Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida.
I am a Business owner and was subcontracting for another small business doing Service Repair work. The owner requested I do his work with his wrapped vehicle to promote his business. He had me Title, Tag, and insure the vehicle in my name. The vehicle was also a take home van for personal and business use. 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. Another few min later I get a call from the local PD asking where I was and when was I going to bring the vehicle back to the Owner. I told them technically I was the owner since he had put the title,tag,and Insurance in my name. I told them he could pick it up from my attorney. (Here is my Mistake) I had forgotten I had signed the title and had given it back to him at an earlier date. Apparently without my knowledge he had re-titled and tagged the vehicle 15 days earlier without my knowledge but it was still insured in my name.

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

Apparently this was not the case because a few nights ago I was arrested on an out of county warrant for Grand theft 3rd deg.

IMO and everyone else's opinion that I talk to say this should have been handled differently and is a civil matter because I can't "steal" what I think is mine or am allowed to use.

I don't have a lot of $$$ to hire an attorney because I just had a baby and are in the middle of closing on a house.

Please someone advise what I should do next. What can I file? I have a copy of the title in my name and insurance.

Your problem is the van was NOT yours. You signed it back over to him and he retitled it. It was his.
You're also wrong that you can't be guilty of grand theft if you had authorized use. Once he told you to bring that van back, authorization ended.
Your best bet is to see if he can convince the prosecutor that you were still authorized to have it during the period you possessed it and that this is a misunderstanding.
You're charged with a felony. You really DO need that lawyer.

The van was mine for 7+ months. The title was signed open the day I received it 7 months prior to this happening. He also received the van back as soon as my property was removed from it the day this happened. Total time from start to end was like 3hrs. I had no intent to steal anything. The van is questionably even worth 500.00

It matters not if you had the van for 7 YEARS. You transferred the ownership back to him and he asked for you to return his property. It's illegal for you to deprive him of it, EVEN TEMPORARILY.

You're changing your story now. You can make the argument that you returned the van promptly when requested. It's up for the court to decide if there was intent to deprive here, but your insistance that he deal with your attorney and that you apparenlty didn't give it back until the police were involved (even if they appeared disinterested in intervening at the time) doesn't bode well for the argument that you intended to give back his property.

Felonies are serious matters. GET THAT LAWYER INVOVLED.

Felonies are nothing to seenze at. GT3 only requires $300 of valuation. You can get five years for this.

Get a lawyer, resolve the charges, and then sue the guy for false arrest.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida.
I am a Business owner and was subcontracting for another small business doing Service Repair work. The owner requested I do his work with his wrapped vehicle to promote his business. He had me Title, Tag, and insure the vehicle in my name. The vehicle was also a take home van for personal and business use. 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. Another few min later I get a call from the local PD asking where I was and when was I going to bring the vehicle back to the Owner. I told them technically I was the owner since he had put the title,tag,and Insurance in my name. I told them he could pick it up from my attorney. (Here is my Mistake) I had forgotten I had signed the title and had given it back to him at an earlier date. Apparently without my knowledge he had re-titled and tagged the vehicle 15 days earlier without my knowledge but it was still insured in my name.

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

Apparently this was not the case because a few nights ago I was arrested on an out of county warrant for Grand theft 3rd deg.

IMO and everyone else's opinion that I talk to say this should have been handled differently and is a civil matter because I can't "steal" what I think is mine or am allowed to use.

I don't have a lot of $$$ to hire an attorney because I just had a baby and are in the middle of closing on a house.

Please someone advise what I should do next. What can I file? I have a copy of the title in my name and insurance.

---

When you opened your mouth and said the bolded is when you screwed yourself over. Had you simply told the PD that you would be returning it as soon as you got your tools out of it, the warrant probably would never have happened. You let your ego get in the way of common sense.

You may still be able to get out of this without too much damage, but you are going to need an attorney.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

I don't have a lot of $$$ to hire an attorney because I just had a baby and are in the middle of closing on a house.

---

You're going to have even less money if you end up in jail. Get a lawyer. This is a serious charge that needs to be resolved correctly.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

When you opened your mouth and said the bolded is when you screwed yourself over. Had you simply told the PD that you would be returning it as soon as you got your tools out of it, the warrant probably would never have happened. You let your ego get in the way of common sense.

You may still be able to get out of this without too much damage, but you are going to need an attorney.

---

I did say that and that is what happened. As soon as my stuff was removed I handed it back over to him with a local Police officer present.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

It matters not if you had the van for 7 YEARS. You transferred the ownership back to him and he asked for you to return his property. It's illegal for you to deprive him of it, EVEN TEMPORARILY.

You're changing your story now. You can make the argument that you returned the van promptly when requested. It's up for the court to decide if there was intent to deprive here, but your insistance that he deal with your attorney and that you apparenlty didn't give it back until the police were involved (even if they appeared disinterested in intervening at the time) doesn't bode well for the argument that you intended to give back his property.

Felonies are serious matters. GET THAT LAWYER INVOVLED.

Felonies are nothing to seenze at. GT3 only requires $300 of valuation. You can get five years for this.

---

I think you're missing the fact that I was still thinking the vehicle was still in my name...
Had I known he had gone behind my back and re-titled and tagged it. it would have been handled differently. At that Time I still thought I had a vested interest in the vehicle.

Oh, this person no longer owns that company

So you concocted a false ownership to be able to scam somebody somewhere. It was originally his vehicle yet he transferred it to you. You immediately signed the title back over to him yet you apparently continued to scam the state and your insurance company by allowing them to believe the van was still yours.

He was also scamming somebody (sounds like it was you and the fed and state governments)


you really need a lawyer both due to the very serious charges as well as preventing you from getting yourself in deeper for other issues.

You say you can't afford a lawyer. To whom were you referring to when you told the cops the guy could pick up the van from your attorney?

Once you gave him the signed title, it was his. You can spin this all you want but a reasonable person would have known the vehicle was not yours. Further, your other actions, indicate you knew the vehicle is not yours. Your revisionist spin will not win in court. This is why you need an attorney.

You had NO "vested" or other interest in the vehicle. The other person not being involved isn't an issue. Understand this is not a YOU vs. HIM situation. It is society that is harmed by your criminal activity. It is the STATE that is proscecuting you.

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.

His argument of not recalling he had relinquished ownership to employer is a red herring. If op believed he owned the van, he would have simply told employer to go to Hell as it is not employers van. In telling employer he would return it when finished with his stated activity, he acknowledge employer is the owner and has a right to possession of the van. He admitted the same to the cop investigating the matter. Acknowledgement op had no right or possession and intent to deprive owner of possession equals theft of the vehicle.


The statement op made to the cop (the call while op was emptying the van) along with the acknowledgment op knew it to be employers van is adequate probable cause to arrest.

Op's got nothing here but a real serious criminal charge staring him in the face. Admitting your guilt to a cop is tough to overcome.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

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..

---

I don't recall where OP said that at the time he outright said he knew the van wasn't his. And please show me some law that says that signing an open title transfers ownership to anyone. On the contrary. The law says that a title must be filled out in full with the name and address of the buyer and the buyer's signature. There is no loophole. How do you know that the boss wasn't going to sell the van to a third party at some point? How would OP even know that a transfer had taken place unless his boss told him?

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

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...

---

Well if he believed that he was the owner of the van and police are telling him he doesn't own the van, then directing them to his attorney doesn't show any intent to deprive.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

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...

---

I don't see anything that OP has said that indicates he believed the van belonged to his boss at the time of the incident. The prosecution will have to show intent.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

It was lawful use up to the moment employer said; I want my van back now. If the op retained it for any amount of time after that, there was an intent to deprive the owner of his property (and as the statute itself clearly states as being a requirement ) even if only temporarily.

---

He told police that he was taking his tools and inventory home and that he will bring the van back when done. Where is the intent to deprive?

OP didn't have any conversation with the boss when he left the office. He just left. The boss called him and said bring me the van. OP agreed to do that but was then called by police wherein he said he would return the van.

I don't think we know how to time travel yet.

Quote:

---

He told police that he was taking his tools and inventory home and that he will bring the van back when done. Where is the intent to deprive

---

are you asking that question with seriousness? Any time the owner of property says; give me my property, and you continue to go the opposite direction, you are acting with intent to deprive the owner of their property. What don't you understand about that. The law even states even if the deprivation is temporary it is still theft.

Op did not say he would return the van. Op said employer could pick up his van from op's attorney (reminder; op stated he could not afford an attorney for the matter of hand so one really has to question whether op has an attorney of record which he may have been referring to)

Quote:

---

I don't see anything that OP has said that indicates he believed the van belonged to his boss at the time of the incident. The prosecution will have to show intent.

---

how about:

I'll return the (implied: your) van after I remove my tools

he (employer) can pick up the [implied: his] van from my attorney's office

if op believed he owned the van, why would he even consider relinquishing possession to the employer? That alone shows op did not claim ownership of the van

btw; a certificate of title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Title (actual ownership) exchanged hands immediately upon endorsement and delivery of title to the employer. That means not only has presumptive title been relinquished, actual title had as well. Op had no claims to the van and was quite aware of it proven by the continued promise of returning employers van to employer.

I will leave it at this; what the law says and what a prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt are two different things. And if I were on the jury and heard the testimony from the police that called him, and OP, and the boss (assuming that what he posted here was true) I would have plenty of reasonable doubt that there was intent to steal the van or deprive the owner of the van.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

I will leave it at this; what the law says and what a prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt are two different things. And if I were on the jury and heard the testimony from the police that called him, and OP, and the boss (assuming that what he posted here was true) I would have plenty of reasonable doubt that there was intent to steal the van or deprive the owner of the van.

---

So intentionally retaining possession of the van against the explicit demand to the contrary somehow doesn't equal intent in your book.

Quote:

---

The defendant

---

Quote:

---

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

---

sounds textbook guilty to me

I won't disagree the charge suggests an over zealous prosecutor but as well, we obviously have only one persons side of the story.

So what about your suggested malicious prosecution suit against the employer? Still see that as valid and viable?

Well if there were to be probable cause (and I think that has a lot to do with what the boss told or didn't tell the police) any claim for false arrest or malicious prosecution would not succeed. If the boss filed a false report and OP is found not guilty, then I still think there are claims to be made.

Probable cause would be independently supported by, or actually even determined by, the contact between the police and the op when the op recieved the call from the police.

Op's statement (paraphrased); I'll relinquish the owners van when I'm done with it.

It wasn't the op's option to determine when he relinquished the employers van. He was required to relinquish possession upon the demand of the owner. Failing to relinquish possession upon demand of the lawful owner upon their demand is theft.

The complainant does not require probable cause to file a complaint. As long as he does not falsify his testimony with the intent to cause the other party to be injured in some way, it's not malicious prosecution. The police and or prosecutor makes the call whether the complaint warrants further action. Then the prosecutor must seek a warrant based on a presentation of probable cause to a court.

malicious prosecution is hard to prosecute, especially given the level of immunity given a person filing a complaint. It's going to have to be quite evident the boss provided false information and it was with intent to cause injury to the op. From what has been stated so far here, the boss did not provide false information in order for the op to be charged with a crime.

There had to be probable cause for the warrsnt to be issued so there is obviously PC present. Just the same, the lack of probable cause does not mean a malicious prosecution suit is viable. It rests on whether the comlainant provided false information (not lack of or incorrect information but knowingly false) AND it was done with malice.

It's not that big of a deal... God and I know I had no intention of taking "his" vehicle. Now just to prove it to the courts.

FYI I talked to the Investigator on the case a few months ago and he said he didn't think I stole it Either but he had already turned everything over to the State.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

It's not that big of a deal... God and I know I had no intention of taking "his" vehicle. Now just to prove it to the courts.

FYI I talked to the Investigator on the case a few months ago and he said he didn't think I stole it Either but he had already turned everything over to the State.

---

It's not that big of a deal? Well, you're the one being charged with a felony so if it isn't a big deal to you, well, you're nuts.

Re: the investigators statement: since the da has filed charges apparently the da is not of the same mindset as the investigator and since the da is the guy prosecuting the case, I think I would be very concerned with his position on the matter.

The DA was just voted out... I believe this is just a case they filed to fill the dockets for the new DA

How am I nuts?
The state has no evidence whatsoever...
It's only a case of "he said she said".
I have proof I owned the vehicle a couple days prior to the incident. Also it's even in the affidavit that it was a take home vehicle and I had full permission to use it.
When I left with the vehicle I thought it was still under my ownership and legally owned, tagged, and insured by myself.
Additionally I had a vested interest in the vehicle since I had thousands of dollars of equipment and parts in it.

Any capable Judge will throw this out.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

The DA was just voted out... I believe this is just a case they filed to fill the dockets for the new DA

---

I guess time will tell.

You have to realize that filing charges against a person where there is no PC to support the charge is a serious problem for a prosecutor (like in prosecutorial misconduct) . Due to that, apparently a court or grand jury has seen PC in the matter. How strong or weak the case is is likely to move the da one way or another. I would expect a plea bargain offered.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

Any capable Judge will throw this out.

---

Is that before or after the judge hits you with insurance fraud?

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

Is that before or after the judge hits you with insurance fraud?

---

Please explain how theres any insurance fraud here?

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

Please explain how theres any insurance fraud here?

---

Tell us why you put the vehicle in your name and signed the title over to the rightful owner?

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

The DA was just voted out... I believe this is just a case they filed to fill the dockets for the new DA

How am I nuts?
The state has no evidence whatsoever...
It's only a case of "he said she said".
I have proof I owned the vehicle a couple days prior to the incident. Also it's even in the affidavit that it was a take home vehicle and I had full permission to use it.
When I left with the vehicle I thought it was still under my ownership and legally owned, tagged, and insured by myself.
Additionally I had a vested interest in the vehicle since I had thousands of dollars of equipment and parts in it.

Any capable Judge will throw this out.

---

What evidence do they have? Your confession to start with.

Permission to take the vehicle home was rescinded. You said that yourself. You continued to deprive the owner of his vehicle after that. On top of that you told the cop you intended to deprive the owner of his vehicle until you were ready to relinquish it but even then you said the owner could go pick it up from some place other than where it was during the discussion

and if you believed it to be your truck, why would you even give it back to the other guy? That alone proves you did not believe you owned the vehicle. People do not give their vehicles to others. They say; it's my truck. I sure as hell am not going to give my truck to somebody that just fired me (or whatever nasty thing he said to seperate the relationship)

As as to a judge throwing it out; it's already beyond that point. It sounds like it will be decided in trial. The chance for the judge to toss it was at the probable cause hearing. I presume that has already taken place given the time elapsed since the event.

You did not have a vested interest in the vehicle. You had personal property in the vehicle. You could have unloaded it and went on your way but instead you took his van. If he had prevented you from taking your tools you could have reported that to the police and the tables might very well be the other way around.


No you do not have proof you owned the vehicle s couple days before the incident (if it actually mattered which it doesn't). You said you signed the title over to the owner months ago. That is when ownership was conveyed to him.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

Tell us why you put the vehicle in your name and signed the title over to the rightful owner?

---

And continued to allow your insurance company to believe you still owned the van and why it was not reported to the employers insurance company that you had in fact transferred ownership back to the employer.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

And continued to allow your insurance company to believe you still owned the van and why it was not reported to the employers insurance company that you had in fact transferred ownership back to the employer.

---

Correct jk, misrepresentation, is a form of insurance fraud.

At his request the title was signed open and given back to him in case I was killed in a car wreck or some unforseen circumstance where I could not sign the title over.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

Correct jk, misrepresentation, is a form of insurance fraud.

---

Can you guys not read? Already stated that I did not know it was titled, re-registered and tagged without my knowledge.
Therefore no fraud committed

No we can read, its that we also read between the lines. You're commuting fraud PERIOD. You didn't sign over the title in case you died, you make a will for that. You signed over the title to him because he is the rightful owner and by that you deprived an insurance company and committed fraud.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

No we can read, its that we also read between the lines. You're commuting fraud PERIOD. You didn't sign over the title in case you died, you make a will for that. You signed over the title to him because he is the rightful owner and by that you deprived an insurance company and committed fraud.

---

Please stop posting in here.. your stupidity is nauseating.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

At his request the title was signed open and given back to him in case I was killed in a car wreck or some unforseen circumstance where I could not sign the title over.

Can you guys not read? Already stated that I did not know it was titled, re-registered and tagged without my knowledge.
Therefore no fraud committed

---

Can you not read;

when you signed the title and delivered it to him, you relinquished any claim of ownership. It doesn't matter if he registered the titled and especially makes no difference that he registered is and tagged it. You knew you signed the title and delivered it to him

you also have not addressed my statement of if you believed the van to be yours, why would you relinquish possession to the guy you just had a fight with? That alone is condemning. Nobody gives up their property to a guy they just had a fight with. Remember, you are the one claiming a right to take the van because it had your tools in it. You weren't willing to retrieve the tools at a later date. Why would you give away a van you believed to be yours?

Do you think when a person sells a car and signs the title and delivers it to the buyer ownership stays with the seller until some subsequent action takes place? Nope. The buyer has equitable title the moment the deal is completed.