Vince wrote: > > Well, as long as you are volunteering to break the law, you could just >> do as Vince suggested and hide the car while offering to buy it. >> That's theft, but the assumption is that you feel strongly enough that >> the consequences are worth it. > >That's not theft. You would be hiding it from the repo guys, not GM.
A distinction without a difference. Repossessions are done by agents of the principal, and hiding from the agent is exactly the same as hiding from the principal. >You could tell the court you are keeping the vehicle "in storage" in a >"safe place" pending the outcome of the litigation. As long as you >tell the court you are willing to release the vehicle if you >eventually >lose, it's not theft. The key is intent to deprive someone else of ownership. If you actually know that the other party's claim of ownership is legitimate, then you can't hide it and not be a thief. There's no doubt in this situation that GM has a rightful claim to the car. Indeed, that's the whole crux of the problem. If you can find a skilled enough attorney to put that central fact in dispute in a court, you might then be able to survive a legal challenge. You'd still be a thief, but at least then the court wouldn't think so. In any case, this discussion seems to have run its course and is veering well off-topic, so I'll take any further comments off-list, please. -- -Adam Kuehn
