The thief used a phony cashier’s check, not a gun. Still, Ken West’s Corvette was just as gone as if it had been hot-wired or taken at gunpoint.
And on Tuesday, a divided Colorado Supreme Court told West he couldn’t have it back.
In a 5-2 ruling, the court determined that victims who lose property through deception are not entitled to get it back, even if they can prove ownership to someone who purchased their stuff further down the line.
The majority drew a distinction between two methods of theft, ruling that while an owner may be entitled to recover his or her property from a future owner if it was stolen in a burglary or a violent crime, those same owners are out of luck if they were simply cheated out of their goods.
“We acknowledge that such a rule can, as in this case, result in a loss to an innocent party,” the court ruled. “But a determination that West is entitled to recover the car would also be a determination that (Tammy) Roberts, another innocent party, must relinquish a vehicle she purchased in good faith.”
In November 2001, West accepted a $7,400 cashier’s check for his 1975 Corvette. A week after West deposited the check, he was informed that it was a fake. By then, his car and the buyer had disappeared.
Nearly 2 1/2 years later, West asked police to run a check on the Corvette’s identification number, and they came up with Roberts, who had bought the Corvette from her brother. Her brother had purchased the car after responding to a newspaper ad.
West sued Roberts for the car.
The court majority ruled that under Colorado law, good-faith buyers like Roberts, who had no way of knowing the property was previously taken in a scam, should retain ownership.
“It imposes a requirement on sellers to be much more cautious than I think normal people are,” said Paul Danborn, attorney for West.
The seven justices noted that Colorado has two conflicting laws on the matter: The stolen- property statute says a defrauded seller should get his property back, and the Uniform Commercial Code lets the good- faith buyer keep it.
The majority said the UCC, passed in 1965, prevails because it is more recent and more specific. But Justices Nathan Coats and Allison Eid dissented, writing that the stolen-property statute is more specific.
Attorneys for both sides said they weren’t surprised by the ruling, since most states now protect purchasers such as Roberts. They also expressed relief that the matter was finally settled.
In recent years, as different courts have heard the case, the Corvette variously has been in the hands of West and Roberts.
“I know she (Roberts) is going to be very excited to have this put behind her because she hasn’t had the use of her vehicle for some time now,” said Joaquin Padilla, Roberts’ lawyer.
West was philosophical about his loss.
“I’ve had four or five years to let the anger and all that slip away,” he said. “I was really (upset) because I got my car stolen.”
But West recognized that if Roberts had lost, she would have been a victim, too. Even had he prevailed in court, West said, he might have given the vehicle to her anyway.
“I was just waiting for the outcome of it all,” he said.
People selling property need to make sure that any kind of check is legitimate before releasing their items, Danborn said. Given the sophistication of check scams, he added, it would be safest to go directly to a bank.
“The only way to do that is to call up the bank it was issued from during normal business hours,” Danborn said.
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
