AB Rally

[tdoran]

Yes, I believe the rally was held in secret because of the the stolen car and my pursuit of it.

[Geoff Kingston]

Its very sad that your father lost out on the deal when he sold the car, the purchaser selling it and defaulting on the loan agreement. One of the law professors commenting on the matter in the article Cargirl posted the link to suggests that this might have constituted theft at the time but this was disputed by lawyers acting for a subsequent owner and the interpretation they put on the situation is sadly more compelling and it is very doubtful if any court, especially now, would regard this as a stolen car, therefore the current owner almost certainly has good title to it.
I could understand an Auction house being cautious if they were asked to sell it because of your on going action but what I just don't get is why the club if they view the car as so suspect would hold a meeting in secret rather than just tell the owner not to bring it, more to the point if that was the case why did other owners participate in the event.
If it was a local event rather than a national meet that might explain the lack of press coverage rather than a cover up.

[tdoran]

Excellent reply, based on the information you have. I have learned so much more on this since the Indy Star article. Theft is theft regardless of the passage of time. We still have the only clear title to 3038. I have NO personal vendetta, if you will, against this current "owner". All we are after is dad's car back home where it belongs. To answer your question at the end, with what I know about this matter I can't understand why anyone would attend his event.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by tdoran

To answer your question at the end, with what I know about this matter I can't understand why anyone would attend his event.

Possibly because they couldn't care less?

All we are after is dad's car back home where it belongs.

From what I recall, your dad SOLD the car. He didn't want it any more, because he had done racing it and had moved on to another car. He allowed someone to drive off in the car, never expecting to see it again. So it wasn't "stolen".

I gather that your dad agreed that the buyer of the car could pay for it in installments and the buyer made some payments, but not all that were required.

Your dad should have pursued the debtor. Had he done so, he would have probably got the rest of his money, but in all likelihood he wouldn't have got the car back, so I don't see how you can argue that it "belongs" back home.

You're just saying that because it's now worth a lot of money.

[tdoran]

All I can say to that is reread the Indy Star article. We have documentation proving our efforts to repo the car dad never really wanted to sell in the first place. My own search for 3038 started almost 30 years ago, long before everyone started adding zeros to the value of these cars.
I've stated before, we don't want the car back just to run off to the auction block and cash in. When it comes home its to stay. Very interesting, everyone's take on this.

[Kevin H]

We've all sold cars we didn't really want to sell, and there are certainly cars I regret selling. That's life.

"When the car comes home?" Unless you have some contract documentation between your dad and the guy he sold it to, then all you have is anecdotal evidence that won't stand up in court.

Let's face it, if you had evidence that the car was actually stolen, you would have it back by now, just like this guy has his E-Type back, which was actually stolen ... Stolen E-Type Jaguar to be returned to owner - 46 years on - BBC News

[tdoran]

The documentation you're saying I don't have is already in the Indy Star article, with more to come. There's hardly anything anecdotal about the title still in my dad's name.