Psa theft ransom

[Exhibitman]

What the OP has here is a great secured transactions course law school test question. Unfortunately.

Let's break this down a little more carefully.

The initial situation that produced the alleged debt dates back some years. When the charge-back, or whatever the OP calls it, was granted, it represents a start date for the loser to take action on that claim and creates an end date (called the "limitations period"). if you snooze through the limitations period, you lose. I won a trial in a commercial case on this issue earlier this year where the plaintiff sat on its rights for 14 years before suing my client. Whether my client owed the money was irrelevant; the case was stale and the debt unenforceable on that basis.

Generally, this sort of underlying dispute would be viewed as a contract case, which typically has a window of action under either state law or the contract (if the state law is waivable). Regardless of who won, once there was a final "screw you, I am not paying" statement made, it triggers the time within which the creditor must take action. Once that window runs out, an enforcement action would be time-barred, unless the parties waive the time limit contractually. Whether a blanket perpetual waiver is valid would have to be tested under the law of the state with jurisdiction over the contract; some states protect consumers from this sort of stuff, some don't. In PSA's case, that is California; in eBay's case it is now Utah, used to be California. So, first resort is to the contract that controlled the transaction. If that contract is silent on enforcement, then state law controls the time frame to enforce. If the creditor missed its window, its claim is dead and cannot be legally enforced.

This has huge ramifications for the vault owner because the vault is considered a "bailment": the bailor (card owner) gives the card to the bailee (the vault service) to hold it for them. Typically, this creates a series of duties, defined either by state law or by agreement, that control how the bailee handles the item. A bailee normally cannot hand over control of an item to a creditor of the bailor without a court order and has potential liability exposure for doing so. One common exception is a contract that allows the bailee to use the item to pay costs owed to it. Most of the time this requires notice and an auction of the items. I have never seen a bailment agreement that allows the bailee to hold the item hostage for payment of a debt, but it could be the case.

The acquisition of the vault by the creditor greatly complicates things. If the bailor operates under a specific contract and/or state law that does not allow a turnover of items without a turnover order, or that mandates a process of seizing and selling the items with proper notices to the bailor, then the bailor is potentially liable for "conversion" of the item it wrongfully withholds. What the OP may have is a case where the bailment agreement and law does not allow what has been done but where the contract between the initial parties does. If the contract between the former creditor and the debtor/owner allows for a turnover, a court might just allow it once the two entities are merged. Or it might not, especially if the underlying debt is expired and unenforceable. Either way, I would not counsel a bailee client in this situation to withhold the item without a very clear legal basis or a court order.

Situations like these are bound to arise as these vaults and contactless transactions grow in popularity. Kinda sucks that you need a lawyer to buy a baseball card, but that's where it has gone.