lamborghini reported stolen after i bought it

Apparently Josh made his call, because we've been told that Josh's lawyer is drawing up an order to have the car returned to Josh.

 

Where in my post did you see me say that Gallardo owner WILL BE ARRESTED!? I simply stated that it was not a good idea to widthhold any information of the car's whereabouts. Man, give it up! It never happened the way you wanted it to happen.

 

The other part that is not crystal clear is the damage to the car. Apparently this guy leased it with 50k down, then he got the title (presumably right away since he got it for the purpose of getting his title and plates which would have happened quickly). Then he took the title and sold the car. I don't recall how many miles were on the car when Josh picked it up, but it was quite a few - and the car had been damaged and repaired (badly, as I recall).

So was the leasing company the first owner? I assumed yes but maybe they were not. Why would the guy lease a used higher mileage lower priced G if his intent was to take the money and run? He nabbed an F40 and another car - why not go for an LP640 - why a used G? The timeline doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Surely the car was used when the guy originally leased it yes?

 

Probably busy setting his alarm clock!

 

Ok, let me restate. You said "lying to the authorities would not be a good thing to do".

Why?

What can happen to Josh for refusing to disclose the location of the car? They are not pursuing a criminal investigation so if he tells 'em to shove it without a warrant, I fail to see why you consider this not a good thing to do? On the contrary - if he knew they were looking for the car and knowing it was a civil matter, he absolutely should have told them nothing. He doesn't have to lie but he sure ought to refuse to answer ANY questions. To suggest otherwise is silly. The cops were not acting on his behalf or in his best interests. They were there to legitimize the writ and to ensure no problems with the reposession, not to act as investigators and track down the car. I doubt they'd have tried to compel him to give up or say anything!

 

There is now talk that there may have been internal politics between the owners of the leasing company and one of them might have been sending out titles to screw the company...

 

Because Im a good boy and it's written in the 10 commandments somewhere!?

I dont want to make any assumptions. Too many variables to consider.

Who suggested anything about lying?

 

Seems likely.

Can you imagine a "leasing company" that would let the titles for $750k worth of cars leave without having liens reported?

I dont buy that.

 

I agree... once could be an employee mistake... 3 cars to one 'customer' is fishier than Paris' panties...

 

Must be the 11th one "thou shalt not lie to thine cops".

But seriously, everyone ought to cover their ass in these situations. Voluntarily giving out information in that situations is a bad idea, as is helping the cops to help the PI take your car away.

Of course, most of the time you'd be blindsided by it. But if Josh did indeed know 72 hours beforehand that they were looking for the car.... well.... nothing really needs to be said about that!

 

I believe you did. Less than an hour ago.

 

I thought the 11th was make more money than your enemies! Oh wait, that was Trump's commandments.

 

That was a statement not a suggestion! Nice try though.

 

i read up to roy's first post, sounds like a world of pain.

 

Please stop posting bad advice. For all those reading, never, ever volunteer information to the police. Give up only what you are legally required to give.

 

You could have simply said that he no longer has contact info, then. Why give the details of his death if you are not trying to garner sympathy...which is a very cheap and cavalier thing to do with a family tragedy. Discretion isn't your strong point, is it?

I am not insinuating anything. I am categorically stating that based on what you claim he advised you to do, he gave LOUSY legal advice. Now, if he did that in his capacity as a lawyer, that makes him a LOUSY lawyer. Whether it worked out well in the end or not does not detract from the lousiness of the advice that you claimed he gave you. That's all. I will be glad to drop this when you do, but don't think you can cite someone's death as any sort of validation for your ridiculous statements, or to besmirch anyone else here.

In the future, I suggest you refrain from whoring out family tragedies. It just makes you look bad. And you look bad enough already.

 

So I know the law can't enter your home without probable cause or a warrant. Does the writ the judge gave fall under either of those?

 

Roy, seriously, just stop. Cops don't yank cars with clear titles. Clear titled cars go home. Badly titled cars get impounded and sent back to their rightful owners. What happened here?

Are you doing business in the state of Washington?

 

Mike, first off let me say that I am not pileing on you, but there are those that are saying that a business owner should pay, out of court, because they are clearly at fault and that insurance companies write checks without the threat of litigation. Mike, since you are a business owner let me give another situation (one that I just got through myself).

A person comes on to your business property. Through no fault of yours this person slips, falls, and breaks his hip in your parking lot. In my business there are elderly folks in and out of my doors every day. I know this and shovel, plow and salt so much that its a freaking miracle that I make any profit at all in the winter. Even with the fact that I dump a mountain of salt on my parking lot every winter I am clearly liable for this person's injuries.

At this point I have 2 options. Open my checkbook and write a check to cover his injuries or callthe insurance company. If I write a check to the guy and he accepts it, whether the check is for $500 or $500,000 the courts would see this as a settlement offer and acceptance (this is why Roy's offer of ten grand couldn't be accepted by josh. If he did the courts would see this as settlement of the complaint.) if I did this my insurance company would not reimburse me because it was left out of the negoation of the settlement.

I did what every business owner would do. I turned it over to the insurance company who told the guy, "sue me". He went out, got a lawyer (one who advertises on Maury Povich) who then issued demands on the insurance company that were eventually settled the case for a low 6 figure settlement. That's what we pay premiums for. Maybe I should have just wrote a check

 

Not inquiring at all, just expressing my amazement that someone who could obtain 110K for a car would have to inquire if a civil rights attorney was the appropriate one for his case. It reminded me of a thread a couple of years back from the now-banned DanC, a live-at-home-with-the-parents, semi-literate lawn mower got embroiled with (now that I remember it) Mr. Cats about the purchase of a Diablo 6.0 which NOBODY, including me, wound up believing he had the wherewithal to purchase. Turned out he bought one a couple of months later.

 

Analogies suck because they aren't relevant across diverse legal issues. Quit using them. Unless WA State has the exact same regs in place for used car dealers (or commercial property owners) and carers of the elderly, enlighten us. Otherwise, just stfu.

The only persons that have any relevance to this matter are WA state atty gen and WA state dealer inspector, Roy Cats and Josh's atty's, et al. That's where the chain starts, and that's where the chain ends. Hollywood Lawyers, big dick waving, and posing, all aside.

This entire thread could have been a two pager (at best) if the OP revealed that Cats contacted him about the upcoming confiscation of his car. Instead it has been drawn out into some mega melodrama page post that ultimately serves zero purpose. Ban the OP for life and ban Cats for life and tell him thanks but no thanks for the ad money.

 

**UPDATE**

Against the advise of my lawyer I am adding new come to light info. I am sure he is just trying to protect me, but I feel it is only right to make sure all the facts are correct. So if it causes me more problems, so be it, at the least the info is correct and on the table...

OF course my insurance company AND lawyers have been doing thier investigation, this is what has come about so far..

As reported earlier, the seller of the car to VIVA is NOT at fault it appears. HE did not have three cars that he sold, just the one Gallardo. It appears that he DID in fact have the car legally and paid for it. He did not FLEE the country. He is a part time resident of the Nevada area and his home country. As a NON-USA Citizen he apperantley was unable to obtain financing. He went through the mentioned leasing company WHO did fiance him on this car with $80,000.00 down and a monthly payment of approx $2500.00. The Leasing company WAS holding the title. Ther was some sort of internal dispute between two principles in the leasing company. One of them 'grapped" several of the titles in house. He then proceeded to contact AT LEAST three seperate lease holders. (that is where the three cars come in). He offers them a out of their lease for early full "discounted" payment, i.e "the short sell". In this case the client excepted the offer and paid an additional $50,000.00 to the at what he thought was the lease company rep, as he had no other reason to think otherewise and recieved the CLEAR title to his Gallardo.

As he was returning to his country soon, he elected to dispose of the car for the 6 months he would be gone. He sold the car, LEGALLY to VIVA for a fair market wholesale price, who in turn sold it to us, who in turn sold it to Josh.

I do not know at this time, HOW long between the sale of the "short sale" and the time the client sold it to Viva. I do know that there is a criminal investigation in process in the home state of the leasing compnay. I do not know if anyone has been arrested or charged, nor what the status of the case is. I do know the Privte Detective is and was working for the remaing principle of the lease company attempting to loacte and sieze the cars in question. I do not know how many are involved other than the three here. I do know the other two had thier cars turned back to them with in days of the siezure as the first court order was over turned by their prospective local courts.

I do know we (CATS) did not know the car was siezed and or that it was GOING to be siezed until I read this thread the day it was started. I do know I ADVISED JOSH less than 72 hours prior to the siezure that we HAD been contacted by the PI and that we DID NOT release any customer information AT ALL and to please keep me advised of what if anything happens or he gets contacted, he did not.

I do know that the court order out of Nevada was a case of lets just get the car and go from there, along with the fact that the person who was out of the country could not be contacted. It was IN NO WAY an order stating the lease company was in the RIGHT, just a sympathetic Judge IMO passing the buck on the the local Judge of where these cars would have been siezed.

I am not going to lay blame anywhere or say it would have been different if he or she had done this or done that, that is not my place nor am I going to throw people under the buss. I do know that what we have learned so far, along with our "LOCAL" state investigator for both Dealer License and State AG office is that CATS has done nothing incorrect or Illegal and IS NOT required by ANY LAW to refund Josh his money back at this time.

I also do know we are working with my insurance, my lawyers and JOSH'S lawyer to do what ever we can for him. I HOPE the outcome will be posative.

I also know that I AM NOT going to write JOSH a check for the purchase of the car on the advise of BOTH my Lawyers and the INSURANCE COMPANY. I will let the parties that are paid for this type of thing and TRAINED in this type of thing to deal with it.

I will post any new info that comes to light and is of importance in this case, even IF it goes against the advise of my Lawyer.

Thanks Roy Cats

 

I agree. Best post yet.

 

Now what do all you lawyers say? Changes things a little, huh?

 

I completely understand where you are coming from. However, I think it would go more like this:

Person falls, gets medical assistance, then person (or their lawyer) contacts me demanding reimbursement/damages. I contact my insurance and they investigate and handle it, possibly settling, possibly paying in full, possibly refusing to pay.

I can't imagine the insurance company who would refuse to even investigage the claim until a suit was filed. The person who suffered damages could make a formal demand for compensation and that ought to be enough to get the ball rolling. In a case like this where I believe Roy has clear responsibility (not fault, but responsibility) I would think there's a good chance the insurance would just pay up, no lawyers needed. It appeared, however, that Roy was unwilling to initiate a claim and forcing Josh to force him to get his insurance involved.

I could be wrong - Roy said something about the insurance not paying without a suit - I am not sure if thats what they told him or if he's assuming that. If he's assuming that then basically it's a more gentle way of saying "I'm not paying, you'll have to sue me".