some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[drcy]

I don't know the people and the details of this story, but just realize that normal and legal practice is to give refund to a person who was the direct buyer. Period. With stolen items and a chain of ownership, refund/return is given down the line of owners. It is very problematic giving refund to someone who wasn't your buyer-- especially if you don't know them. At the very least, there had better be good proof that the items were stolen.

In other cases, I find it problematic when the people on hobby boards criticize a big auction house or dealer refuses to refund years later to someone who never bought the item from them. If the hobby expects this and does not expect the refundee to provide significant proof the items were stolen and of the chain of ownership, the auctioneer or dealer could theoretically be giving out refunds to multiple people on one item. I've heard a big auction house say "I've never sold anything to this person and have never met him. Why should I be handing him over money?"-- which is a reasonable (and legally correct) argument.

As mentioned, A's main beef and source of getting money back is with his brother. And, at the very least, if he expects money back from the third or whatever generation buyer, he'd better have insurance claim papers or police report to prove the items were stolen.

If the parties want to cut a deal and do things differently because they think that's the right thing to do, that is fine and acceptable, but legally M never owed refund directly to A. That's not to say A does not get a refund or the cards back, but this is not the way the law says it is to be done. Judges often say (to the effect) "You have a legitimate case, but you've sued the wrong person."

[Peter_Spaeth]

When the police or the feds recover stolen property from its current owner, innocent or not, they don't say to the current owner, please go return the item to the person you bought it from and get a refund. They take it.

[judsonhamlin]

And do (or should) list that downstream buyer as an additional victim

[judsonhamlin]

And if I learn who B is, he'll lose my business as well

[rhettyeakley]

I am not aware of the players in this scenario BUT as one half of a well known set of brothers (along with Rhys) on this forum/hobby I just don’t want anyone to think we are “A,” or even “B” for that matter.

[Exhibitman]

Don't worry Rhett: you guys aren't well known at all

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Don't worry Rhett: no one likes you guys anyway

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

Is the drummer related to the infamous Red Sox player that had the ball go between his legs, which ultimately cost them the series?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by exhibitman

don't worry rhett: You guys aren't well known at all

lol

[edjs]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Don't worry Rhett: you guys aren't well known at all

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

I never thought I would see a reference to the Jam on here. All Mod Cons, eh?

[egbeachley]

Based on recent posts, that's why M shouldn't have just given A the cards right away. B doesn't feel compelled to even rewind his profits and A doesn't feel compelled to file a police report.

Now how is M going to even pursue damages with the brother? Not even sure he can since the brother and M didn't deal directly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Based on recent posts, that's why M shouldn't have just given A the cards right away. B doesn't feel compelled to even rewind his profits and A doesn't feel compelled to file a police report.

Now how is M going to even pursue damages with the brother? Not even sure he can since the brother and M didn't deal directly.

M clearly put what was right above his wallet. But he does, I believe, have recourse against Chris. Of course for the amount involved and depending on where he lives a claim may not be practical.

[Runscott]

Some of the opinions people have are very enlightening - my eyebrows were raised in surprise during most of the reading! Fortunately Peter brought sanity to the discussion.

It was also interesting to read Dan's story, since this is something that can happen to any of us as collectors. I had a couple of unique items stolen two years ago and played scenarios in my head as to what would happen if I found them on ebay or in an antique store. I finally decided that since they were only worth about $300, I would forget about it and never look at anything on ebay that looked similar to either item - basically, I never want to see them again. They were probably stolen by crackheads who threw them out on the side of the road, as they would look like worthless photographs to such people. But thinking this through made me wonder how safe it is to buy high-dollar items - virtually anything could have been stolen at some point.

[slidekellyslide]

Small update on my situation. I heard from the Lincoln police today who told me they still can not locate the woman who sold the figures to me. I asked about what I should do with the items. They told me to continue holding them. They believe that because the guy was compensated with insurance that the figures could belong to the insurance company now but that insurance companies rarely ever try to lay claim to collectibles like toys. They are also checking to see if I fall under the same laws regarding pawn shops. If the original owner wants his items back he can pay me what I paid the lady for them, but since he was compensated he will then have to pay the insurance company what he valued them at. I suspect that since I haven’t heard a word from him that his Insurance company told him this already.

[glynparson]

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by glynparson

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

Good for you, Glyn. You and your family did the RIGHT thing.

jeff

[Kevin Savage]

After reading most of this thread- I am glad Mike and Chris were able to work something out. I consider both friends- and know neither want to handle stolen property or profit from it.

In my opinion they both are trying to do the right thing- and that is admirable.

I am always doing my best to make sure when we buy cards and buy collections- that we are buying from the rightful owner. This is a great reminder of the mess that can take place if we make the wrong purchase- no matter how removed you are from the theft and that first sale.

In the end the collectors' brother is the thief here- and in my opinion- that is where 100% of the blame should rest. He knew the cards were not his. Mike and Chris bought them in good faith. From what I know of the case- they both have gone above and beyond the moral duty in this one.