from gift to stolen poperty in texas

[lostinlaw]

Someone gave us a 30 year old not working boat and motor and a rusted out trailer. It has been 2 years and we have done a lot of work to it. Now it is working condition and we bought a new trailer for it as the old one broke in half because it was so very rusted. A few days ago we got a call from our friend saying he is bankrupt and need the boat back because he can sell it for $2600 now and he had a buyer. Then a few days later he said he needs it all back because he put it as property on a bank loan and needs to turn it in. He said since we never paid for it then it is still his. It was junk he wanted towed off his property. Now it is working after all our hard work and money put into it. There is no blue book value on the boat. There may be value on the motor, it is more like 20 years old. The trailer had no value it was rust. He said the package was for boat, motor and trailer and he wants money or it back. We own the new trailer cause we bought it. So he offered me $200 for it. Trailers are expensive. He wants to buy it for $200 or sue for his property.

Can he sue us for it? He gave it to us, but he never found title and it did not matter since it was so old. Also, he gave us some paperwork on it with a hand written, signed not saying that he was giving us copies of insurance papers so we can at least get the boat licence without the title and get the trailer licence.

 

[NYClex]

Well, your friend will have some difficulties if he wants to go this way. Of course, it always is a little tricky to claim things and defend against claims when there is no paperwork. But this is the gist of the law here:

A gift cannot be enforced, in other words, if someone tells me: I will give you this for free and then a week later says, "no I won't", I cannot enforce this. But there is an exception to the rule, the so called promissory estoppel doctrine:

Assume I tell someone: You can have this old car I had, I don't need it anymore, it is junk anyway. May be you can still make it run, I am happy to get rid of it.

You take it, put in lots of hours and materal, and lo and behold, it still runs nicely. Now I come and want it back. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel I will be "estopped" from claiming it back, when the new owner can show that he relied on my promise to his detriment and that I should have foreseen that and that it otherwise would be unfair. Here the new owner put in a lot of work and money, that is his detriment. He did this because he relied on the promise. I should have foreseen this, because I said "I am glad to get rid of it..."

Under this doctrine, even if a court would find that I should get the car back, I then would have to pay a reasonable sum for the work and material the new owner put into it.

 

[lostinlaw]

Ok, what about the statute of limitation. It has been two summers since he gave it away. We just got it in working order a few months ago. Now he has theatened to claim it as stolen property. If it was stolen shouldn't he have done a police report the day it went missing. He said a law has been broken. His exact words.

 

[lostinlaw]

We just got a call from him and he says he is gonna get his constable friend from where he lives (about 40 miles from me) to come pick it up as it is. He wants it and the new trailer.

 

[NYClex]

Well, it seems to me a lot of things are being thrown together here which don't belong together.

First of all there is the distinction between civil law and criminal law. Criminal law punishes wrongdoers but does not intend to "undo" the damage of the individual. That is the job of civil law. The police is usually only concerned and involved in criminal law. The courts need to get involved in civil law.

So, to sort things out here:

Under criminal law, depending how the individual state defines it, theft is depriving a rightful owner of his property under certain conditions. The law will list these conditions and divide the acts into larceny, embezzlement and so on. Some of it might be a felony, some might be a misdemeanor. There are different statutes of limitations for felonies and misdemeanors. But this is not so much the point here. The point here is, that the police is usually not involved in "getting things back." They are involved in arresting the thief and leading him to prosecution and eventual punishment.

Now, under civil law there are the torts of trespass to chattel and conversion, in other words, the unlawful interference with the property of another person. This is what I can claim in a civil law court if someone takes away my property. The court then might either make me pay damages, or return the property or both. Only if I have such a judgment of a court I can call the sheriff and ask him to help me get my stuff back from someone else. The point here is, first there needs to be a court order, a court has to have found that the stuff in question really doesn't belong to me but to the person who claims it. Especially if that person has voluntarily given it to me, for whatever reason, he cannot simply come over my fence and grab his stuff. Example:

John lends his lawn mower to Smith for 1 month. After three months Smith refuses to return the mower. John cannot simply walk into Smith's yard and take the mower. He needs to get a court order, otherwise it is him who trespasses. Only under very narrow exceptions can he just retake things which he claims belong to him. Otherwise it will be John who is liable and Smith can sue him for trespass and may be more.

Civil law also has a statute of limitations, which can be different from the ones in criminal law.

Now these are general rules. Every state sets the statutes of limitations individually. Local laws might change the general rules I described in some aspects, but not in major substance.

It seems to me this needs to be resolved in court, after all. If this guy continues to bother you, you might want to consult with an attorney.

 

[lostinlaw]

Thanks, your answers are so very comforting. We have an attorney we have used for a civil case involving parental rights (ex-wife issue). I suppose he can answer our concerns. We just don't want to get ripped out of a $1400 trailer and parts for boat.
Thanks again. I love NY