Q: Buying a car that previous owner never paid off.... wouldnt that be lawsuit not unfair imprisonment?

A: Because there is a uniform law which requires the owner of a motor vehicle to register title to the motor vehicle in the owner’s name, the key piece of evidence in any theft case involving a motor vehicle is whose name is on the title. Possession of a motor vehicle is not a very good indicator of who owns it because a thief would have possession.

This concept is so widely and deeply ingrained in American culture we even have phrases like “racing for pinks.” Everyone knows that when you buy a car, the previous owner signs the back of the current certificate of title and writes in the name of the new owner. Only a thief would take the keys and possession of a vehicle without the signed certificate of title.

The new owner is required to insure the signed certificate of title is taken to the appropriate office to transfer the title into the new owner’s name. Again this is knowledge that is very deeply ingrained to the extent we have a raft of jokes about the lines there.

So if your friend is standing in line to transfer title into his name and learns it’s stolen, he’s not going to be arrested. If he’s stopped driving the car shortly after receiving it and produces a certificate of title signed over to him by the prior owner, he’s not going to be arrested. But if the title is actually in someone else’s name and he can’t produce a certificate of title signed over to him, you bet that is extremely strong evidence that he knowingly received a stolen vehicle.

A: It is possible that your friend's case could be a case of receiving stolen property if the car was reported as stolen by the previous owner due to non-payment, and your friend bought the car knowing or should have known that it was stolen. Intent is a key element in a receiving stolen property charge, but it is not the only factor that is considered.

However, if your friend genuinely did not know that the car was stolen, he may have a defense to the charge. It is important to note that ignorance of the law is generally not a defense to a criminal charge, but ignorance of the fact that the property was stolen could be a defense.

As for the issue of whether the previous owner should have filed a lawsuit instead of reporting the car as stolen, it is difficult to say without knowing more about the specifics of the case. Generally, if someone sells property to another person and fails to make payments on a loan for the property, the lender can repossess the property, but they may not be able to report it as stolen. However, if the previous owner reported the car as stolen because they believed that your friend had obtained the car through fraudulent means, that could be a different situation.

It is important for your friend to speak with a criminal defense attorney to review the specifics of the case and determine the best defense strategy.