Family Car stolen by sibling and sold. Domestic or criminal theft?

shaku

A brother did a runner from a family home, stealing a jointly owned car according to the terms of the deceased father's will (as well as stealing various other jointly-owned items from the house and leaving unpaid bills). Then he was spotted in a new car, so the family car was obviously sold/traded in/disposed of. Going through the garbage left behind, the rest of the family discovered he had also changed the old car's ownership to his name, against any agreement or permission (all family and neighbours can testify that the father owned the car). On originally reporting the theft of the car to the police, the family were told that it was a "domestic dispute" and therefor a Civil Court issue. But now that he's got rid of the family car, does it become real theft and therefore a Criminal Court and Police issue?

numorouno

Civil surely it was a joint owned car so the other party would go after him for the money owed?

dudara

Not a Consumer Issue, so I'm moving to the Legal Discussion forum. This thread is now subject to the LD charter.

MarkAnthony

It is theft if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the property was jointly owned.

jimmycrackcorm

I don't understand the 'joint' aspect to it. How can a car be jointly owned? Is there some sort of paperwork to back it up or a joint finance agreement in which case parties are probably jointly and severally liable for payments.

Changing the ownership document is the interesting piece though as it would be fraudulent for someone to sign away without the owners signature.

Little CuChulainn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't understand the 'joint' aspect to it. How can a car be jointly owned? Is there some sort of paperwork to back it up or a joint finance agreement in which case parties are probably jointly and severally liable for payments.

Changing the ownership document is the interesting piece though as it would be fraudulent for someone to sign away without the owners signature.

The owner was dead.

P. Breathnach

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The owner was dead.

There was a will, and it appears that the new ownership was provided for.

It's not clear if the will was fully executed or not, and that would have a bearing on things.

Marcusm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There was a will, and it appears that the new ownership was provided for.

It's not clear if the will was fully executed or not, and that would have a bearing on things.

It's still theft albeit from the executor/administrator who would, I imagine, be the person the make the formal complaint. Guards will, I imagine, try to throw it back to being a family/civil matter as it is likely to be of insufficient importance to them.

Little CuChulainn

Marcusm wrote: »

It's still theft albeit from the executor/administrator who would, I imagine, be the person the make the formal complaint. Guards will, I imagine, try to throw it back to being a family/civil matter as it is likely to be of insufficient importance to them.

What would you consider to be the element of dishonesty necessary for an offence of theft?

Marcusm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What would you consider to be the element of dishonesty necessary for an offence of theft?

The property was vested in an executor and while he might have had an expectation of a transfer of a one half undivided interest in it, he falsified a document to transfer the ownership and converted the proceeds for his own benefit. Hard to see which parts of this did not involve dishonesty.

Little CuChulainn

Marcusm wrote: »

, he falsified a document to transfer the ownership

I didn't see that bit in the op.

Marcusm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I didn't see that bit in the op.

, the rest of the family discovered he had also changed the old car's ownership to his name, against any agreement or permission (all family and neighbours can testify that the father owned the car)

.

M

Little CuChulainn

Marcusm wrote: »

.

M

You are making a leap there. To transfer ownership after an owner is deceased you don't need to sign their name or anything. You merely need to send in the VRC and a letter from the solicitor of the deceased confirming you have ownership of the car.

Marcusm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are making a leap there. To transfer ownership after an owner is deceased you don't need to sign their name or anything. You merely need to send in the VRC and a letter from the solicitor of the deceased confirming you have ownership of the car.

Until such time as the will is probated, the ownership of the assets vests in the executor and not the putative beneficiaries even if it was to be his 100%. Ipso facto, he was not authorised to transfer ownership and given that he was aware that he was not entitled to 100% of it he proceeded not in ignorance but in deceit. Had he understood that he was entitled to it 100% he might not have the same position although he might still face penalties.

P. Breathnach

If the will is still in probate, the executor can proceed against the brother. If the brother has other entitlements from the estate, the executor can offset the benefit that the brother has taken against the brother's final inheritance.

Little CuChulainn

Marcusm wrote: »

Until such time as the will is probated, the ownership of the assets vests in the executor and not the putative beneficiaries even if it was to be his 100%. Ipso facto, he was not authorised to transfer ownership and given that he was aware that he was not entitled to 100% of it he proceeded not in ignorance but in deceit. Had he understood that he was entitled to it 100% he might not have the same position although he might still face penalties.

You are assuming deceit when it might well be ignorance. But in any case, would it not be the executor, as opposed to the op who would have to make a complaint?

Marcusm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are assuming deceit when it might well be ignorance. But in any case, would it not be the executor, as opposed to the op who would have to make a complaint?

I take the facts as stated by the OP and can only infer that the miscreant is equally aware; if you look back to post #8, you'll see that I suggested the executor was the appropriate person to make the complaint.

Pat Mustard

If the said brother is a part owner of the car, I don't see how a prosecution for theft could succeed.

NUTLEY BOY

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If the said brother is a part owner of the car, I don't see how a prosecution for theft could succeed.

Could there be theft of the interest of the other joint owner ?

NUTLEY BOY

Would there be a claim for theft under the motor insurance policy for the car ?

I am assuming that as at date of appropriation the will had not been admitted to probate and that the party who took the car is not an executor.

Pat Mustard

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Could there be theft of the interest of the other joint owner ?

I suppose that the caselaw on the definition of 'lawful authority' per s.112 of the Road Traffic Act might answer that question more definitively, if anybody wants to look it up?

Marcusm

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I suppose that the caselaw on the definition of 'lawful authority' per s.112 of the Road Traffic Act might answer that question more definitively, if anybody wants to look it up?

What lawful authority could they have for depriving the owner (the executor) of the car before they have sorted out the estate - there could be liabilities which render the 50% legacy a dead letter. Surely this is compounding by disposing of the proceeds of the sale for their own use. I can't see how this is not a theft or fraud offences matter irrespective that the property consists of a motor vehicle but then ianal.

Pat Mustard

Marcusm wrote: »

What lawful authority could they have for depriving the owner (the executor) of the car before they have sorted out the estate - there could be liabilities which render the 50% legacy a dead letter. Surely this is compounding by disposing of the proceeds of the sale for their own use. I can't see how this is not a theft or fraud offences matter irrespective that the property consists of a motor vehicle but then ianal.

I'll look this up later and attempt to come back on this, in relation to unlawful taking of a motor vehicle/theft.

shaku

The deceased father left all property, i.e. one family house, one car, etc. 50/50% between two brothers. The %0% money for a stolen and disposed-of second-hand car, or to even buy a new car (unaffordable at present) isn't just the only issue. It's the considerable inconvenience of having no family car and more important the family want to expose the stealing brother as a fraud and thief.

Little CuChulainn

If he left all property to be divided then it's simply a matter of subtracting the cost of the car from his share. And who do they want to expose him to?

seagull

I think you need the executor to follow this up. Technically, the car was under the ownership/control of the executor when it was taken. Your options are either
- Bring the gardai into it, and try to have the sibling charged with theft
- Just deduct the value of the car from his share of the estate