Thread: Stolen Mustang recovered after 38 years

Tweet

If he was paid by insurance, I think they now own the car. But from the sounds of it she is giving the car directly back to him. He would probably be able to buy the car from the insurance company, hopefully at the 38 year ago price they reimbursed him for it. These were selling for what, $ 2400 new back then?

Don

Nice story. I sold my 68 for 700.00 27 years ago with a blown engine. I still regret that, but it was the financing I needed that started me as a Marine Biologist at the time. I had probably 2000 into the car at the time, no job, and no place to keep it!
I had spent a lot of time restocking it from the lowrider it was when I bought it. The irony was two lowriders bought it from me!
Good points about the insurance companies! My mom's 69 Mustang was totaled by drunk drivers in a head on collision that came very close to killing her. The insurance company offered her 700.00 for the car in 1980. She was the original owner, car in mint shape with about 95,000 miles on it. She had uninsured motorist policy, which was good, because the drivers were illegal aliens, who after getting out of the hospital fled the country.
With uninsured motorest insurance at the time, my mom was appointed a lawyer by her insurance company to sue the same company for the real estimated value of the car, closer to 2000.00 at the time. So long of the short the insurance company sued itself to pay her the real value of the car. Strange world we live in. I always wanted to buy the plate off the wreck, it was ZOT 007 black with yellow lettering!

The lady is foolish. The stolen car was likely closed out by insurance 38 years ago. The former owner has no claim - he was paid for his loss, and he moved on. She should get a lawyer, and to to the insurance company and reimburse them for the amount of the settlement. The question is interest on that money, which is why a lawyer might be needed. Giving it back to the original owner is gross stupidity, unless he wants to 1) pay back the insurance money plus interest, and 2) the insurance company goes after the used car lot that sold a stolen car. My question is how it took 38 years for this to come to light?? If I buy a car off of the lot in KS I have to title it in my name within 30 days, which means a the DMV verifies the former owner and a legit deal before I get a new title. Something is fishy here.....

Originally Posted by rspears

The lady is foolish. The stolen car was likely closed out by insurance 38 years ago. The former owner has no claim - he was paid for his loss, and he moved on. She should get a lawyer, and to to the insurance company and reimburse them for the amount of the settlement. The question is interest on that money, which is why a lawyer might be needed. Giving it back to the original owner is gross stupidity, unless he wants to 1) pay back the insurance money plus interest, and 2) the insurance company goes after the used car lot that sold a stolen car. My question is how it took 38 years for this to come to light?? If I buy a car off of the lot in KS I have to title it in my name within 30 days, which means a the DMV verifies the former owner and a legit deal before I get a new title. Something is fishy here.....

Actually, according to the original newspaper account, the owner was NOT paid off by the insurance company. As such, believe it or not, he has legal ownership of the car in question.

As for why it took so long to find out, simple, according to California sources far closer to the car than I am have stated the VIN tag on the door was from another car (most likely scrapped at that time in a wreck), and it was not until a potential new buyer did a little research in to the cars real VIN did it come up as being stolen. It is also been stated to me that the VIN stamped into the drivers side fender panel had been covered over or filled in as until a scraping was done, it was not visible to the naked eye as being different from the drivers side door data tag. Not the first time this has happened either......

Bill S.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Actually, according to the original newspaper account, the owner was NOT paid off by the insurance company. As such, believe it or not, he has legal ownership of the car in question.

As for why it took so long to find out, simple, according to California sources far closer to the car than I am have stated the VIN tag on the door was from another car (most likely scrapped at that time in a wreck), and it was not until a potential new buyer did a little research in to the cars real VIN did it come up as being stolen. It is also been stated to me that the VIN stamped into the drivers side fender panel had been covered over or filled in as until a scraping was done, it was not visible to the naked eye as being different from the drivers side door data tag. Not the first time this has happened either......

Bill S.

Wow, with your facts it is a whole different story, and I agree that the original owner is still the owner. A sad story, indeed.

Originally Posted by Itoldyouso

If he was paid by insurance, I think they now own the car. But from the sounds of it she is giving the car directly back to him. He would probably be able to buy the car from the insurance company, hopefully at the 38 year ago price they reimbursed him for it. These were selling for what, $ 2400 new back then?

Don

haha don i dont think thats gonna happen ...