Stolen but not reported

[Litigator22]

Tacit permission is tacit permission. He knew the guy had the truck. Op was satisfied with; gf says you need to call him yourself after you’re out of jail. That was a result of a failure of the discussions the girlfriend had with the guy and the guy saying he wouldn’t return the truck. Op was apparently ok with allowing the continued use during that interval.

Failure to act at that point is tacit permission. . .

So - the OP's "failure to act at that point" infers that he consented to the guy busting of the ignition switch and driving off with his truck?

A rather superficial argument considering that the OP was somewhat constrained from taking any action because of his imprisonment. And that the police had already curtailed the thief's joy ride prior to his being released from jail.

If a merchant attempts to collect a bad check, the state will usually decline to prosecute the maker of the check. But neither the failure to prosecute nor efforts to collect the check civilly lessens the criminal nature of the maker's conduct.

And certainly by no means or theory is it to be said that the merchant thereby consented to accept a bogus check in exchange for delivery of goods or services rendered!

 

[not2cleverRed]

So - the OP's "failure to act at that point" infers that he consented to the guy busting of the ignition switch and driving off with his truck?

A rather superficial argument considering that the OP was somewhat constrained from taking any action because of his imprisonment. And that the police had already curtailed the thief's joy ride prior to his being released from jail.

Hey Lit22, he was in jail for 10 days. He knew of the thwarted joyride via his girlfriend. During the ensuing 8 months he has done N-O-T-H-I-N-G to indicate to the police that it was stolen. He located it in impound. He did not report it then. He counted on the good will and holding onto the other guys clothes and other property as maybe a way to make a trade and get the guy to pay up.

(Certainly a case of misplaced optimism at best. Then again, why does OP have the joyrider's clothes and other property? I don't have your clothes , or the clothes of any other FA "acquaintances" kicking about my place.)

So yes, at this point, if he reports the truck as stolen, it's not going to come across as credible. It is a reccommended step if he wants to sue the guy in court for the value of the truck. He certainly hasn't anything to lose...

If a merchant attempts to collect a bad check, the state will usually decline to prosecute the maker of the check. But neither the failure to prosecute nor efforts to collect the check civilly lessens the criminal nature of the maker's conduct.

And certainly by no means or theory is it to be said that the merchant thereby consented to accept a bogus check in exchange for delivery of goods or services rendered!

The merchant has proof that there is a bad check, in that rubber checks when bouncing incur documentable fees.

OP has no proof that the joyriding friend stole his car because he didn't want to get his then-friend in trouble by reporting him. There may be some text messages, but there's nothing in writing.

OP needs to be able to credibly show in court that the dude took the truck without permission. Because the dude is going to claim that his buddy OP gave it to him to look after while OP was in jail.

 

[justalayman]

So - the OP's "failure to act at that point" infers that he consented to the guy busting of the ignition switch and driving off with his truck?

A rather superficial argument considering that the OP was somewhat constrained from taking any action because of his imprisonment. And that the police had already curtailed the thief's joy ride prior to his being released from jail.

If a merchant attempts to collect a bad check, the state will usually decline to prosecute the maker of the check. But neither the failure to prosecute nor efforts to collect the check civilly lessens the criminal nature of the maker's conduct.

And certainly by no means or theory is it to be said that the merchant thereby consented to accept a bogus check in exchange for delivery of goods or services rendered!

Ok, real simple

If a guy breaks into your house, rips the door right off the hinges ans enters. You jump from your bed ready to bust some heads. You find the guy in the kitchen and realize it’s your old friend Ralph. You hesitate. He recognizes you and says:

Oh geez 22, I didn’t know this was your house. I would never have broken in if I knew it was your house. I’m so sorry. I’ll pay for all the damages. You say: ok Ralph. I’m ok with That. Let’s sit down and have a beer and talk about what you are going to owe me.



So, at what point did the presence change from trespasser to guest? When you treated it as not being an crime and allowing him to take care of tthe damages. You changed it from a criminal action to a civil action as soon as you said ok, I’ll accept your offer to pay for the damages and stopped treating the action and him as criminal.

 

[quincy]

Chris.karma appears to have evidence to show his truck was stolen rather than loaned. His "friend" was driving a truck that was not registered to him and he was driving it without keys and without a driver's license.

Chris was in jail at the time of the friend's ill-fated drive, with evidence showing the dates Chris was in jail and the date of his release.

He can obtain evidence showing the date of his friend's arrest and the date the truck was impounded.

He has his girlfriend's witness testimony.

It would help Chris to report to the police now that his truck was taken by this friend without Chris's knowledge or authorization, and that his truck was sold at auction because of his own inability to pay impound fees after he got out of jail and his friend's refusal to help pay to get the truck - this even if the police choose not to pursue the friend.

Chris has demonstrable harm as a direct result of his friend's actions. And Chris still has plenty of time to file suit against his friend given the 3-year statute of limitations.

I do see a problem with Chris collecting on any damages awarded should he be successful with a lawsuit - but judgments are good for a long time. His friend might have a job and/or assets in the future that can be used to satisfy the judgment.

I think it would be worth Chris's time to sue.