was it stolen on the day of the argument (within a few hours of OP being an employee, driving a wrapped van with the owner's permission)? Was it stolen when the boss got a new title 15 days earlier and didn't tell OP? The boss didn't ask that the van be returned until the day of the fight. And it's easy to check out when the new title was issued.

Besides, OP can use the Hillary defense, no intent! :)

The van was stolen the moment op withheld possession from the rightful owner. Op signed the title back to the true owner immediately upon receiving it in the title transfer for their scam. I forgot is not a reasonable nor likely acceptable excuse.


Now, with that said I agree the charge is not truly warranted but it's too late to make a differenace. Apparently the prosecutor and a judge see probable cause to arrest so op has no option but to defend the charges.

Btw; op owned the van for a very short period of time. The moment he signed the title and delivered it to the employer op relinquished ownership. Claiming he owned it was false even when he stated it to the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The van was stolen the moment op withheld possession from the rightful owner. .

---

And in your judgment, when would you say that was? Was it when he left to bring his tools home and the boss called and said bring back the van? Or was it when the title transferred back to his boss without OP's knowledge?

Suppose you lent me your car because mine is in the shop. A few days go by and you call me and say to please bring back my car. I tell you it will be a few hours but I will bring it back. Did I steal your car?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Op signed the title back to the true owner immediately upon receiving it in the title transfer for their scam. I forgot is not a reasonable nor likely acceptable excuse. .

---

I have no way of knowing if this was a scam or not and neither do you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Now, with that said I agree the charge is not truly warranted but it's too late to make a differenace. Apparently the prosecutor and a judge see probable cause to arrest so op has no option but to defend the charges..

---

I agree that he has to see this through. We don't know what the affidavit for the warrant says. But when he is found not guilty he will have one hell of a suit against his boss. And don't forget that the boss said:

Quote:

---

A few weeks ago he texted me saying he was sorry about the way things ended and he was dropping everything.

---

Too late. For the warrant to come from a different county there must be more to the story.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Btw; op owned the van for a very short period of time. The moment he signed the title and delivered it to the employer op relinquished ownership. Claiming he owned it was false even when he stated it to the police.

---

It was false if OP knew it to be false which he says he didn't. OP had the van for 7 months and the boss only transferred title 15 before the incident. So it was longer than a very short period of time.in the scheme of things. One would have to wonder why the boss did what he did unless there was already trouble between them. I might even advance the theory that the boss set OP up for the fall.

It was obviously when the boss called and said return my van. Up to that point it was clearly permissive use.

Your query is not comparable to the op's. Op told owner he would bring it back after op cleaned out his property. Was that in 10 minutes or 10 days? As I said, this is overkill but technically, the moment op did not return or at least relinquish possession upon demand of the true owner, it is criminal.


As to the scam: seriously jack? Please describe at least one legitimate reason an employer would transfer ownership of a van to a "independent contractor" where the IC immediately signs ownership back to the employer after obtaining license plates and insurance in the IC's name? Somebody was being scammed.


As law to having a suit against his boss;


nope, not a chance. The prosecutor and judge made the decision to file the charges. Employer made a report. Especially if the statements are true (even if misleading by ommission of fact) employer is given immunity in filing the complaint. Lies are covered generally as well. Employer might be subject to criminal charges if he filed a false report but so far, there doesn't appear to be any claims of false statements being made to the police.


regardless when the title was registered with the state by the employer, op transferred ownership upon signing and delivery of the title to the employer. A title is rebuttable but presumptive proof of ownership. Op has absolutely nothing that would allow him to claim ownership once he delivers the endorsed title to employer. That happened months ago. Ownership was held by op for a very short period of time. There is nothing to argue against that.

The reason the van was transferred to my name was for the owner to not have any liability in the instance of a wreck. The title was signed open and handed back because I'm not a thief. I'm an honest business man. I've been on business for myself since 2008 and have nothing but A+ reviews on Angies list, Google and the BBB. In fact he was the shady one because he was charging state tax but not paying it.
On a side note...
I was not his employee to demand anything from, and as far as my knowledge was at the time of incident that the vehicle was in my name still. I had no idea that 1 week prior he changed the title and tag back to himself. Therefore i thought i still owned the vehicle.
To my knowledge of Grand Theft there has to be intent to deprive of property. There was none. I could care less about the pos van. I just wanted my thousands of dollars worth of equipment and parts out.

[QUOTE=budwad;972155]And in your judgment, when would you say that was? Was it when he left to bring his tools home and the boss called and said bring back the van? Or was it when the title transferred back to his boss without OP's knowledge?

Suppose you lent me your car because mine is in the shop. A few days go by and you call me and say to please bring back my car. I tell you it will be a few hours but I will bring it back. Did I steal your car?






I have no way of knowing if this was a scam or not and neither do you.




I agree that he has to see this through. We don't know what the affidavit for the warrant says. But when he is

It was false if OP knew it to be false which he says he didn't. OP had the van for 7 months and the boss only transferred title 15 before the incident. So it was longer than a very short period of time.in the scheme of things. One would have to wonder why the boss did what he did unless there was already trouble between them. I might even advance the theory that the boss set OP up for the fall.

Bingo!
A little back story... I subcontracted for this guy for a year back on 2008.. I stopped only because I had started to get too busy and didn't need to sub anymore. We became pretty good acquaintances. Fast forward to 2015 and my business is a little slow so i call him up and he is ecstatic cause he is in need of someone. Perfect timing for both of us...
Things were fine from Aug till about Jan 2016. Untill then there were talks of myself and another sub taking over the business. Feb He has a back injury and is on a lot of meds and going to the Chiropractor. Moods completely change and becomes a complete a-hole. He fired 1 of his hourly employees for no reason at all. In Feb we had some arguments over how things were being managed by his staff and here we are.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

But when he is found not guilty he will have one hell of a suit against his boss.

---

What would be the claim and on what facts would that claims be based, exactly? I have no information from this thread that suggests that the guy lied to the police. For all I know, the facts he gave the police were accurate. The claim that the OP “stole” the vehicle is not a fact in this context, it is a legal conclusion and the police and prosecutor form their own legal conclusions based on the facts given them. They do not take the legal conclusion made by a victim or witness as fact. So if your basis for the lawsuit is merely the boss telling the police the OP stole it then that’s not going to be enough. We need to know what facts the guy told the police. I do not see a great case against the boss just based on what has been said so far.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

Suppose you lent me your car because mine is in the shop. A few days go by and you call me and say to please bring back my car. I tell you it will be a few hours but I will bring it back. Did I steal your car?

---

No it wouldn't be considered theft, but that is not how your situation unfolded...

You were at his place of business and got into a heated argument with him, took his motor vehicle and left with it.

What you should have done was emptied out your possessions and called for a ride.


This is taken from his first post.

Quote:

---

A few months ago we had a heated argument at his office and I left with the van to remove my tools, parts, and equipment and bring it back to quit. A few min later he calls screaming he's gonna call the cops if I didn't bring the vehicle back to him immediately. I told him to relax and I would bring it back as soon as I had my stuff cleaned out.

---

I think Sir Walter Scott said it well when writing Marmion:


Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

What would be the claim and on what facts would that claims be based, exactly? I have no information from this thread that suggests that the guy lied to the police. For all I know, the facts he gave the police were accurate. The claim that the OP “stole” the vehicle is not a fact in this context, it is a legal conclusion and the police and prosecutor form their own legal conclusions based on the facts given them. They do not take the legal conclusion made by a victim or witness as fact. So if your basis for the lawsuit is merely the boss telling the police the OP stole it then that’s not going to be enough. We need to know what facts the guy told the police. I do not see a great case against the boss just based on what has been said so far.

---

If any probable cause existed for a charge of grand theft, it would presumable be grounded in what OP's boss told the police or omitted to tell the police such as when and why the titles were changed. Things such as he had a contract (likely verbal) with OP for subcontract work and OP had used the van with his permission for 7 months and to use the van for advertising. Or that the van contained OP's property.

If we take OP's version of the events as true, then the boss and the police should have known that the first element of the crime could not be met because the boss never told him about retitling the van. His knowledge was that he owned the van. Signing an open title without naming a buyer does not transfer the van. So this assumption that when OP signed the open title he should have known that he no longer owned it doesn't hold water. He was asked to sign the open title by his boss. That is all he knew and didn't know when or if the boss was going to fill out the title back to himself or sell the van to some third party.

Florida Statute on theft:

Quote:

---

Grand Theft occurs where:
The defendant knowingly and unlawfully obtained or used or endeavored to obtain or use the property of another,

The defendant did so with the intent to temporarily or permanently (a) deprive the victim of his or her right to the property or any benefit from the property,
or (b) appropriate the property of the victim to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it; and

The property was valued at $300 or more.

---

The defenses to the charge are:

Quote:

---

Lack of Intent- it is a required element of Grand that the Defendant intend to deprive another person or entity of his or her rights to the property. Thus, if the defendant had a good faith belief that he she owned the property, had a possessory interest in the property, or had a joint ownership interest in the property, this will serve as a complete defense to the charge;

---

Quote:

---

Obtaining or Using for Lawful Purpose- It is a defense to Grand Theft that the Defendant lawfully used or took property belonging to another. Thus, if the Defendant had a legal right to take or dispose of the property, or if he or she believed they had such a right, this too will serve as a defense to the charge

---

He was using the van for 7 months under an contract to do work for the boss. It was lawful use up until the boss called the police.

Quote:

---

Mistake of Fact- in Florida, the intent to steal does not exist where a defendant acts under the mistaken belief that the property he took was his own property. Bedoya v. State, 634 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Maddox v. State, 38 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1948); Dean v. State, 41 Fla. 291, 26 So. 638 (1899)).

---

Some have posted that when OP told the police that the van was his he was lying to police. I think that it shows what he believed at the time and helps OP.

Any potential lawsuit against the boss will hinge on what the boss told the authorities or didn't tell the authorities. Was there indeed probable cause? I don't have those facts. It will depend on if he is found guilty or not guilty. It will depend on if OP has damages. But taking OP's version of the facts, the boss knew that the van was not stolen and perhaps filed a false report as revenge. Then with remorse, the boss tries to withdraw the charges. But it was too late.

His statement that he owned the van are laughbable. He outright said he knew the van wans't his. He stated he'd signed over the title. His only idea that somehow the fact that the title had not been submitted to the DMV created a loophole that let him out of the fact that he was depriving the owner of the owner's property.

You're going to argue that by refusing to return the vehcile and directing the owner to his lawyer he had no INTENT to deprive him of the vehicle? That's going to be far fetched on its face as well.

This is NOT as much of a slam dunk as people make it out to be. The elements of the felony are there. Now I agree, this is pretty much a misunderstanding, but frankly, if the original poster goes shooting off his mouth with the same details he gave us, the prosecutor should have no problem with getting a conviction.

He very much needs a lawyer to look at the actual evidence in play. We've not heard anythign from the putative owner or the business man or what the police observed in their investigation. A felony charge isn't just a guy going to the cops and saying "he stole from me." There's going to be definite probable cause (more than that) to get past the first step in the prosecution.