B'gob and B'gorrah, how interesting is this?

Brian Lighthouse

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/321118/done-deal-buyer-to-get-stolen-car-back-after-judge-s-ruling-at-limerick-court.html

Atlantic Dawn

Crazy decision.

Samuel T. Cogley

Not so crazy IMHO. Allianz had not flagged the vehicle and we've equity's darling vs. a tardy insurance company. I can certainly see where the Judge was going with this one.

Atlantic Dawn

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not so crazy IMHO. Allianz had not flagged the vehicle and we've equity's darling vs. a tardy insurance company. I can certainly see where the Judge was going with this one.

Yes interesting but should the owner of the car not have it already reported stolen prior to contacting their insurance company?

banie01

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not so crazy IMHO. Allianz had not flagged the vehicle and we've equity's darling vs. a tardy insurance company. I can certainly see where the Judge was going with this one.

The whole issue of Allianz not updating the correct database in an appropriate timeframe strikes me as odd.
Surely when the original owner reported the theft it was listed on pulse?
As such it was a known stolen vehicle?

Updating of an insurance database after the payout should not negate the fact that upon recovery the vehicle is property of the Insurer?

Or is the issue hinging on the fact that the buyer used Cartel or similar to check the vehicle status and that showed the vehicle as free of encumbrance?

Samuel T. Cogley

From what I gather from the article Allianz did not flag the car as stolen until 1st March which was six weeks after it was alerted. The buyer insured the car on day he bought it 2nd Feb. The buyer is a bona fide purchaser without notice and the first to register his interest (by insuring it) in the car. Had the insurance company registered it's interest first then it would likely have gone the other way.

Samuel T. Cogley

banie01 wrote: »

The whole issue of Allianz not updating the correct database in an appropriate timeframe strikes me as odd.
Surely when the original owner reported the theft it was listed on pulse?
As such it was a known stolen vehicle?

Updating of an insurance database after the payout should not negate the fact that upon recovery the vehicle is property of the Insurer?

Or is the issue hinging on the fact that the buyer used Cartel or similar to check the vehicle status and that showed the vehicle as free of encumbrance?

The original owner no longer had an interest in the car, that had been purchased by Allianz (for want of a better term) by their insurance payment. Allianz then rested and during that time a BFP beat them to registration of interest in the car. It all turns on who registered an interest first. I believe but could be wrong that we're a race-notice jurisdiction. That's how I understand it anyway - never did that well in Equity

Edit: BTW best bloody thread in here in a long time well spotted OP!

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not so crazy IMHO. Allianz had not flagged the vehicle and we've equity's darling vs. a tardy insurance company. I can certainly see where the Judge was going with this one.

Equitys darling is not relevant to this. The thief had no title to the vehicle at all and the rule "Nemo dat quod non habet" applies.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

Equitys darling is not relevant to this. The thief had no title to the vehicle at all and the rule "Nemo dat quod non habet" applies.

Not according to at least one Judge. While Equity's Darling may be a wrongly used phrase this is a BFPFVWN. Title is not conferred it is acquired by the BFP by order of a court if certain criteria are met. This case would be a text book example of those criteria.

johnnyskeleton

Anderson v Ryan [1967] I.R. 34

Mr. Justice Henchy wrote:

Therefore, the central question which decides the points raised under both s. 12 and 8. 21 is:—"Did the defendant have a good title to the car when he sold and delivered it to the plaintiff?" To decide this question one must go back to the circumstances under which the original owner, Mr. Davis, parted with possession of the car. As I have said, he exchanged it for the Sprite. The inducement for him to do so was not alone the desirability to him of the exchange but also the representation by the other party that the Sprite was his property. That was a false and fraudulent representation as to an existing fact. The contract of exchange was, therefore, a voidable contract. Since Mr. Davis intended to pass the ownership of the Mini, the person who got the car in exchange acquired a title to it, but it was a voidable title, that is, voidable at the option of Mr. Davis. It would have been different if Mr. Davis had parted with the Mini as a result of larceny by a trick, for then no title would have passed. Authority for the conclusion that what passed on the exchange was a voidable title is to be found in Cundy v. Lindsay (1) ; Robin & Rambler Coaches, Ltd. v. Turner (2) ; Central Newbury Car Auctions Limited v. Unity Finance Ltd. (3) and Archbold on Criminal Pleading (36th ed.) para. 1497.

There is no evidence that there was any intermediate sale of the Mini between the fraudulent exchange and the sale to the defendant. In fact, all the likelihood is that the car was sold to the defendant by or on behalf of the person who effected the fraudulent exchange. One looks then to see what title, if any, such person conveyed to the defendant. The answer is to be found in s. 23 of the Act, which is as follows:—"When the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller's defect of title." It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Davis had not avoided the title of the person who sold the car to the defendant at the time of that sale, and it has not been suggested that the defendant bought otherwise than in good faith and without notice of the seller's defect of title.

Samuel T. Cogley

Thanks for the correction.

johnnyskeleton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Thanks for the correction.

To be fair, I'm not sure its still good law 50 odd years later. But it seems that most cases since then have settled

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not according to at least one Judge. While Equity's Darling may be a wrongly used phrase this is a BFPFVWN. Title is not conferred it is acquired by the BFP by order of a court if certain criteria are met. This case would be a text book example of those criteria.

One District Court judge? The appeal will be over in less than 10 minutes. The text books deal with entirely different cases where the thief had a voidable title at the time of selling the car. The BFPFVWN criteria only apply when the vendor had a title at the time of disposal.
If someone fishes through my letterbox, takes my car keys and drives off in my car, they get no title, the car remains mine and if the thief sells the car, the pruchaser gets no better title than the thief had.
If someone knocks on my door and offers to buy my car and I agree and accept a bank draft (which later turns out to be forged) in payment and give them the car, they get a voidable title which lasts until I take steps to avoid the transaction. If the car has been sold before I take those steps, then the purchaser gets a good title on the equity principle. That is what the text books say.

sexmag

4ensic15 wrote: »

If someone fishes through my letterbox, takes my car keys and drives off in my car, they get no title, the car remains mine and if the thief sells the car, the pruchaser gets no better title than the thief had.
.

Not if you don't report the car as stolen or you do and your insurance pay out a claim to you and dont do all the relevant paperwork in the time the car is sold to an innocent buyer

That's the point this judge was making.

In reality it's seems insane but the insurer didn't do their job in time and the delay of 4-6 weeks resulted in their loss,not the original car owner or the new buyer who are all innocent parties in this

4ensic15

sexmag wrote: »

Not if you don't report the car as stolen or you do and your insurance pay out a claim to you and dont do all the relevant paperwork in the time the car is sold to an innocent buyer

That's the point this judge was making.

In reality it's seems insane but the insurer didn't do their job in time and the delay of 4-6 weeks resulted in their loss,not the original car owner or the new buyer who are all innocent parties in this

That judge was wrong and will be reversed on appeal. the law is long-standing and clear. In any insurance claim the insurer will insist the theft is reported to the Garda before they will pay out. There is no more paperwork to be done at that point.