DEALERSHIP ACCIDENTALLY SELLS VA. MAN AN SUV FOR $5K LESS THAN IT COSTS — THEN TELLS POLICE HE STOLE IT AND HAS HIM ARRESTED

A Virginia man is suing a Chevrolet dealership after it accidentally sold him a car for $5,600 less than it cost — and then accused him of stealing it and had him arrested, the Virginian-Pilot reported.

According to the lawsuit, Danny Sawyer, 40, purchased a black Chevrolet Traverse from Priority Chevrolet in May but returned the next morning to exchange it for a blue one. A sales manager agreed to the trade but did not say how much more the blue SUV would cost — something the dealership disputes. Still, Sawyer signed a new contract with a sales price of about $34,000 when it should have been around $39,000.

One week later, Sawyer returned home to dozens of voice messages and a letter from the dealership. The sales manager said he made a mistake and sold the car for too little, and asked Sawyer to return and sign a new, correct contract. According to the lawsuit, Sawyer refused. When he didn’t return, the dealership continued to try to contact him before finally going to the police to report the SUV had been stolen. On June 15, three police officers arrested Sawyer in front of his Chesapeake, Va. home. He was released on bond after spending four hours in jail.

Priority Chevrolet President Dennis Ellmer apologized Wednesday for Sawyer’s arrest and said the dealership “definitely made a mistake” — first with the incorrect contract and then in going to the police.

“I owe Mr. Sawyer a big apology,” Ellmer told the Virginian-Pilot. “It is my plan to let him keep the $5,600 and to make Mr. Sawyer right. I can’t tell you how I plan to fix it, but it is my intention to make it right.”

Rebecca Colaw, Sawyer’s attorney, told the newspaper her client appreciates Ellmer taking responsibility but said “an apology is not enough.”

Sawyer has filed two lawsuits accusing the dealership of malicious prosecution, slander and defamation, among others, and is seeking $2.2 million in damages, plus attorney fees.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Nancy Parr told the Virginian-Pilot her office dropped all charges against Sawyer due to insufficient evidence.

I know someone who had a promotion flyer sent to her home with in house financing up to 29k to buy an auto. She arrived and said she did not want to have her credit ran, and the sales guy said we will not run your credit, but let me ask you a few questions.....the guy then went and signed her name on the form, ran her credit, and when she looked at some cars and came back in the finance mgr was there with the credit report....she told him I did not give you permission to run the credit report.......filed suit and got 15k. Sometimes things get better when these folks are whacked.

There is a dealership on the West side of Hwy. 29 in Wedgewood (just south of I-10). Every once in a while, they advertise that on a certain Saturday, they're going to sell a car for $20 or some other ridiculously low price. The deal is that you get there early enough (first) and stand at the driver's door or sit behind the wheel, of the car you BELIEVE will sell for the low price, you get that car for the $20 if that car is the one they are talking about.

The sales manager comes out of his office with a bull horn and has a parade of salesmen following him and making a big hullabaloo, and they parade around and put "Saturday sales prices only" in big stickers on different used cars. We picked a Ford Probe that had somewhat oxidized paint but it seemed in good shape and a lot of working options. It was for my oldest son... his first car.

When we went to make the deal, they said that they "made a mistake" and in their parade, they put the wrong price on the car and that they should be selling the car for a lot more. As we turned to walk out in a huff, they relented and said they would honor the price and sell it to us. What good guys... yeah, right! (They probably took it in trade for half that price.)

----------------------------------

We went to Key Ford and were "just looking" at conversion vans. The salesman asked us why wouldn't we consider buying the new one we were looking at? (It was loaded with 4 captains chairs, TV/VCR, pop top, etc.) I told him "You see that new F-150 I have parked over there? I tried to make a deal with y'all but y'all wouldn't give us a deal and I went to Tampa and bought it for $6,000 less."

They wound up selling us the van... and knocked $10-12K off the price! One thing I learned a long time ago... and that's to "walk" if the price ain't right.

My now ex-husband and I went to the Honda dealership on the 29 (I now forget what the name of it is) with cash in-hand to buy an almost new Honda Accord coupe. Thing is, we had the top-end pulled out of my pick-up and were driving his old beater Toyota pick-up. We couldn't even get anyone to help us. He tried again to flag-down a salesman and I was so angry, I grabbed him and told him, "No. If they don't want the CASH that we came here with, we will take our business elsewhere." After some research, we ended up driving to the Honda dealership in Tallahassee (in the very same old beater pick up), were treated like customers should be treated, and bought a beautiful vehicle at a fair price.

VectorMan wrote:A Virginia man is suing a Chevrolet dealership after it accidentally sold him a car for $5,600 less than it cost — and then accused him of stealing it and had him arrested, the Virginian-Pilot reported.

According to the lawsuit, Danny Sawyer, 40, purchased a black Chevrolet Traverse from Priority Chevrolet in May but returned the next morning to exchange it for a blue one. A sales manager agreed to the trade but did not say how much more the blue SUV would cost — something the dealership disputes. Still, Sawyer signed a new contract with a sales price of about $34,000 when it should have been around $39,000.

One week later, Sawyer returned home to dozens of voice messages and a letter from the dealership. The sales manager said he made a mistake and sold the car for too little, and asked Sawyer to return and sign a new, correct contract. According to the lawsuit, Sawyer refused. When he didn’t return, the dealership continued to try to contact him before finally going to the police to report the SUV had been stolen. On June 15, three police officers arrested Sawyer in front of his Chesapeake, Va. home. He was released on bond after spending four hours in jail.

Priority Chevrolet President Dennis Ellmer apologized Wednesday for Sawyer’s arrest and said the dealership “definitely made a mistake” — first with the incorrect contract and then in going to the police.

“I owe Mr. Sawyer a big apology,” Ellmer told the Virginian-Pilot. “It is my plan to let him keep the $5,600 and to make Mr. Sawyer right. I can’t tell you how I plan to fix it, but it is my intention to make it right.”

Rebecca Colaw, Sawyer’s attorney, told the newspaper her client appreciates Ellmer taking responsibility but said “an apology is not enough.”

Sawyer has filed two lawsuits accusing the dealership of malicious prosecution, slander and defamation, among others, and is seeking $2.2 million in damages, plus attorney fees.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Nancy Parr told the Virginian-Pilot her office dropped all charges against Sawyer due to insufficient evidence.

If this story is true then the police should be sued for false arrest also. The guy had a legal contract.

Dreamsglore wrote:If this story is true then the police should be sued for false arrest also. The guy had a legal contract.

I disagree. If the dealership swore out a warrant that attested wrongdoing on the part of the guy who was the buyer, the police will just point the finger at the dealership and say that they didn't make up the charges... the dealer did.

Yomama wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:If this story is true then the police should be sued for false arrest also. The guy had a legal contract.

I disagree. If the dealership swore out a warrant that attested wrongdoing on the part of the guy who was the buyer, the police will just point the finger at the dealership and say that they didn't make up the charges... the dealer did.

That's not quite how it works.The police have to have probable cause to make an arrest or anyone can say anything and have you arrested. All the guy had to do was produce the contract.If he did and the police arrested anyway on a criminal charge they are liable.

Always go on the third weekend of the month to buy a car. Know the book value of your trade-in and the loan value of the car you want to purchase. When the salesperson claims the sales manager can't meet your demands, walk away. Always call back a day after they call you asking you to come back to the lot. Remember, they have sales quotas and have to order new inventory.

It always helps to arrange any financing through your bank or credit union.

Self financing via your bank/credit union is as good as cash and deserves cash discounts.

Happy shopping.......

BTW: You would be surprised if you offered a Dentist cash payment. The charges are usually 50% less for cash. You have to drive a bargain. Some Doctors even give bigger cash discounts.

That's not quite how it works.The police have to have probable cause to make an arrest or anyone can say anything and have you arrested. All the guy had to do was produce the contract.If he did and the police arrested anyway on a criminal charge they are liable.


Actually, you would be correct if you were talking about a non titled item. All the dealership had to do was show the title in their name, and say that it was their car and that the person in possession did not own it....and the title speaks for itself, and LEO are not judge or jury, but once the complaint is signed and they have verified title......they have done their job. Eric is 100% correct, and the person with putative title is not going to have a cause of action against the police. You would have to show actual malice on the part of the officers, and simply looking at the title which has not been signed and transferred to the state will give them per se authority to make the arrest. A police officer if this was a couch, or a diamond ring often will not even become involved if it smells of a civil lawsuit....but titled items are clear and they do get involved....otherwise every common car thief would have a handwritten bill of sale to show police saying they bought the car and paid cash....nope, the police have no liability absent actual malice.

Very good advice about being ready to walk away from a dealer.
We recently bought a used car. We had researched the book price. We were firm about what we'd pay and after going back and forth a few times (offers/counter offers, etc...that whole stupid dance) they finally came down to our price.

I always do the research and pay for an online price from a service. I go into a dealership with a cashiers check giving a couple hundred for profit, and do not finance, or offer a trade. I do not negotiate, I simply say I have a check and will close, and will give them 15 minutes to decide, and then we will go to our second choice which usually is another model and make.

Almost always they will do the deal, and then I get the lowest price. I then ask about the zero financing.....and then ask them what they will give me for the car I drove in which I have cleaned and have title ready to transfer. I now know I am financing the lowest price on the car, and if the price of the trade in is not fair market, I sell it myself. I also go to a credit union and get my loan set up with a disbursement to happen the next day having given them the information on each of the cars on my list, and quickly replace the cash I have taken from savings.

Although it has been since High school since I worked in car dealerships, I always preface by saying I had worked at three dealerships years back, and I do not want to waste time or money. Using this method always works, but a few years back when buying a new Chrysler Concorde, we arrive to pick up the car and they increased the price by $700 and said they made a mistake, we simply said thank you, we will go to our second choice....a buick...and left the dealership. We got a call from the owner a half hour later, and I simply explained we would never buy a car from them, that we would tell everybody what happened, and we are buying a car which we definitely do not like as much as their car, but we keep our word....you should try it.

I wear a suit, and my wife wears a dress when we come in with a check, I have had a bad experience when I come in with my truck and jeans....appearance matters if you want to cut the best deal.

2seaoat wrote:That's not quite how it works.The police have to have probable cause to make an arrest or anyone can say anything and have you arrested. All the guy had to do was produce the contract.If he did and the police arrested anyway on a criminal charge they are liable.


Actually, you would be correct if you were talking about a non titled item. All the dealership had to do was show the title in their name, and say that it was their car and that the person in possession did not own it....and the title speaks for itself, and LEO are not judge or jury, but once the complaint is signed and they have verified title......they have done their job. Eric is 100% correct, and the person with putative title is not going to have a cause of action against the police. You would have to show actual malice on the part of the officers, and simply looking at the title which has not been signed and transferred to the state will give them per se authority to make the arrest. A police officer if this was a couch, or a diamond ring often will not even become involved if it smells of a civil lawsuit....but titled items are clear and they do get involved....otherwise every common car thief would have a handwritten bill of sale to show police saying they bought the car and paid cash....nope, the police have no liability absent actual malice.

You are not correct,Seaoat.The guy had a contract w/ the dealer and they both signed it and he left w/ the car. If he paid cash for it he had a receipt regardless if he had a title yet.It became a civil matter when that contract was signed and/or receipt signed.No dealer would have let the guy leave w/o any anything showing he bought it.There was no criminal intent on the guy's part and the police had no probable cause to arrest the guy.They are liable. You do not have to show malice.Negligence will do.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:That's not quite how it works.The police have to have probable cause to make an arrest or anyone can say anything and have you arrested. All the guy had to do was produce the contract.If he did and the police arrested anyway on a criminal charge they are liable.


Actually, you would be correct if you were talking about a non titled item. All the dealership had to do was show the title in their name, and say that it was their car and that the person in possession did not own it....and the title speaks for itself, and LEO are not judge or jury, but once the complaint is signed and they have verified title......they have done their job. Eric is 100% correct, and the person with putative title is not going to have a cause of action against the police. You would have to show actual malice on the part of the officers, and simply looking at the title which has not been signed and transferred to the state will give them per se authority to make the arrest. A police officer if this was a couch, or a diamond ring often will not even become involved if it smells of a civil lawsuit....but titled items are clear and they do get involved....otherwise every common car thief would have a handwritten bill of sale to show police saying they bought the car and paid cash....nope, the police have no liability absent actual malice.

You are not correct,Seaoat.The guy had a contract w/ the dealer and they both signed it and he left w/ the car. It became a civil matter when that contract was signed.There was no criminal intent on the guy's part and the police had no probable cause to arrest the guy.They are liable.

And now we know why dreams ain't a cop even though she claims go have graduated the first in her class as the police academy.
But tom thumb has her in line for the assistant manager of the swing shift at a local gas station. What a nitwit.

2seaoat wrote:That's not quite how it works.The police have to have probable cause to make an arrest or anyone can say anything and have you arrested. All the guy had to do was produce the contract.If he did and the police arrested anyway on a criminal charge they are liable.


Actually, you would be correct if you were talking about a non titled item. All the dealership had to do was show the title in their name, and say that it was their car and that the person in possession did not own it....and the title speaks for itself, and LEO are not judge or jury, but once the complaint is signed and they have verified title......they have done their job. Eric is 100% correct, and the person with putative title is not going to have a cause of action against the police. You would have to show actual malice on the part of the officers, and simply looking at the title which has not been signed and transferred to the state will give them per se authority to make the arrest. A police officer if this was a couch, or a diamond ring often will not even become involved if it smells of a civil lawsuit....but titled items are clear and they do get involved....otherwise every common car thief would have a handwritten bill of sale to show police saying they bought the car and paid cash....nope, the police have no liability absent actual malice.

Here's what actually happened,Seaoat and the guy did have a contract.The police were wrong and liable for arresting him.It was a civil matter.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/chesapeake-car-dealer-apologizes-customers-arrest

Read the article. A manager said the car was stolen. Do you understand how a title transfer happens at a new car dealership? When do you think they transfer ownership as evidenced by the title reflects a sal?. Do you even know what an OEM title form looks like and what is required?

Was the dealer wrong. Yes. A manager and a salesperson were trying to cover their butts a week after the transaction when accounting looked at the invoice and was doing the transactional work to transfer title, and they knew their butts were on the line for the mistake. So they tried to call, and then they called the police and said the car was stolen. A police officer has no duty to make a determination in a civil dispute. However, when a titled car is still in an OEM file and has not been processed, any dishonest person can lie and show the title still in the dealers ownership. You want to bootstrap the bad behavior of the dealership which your article clearly states a manager said the vehicle was stolen to a police officer.

Typically you run into these problems on secondary titles which the state has issued. It is sitting in a drawer......a person dies......the decedent's sister comes over and puts her name jointly on the title with the decedent, and secretly goes to have the vehicle titled in her name......calls the police and with the title in hand says she wants to get her car. The officer comes to the house and the family starts showing original bill of sales, and all the paperwork of the purchase, but the police officer is going to put the car in the title holders possession. There are exceptions if an estate has been opened and the car was listed in the inventory of the estate, and the person shows letters of administration....again a police officer is not judge and jury, and title is per se ownership, and absent actual malice.....there will be now judgment against a police department.....please review the tort immunity statues and understand the threshold which is required to be successful. The manager and the dealership are screwed.

2seaoat wrote:Read the article. A manager said the car was stolen. Do you understand how a title transfer happens at a new car dealership? When do you think they transfer ownership as evidenced by the title reflects a sal?. Do you even know what an OEM title form looks like and what is required?

Was the dealer wrong. Yes. A manager and a salesperson were trying to cover their butts a week after the transaction when accounting looked at the invoice and was doing the transactional work to transfer title, and they knew their butts were on the line for the mistake. So they tried to call, and then they called the police and said the car was stolen. A police officer has no duty to make a determination in a civil dispute. However, when a titled car is still in an OEM file and has not been processed, any dishonest person can lie and show the title still in the dealers ownership. You want to bootstrap the bad behavior of the dealership which your article clearly states a manager said the vehicle was stolen to a police officer.

Typically you run into these problems on secondary titles which the state has issued. It is sitting in a drawer......a person dies......the decedent's sister comes over and puts her name jointly on the title with the decedent, and secretly goes to have the vehicle titled in her name......calls the police and with the title in hand says she wants to get her car. The officer comes to the house and the family starts showing original bill of sales, and all the paperwork of the purchase, but the police officer is going to put the car in the title holders possession. There are exceptions if an estate has been opened and the car was listed in the inventory of the estate, and the person shows letters of administration....again a police officer is not judge and jury, and title is per se ownership, and absent actual malice.....there will be now judgment against a police department.....please review the tort immunity statues and understand the threshold which is required to be successful. The manager and the dealership are screwed.

We're not talking about a title. Everyone knows the dealer holds the title until the car is paid for. They guy had a legal contract purchasing the car and the amount he paid.He brought over a cashiers check.The police absolutely did not have jurisdiction for a criminal charge.The elements of a crime are intent. You are now saying anyone can make a charge and the police have the duty to arrest w/o probable cause.It was in the guy's possession and he had a contract.It became a civil matter.When you arrest someone w/o probable cause or a warrant you are liable for suit. I had a similar incident years ago when my daughter was buying a car from my ex-husband.They had a verbal agreement and she paid the payments to him.When we split he tried to take the car back and she had to call the police here in SRC.He was told to file a civil suit.He held the title but they had an agreement which a civil court would have to decide. They said they had no jurisdiction and she didn't have a written contract.

Officer discretion can always refuse to make the arrest, but sadly you are putting job responsibilities on an officer which first is unreasonable, and second you do not understand the threshold of what is required for a criminal complaint. I have title of a car, and I say you have stolen that car......many departments have internal policies which can range from an absolute bar to anything which may be civil in nature, to a strict policy of arresting a person who is accused of stealing something which may be civil in nature. You argue that the officer discretion when being told a car has been stolen has a duty to review an alleged contract....he does not, and the reason we title vehicles is because the title certificate is per se evidence of title......do you understand this concept? No police officer would ever....I repeat ever......be found liable under a civil suit for the arrest, unless actual malice was involved. Your article does not mention any lawsuit against a police department, and that would be the story....because that would only thing which would be bizarre about this story.......that a lawyer would be so lacking of understanding of the law that he would sue the police department......but I cannot argue that the officer always had the discretion not to make the arrest, but you confuse the use of the discretion to arrest as being contingent on an officer assessing a equitable claim on title as represented by a contract.....nope per se title evidence and ownership is the title certificate. I will not say anything rude, I will not be arrogant and all knowing, I will simply say that if I was to assign a probability of a lawyer filing a lawsuit against the police deparment it would be less than 1/10 of 1 percent, and that is assuming the police officer is the brother of the car dealership manager.....it could happen, and I will be drafted by the Yankees.

2seaoat wrote:Officer discretion can always refuse to make the arrest, but sadly you are putting job responsibilities on an officer which first is unreasonable, and second you do not understand the threshold of what is required for a criminal complaint. I have title of a car, and I say you have stolen that car......many departments have internal policies which can range from an absolute bar to anything which may be civil in nature, to a strict policy of arresting a person who is accused of stealing something which may be civil in nature. You argue that the officer discretion when being told a car has been stolen has a duty to review an alleged contract....he does not, and the reason we title vehicles is because the title certificate is per se evidence of title......do you understand this concept? No police officer would ever....I repeat ever......be found liable under a civil suit for the arrest, unless actual malice was involved. Your article does not mention any lawsuit against a police department, and that would be the story....because that would only thing which would be bizarre about this story.......that a lawyer would be so lacking of understanding of the law that he would sue the police department......but I cannot argue that the officer always had the discretion not to make the arrest, but you confuse the use of the discretion to arrest as being contingent on an officer assessing a equitable claim on title as represented by a contract.....nope per se title evidence and ownership is the title certificate. I will not say anything rude, I will not be arrogant and all knowing, I will simply say that if I was to assign a probability of a lawyer filing a lawsuit against the police deparment it would be less than 1/10 of 1 percent, and that is assuming the police officer is the brother of the car dealership manager.....it could happen, and I will be drafted by the Yankees.

When you go to the police academy as I did and have a degree in criminal justice as I do then you can tell me what probable cause is but you as a police officer do have the duty to investigate a situation before an arrest based on the word of an individual.You are batsh!t crazy to think you can just take the word of an individual and go arrest them and not have any liability, if the arrest is false. If you think your assertions are true then just go tell the lady in S.Carolina who was arrested recently because the neighbor said her children were being unsupervised and the police arrested her. The police and the neighbor are being sued.

This is now all a moot point because the owner of the dealership has admitted that they made a mistake and dropped all charges and have even stated that he can keep the vehicle at the discounted price.

In the beginning it appears that the police bought the dealerships story lock stock and barrel. As far as the arrest goes I have to agree with Seaoat on this one. The officers primary responsibility is to the complainant. Since he/she was following a stolen vehicle complaint then he he/she did the correct thing by making an arrest. Then let the investigation and evidence sort things out. This in my opinion is why the police department was not named in the 2 million dollar lawsuit. The police department cannot be held liable for this justified arrest. Internal investigation differ from department to department and state to state. So what an officer may or may not do in Escambia County is not necessarily correct in Santa Rosa County.

Mr Sawyer could in all probability handle the situation a lot differently and without all the hassle had he just made an attempt to respond to the dealers repeated calls and letters. Of course their mistake is his gain, but I believe it could have been worked out in a face to face contact.

Dreams, probable cause is nothing more than a judgement call on the part of the officer.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:This is now all a moot point because the owner of the dealership has admitted that they made a mistake and dropped all charges and have even stated that he can keep the vehicle at the discounted price.

In the beginning it appears that the police bought the dealerships story lock stock and barrel. As far as the arrest goes I have to agree with Seaoat on this one. The officers primary responsibility is to the complainant. Since he/she was following a stolen vehicle complaint then he he/she did the correct thing by making an arrest. Then let the investigation and evidence sort things out. This in my opinion is why the police department was not named in the 2 million dollar lawsuit. The police department cannot be held liable for this justified arrest. Internal investigation differ from department to department and state to state. So what an officer may or may not do in Escambia County is not necessarily correct in Santa Rosa County.

Mr Sawyer could in all probability handle the situation a lot differently and without all the hassle had he just made an attempt to respond to the dealers repeated calls and letters. Of course their mistake is his gain, but I believe it could have been worked out in a face to face contact.

Dreams, probable cause is nothing more than a judgement call on the part of the officer.

You're absolutely wrong,Ghost. Fl statutes do not differ from county to county.The police had a duty to investigate the charge and not just take the word of the complaintant but I'm not going to continue argue w/ non leos. The arrest had no probable cause and should have been treated as a civil matter as the guy had a contract.

Dreamsglore wrote:

You're absolutely wrong,Ghost. Fl statutes do not differ from county to county.The police had a duty to investigate the charge and not just take the word of the complainant but I'm not going to continue argue w/ non leos. The arrest had no probable cause and should have been treated as a civil matter as the guy had a contract.

First I do not believe that I said anything at all about FL statutes varying from county to county. I said that investigations may be handled differently from one office to another.

I also believe that you may want to read the complete LEGAL definition of "probable cause" because under the legal definition covers "Cause of Action" which would warrant civil action, but with the story as told to the police by the dealer was that they had made repeated attempts to contact Sawyer by phone and mail and he had refused, thus giving the police probable cause for an arrest. That is the very reason I stated in my last post that had Sawyer called them back and sat down face to face this whole incident could have been avoided.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

You're absolutely wrong,Ghost. Fl statutes do not differ from county to county.The police had a duty to investigate the charge and not just take the word of the complainant but I'm not going to continue argue w/ non leos. The arrest had no probable cause and should have been treated as a civil matter as the guy had a contract.

First I do not believe that I said anything at all about FL statutes varying from county to county. I said that investigations may be handled differently from one office to another.

I also believe that you may want to read the complete LEGAL definition of "probable cause" because under the legal definition covers "Cause of Action" which would warrant civil action, but with the story as told to the police by the dealer was that they had made repeated attempts to contact Sawyer by phone and mail and he had refused, thus giving the police probable cause for an arrest. That is the very reason I stated in my last post that had Sawyer called them back and sat down face to face this whole incident could have been avoided.

An investigation is an investigation.It has nothing to do w/ being handled differently. Fl. statutes specifically state the elements of theft and when the guy had the contract from that dealership on that car there was no probable cause to believe a theft had occurred.That contract gave him the legal right to have that car.I say this again-the police had a legal duty to investigate the charge to see if there was enough evidence to make a charge and they did not. That makes them liable for a false arrest.They don't get to make a decision who lying or who's not when the guy had the contract.That's when it became a civil matter. If you buy a house and sign a contract and later discover they charged you too much in fees --it's too bad for you.It was your responsibility to read the contract as in the dealership. Sawyer had no legal responsibility to return the car or phone calls. It became a civil matter not a crime.

I love this place......I loved the PNJ forum. A title to an automobile is per se proof of ownership. If a titled owner of a vehicle says that his car has been stolen, there is no other proof of ownership which can be enforced by an officer......period. He can use his discretion not to prosecute and say that this is a civil matter....and yes many departments and officers follow that policy, but do any of our so called experts understand the concept of tort immunity? Do any of our so called experts understand the burden of a proof?

(9)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of her or his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety
http://www.stpetersburgpersonalinjurylawyer.co/florida-tort-claims-act-lawyer.html

http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/faqtitle.html#1
What is a title?

A certificate of title is the proof of ownership to a motor vehicle in the state of Florida. Most vehicles are required to be titled. The exceptions are mopeds, motorized bicycles, and trailers weighing less than 2,000 pounds.

If the manager of the dealership produced the OEM title showing the dealership owning the vehicle, that is per se proof which an officer of the law has no discretion to investigate(that ultimate determination will be done by a court if there is a civil suit).....he either does not bring charges and tells the parties it is a civil matter(this may be in his discretion, but usually an officer will check with his superiors) or he will bring criminal charges for theft. There is zero chance of this this officer or his department getting a verdict against them if the manager showed an OEM title which is per se evidence of ownership......I must admit I have not been to the police academy, but I saw some great movies about the same....does that count.

2seaoat wrote:I love this place......I loved the PNJ forum. A title to an automobile is per se proof of ownership. If a titled owner of a vehicle says that his car has been stolen, there is no other proof of ownership which can be enforced by an officer......period. He can use his discretion not to prosecute and say that this is a civil matter....and yes many departments and officers follow that policy, but do any of our so called experts understand the concept of tort immunity? Do any of our so called experts understand the burden of a proof?

(9)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of her or his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety
http://www.stpetersburgpersonalinjurylawyer.co/florida-tort-claims-act-lawyer.html

http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/faqtitle.html#1
What is a title?

A certificate of title is the proof of ownership to a motor vehicle in the state of Florida. Most vehicles are required to be titled. The exceptions are mopeds, motorized bicycles, and trailers weighing less than 2,000 pounds.

If the manager of the dealership produced the OEM title showing the dealership owning the vehicle, that is per se proof which an officer of the law has no discretion to investigate(that ultimate determination will be done by a court if there is a civil suit).....he either does not bring charges and tells the parties it is a civil matter(this may be in his discretion, but usually an officer will check with his superiors) or he will bring criminal charges for theft. There is zero chance of this this officer or his department getting a verdict against them if the manager showed an OEM title which is per se evidence of ownership......I must admit I have not been to the police academy, but I saw some great movies about the same....does that count.

Seaoat, you keep going on about the title. This was not the issue at all. If the guy didn't have a contract for the purchase of the car I would agree w/ you... but he did w/ a down payment on it. He brought them a certified check.You're full of poop to say the officer had no duty to investigate.That was bad faith. The officer's failure to investigate and/or negligence in arresting someone who had a legal right to the car is clearly a false arrest.The police dept. can be sued for that now whether he wins is a different story but the arrest was negligent and he has a right to damages under our laws.

I could sue you for not knowing this issue. I could hire an investigator, find your name and address and have you served with a summons to court for ignorance on the issue. To say somebody can sue somebody does not go to the substantive issue. Again, title is per se evidence of ownership outside of a court of law, and an officer cannot as a matter of law be found liable for an arrest based on title being the dealer's name where a dealer has stated that the car was stolen and that they had repeatedly tried to get the car returned. The officer could choose not to bring charges....but the officer choosing that option after being presented with title evidence, faced real liability and a successful lawsuit had assumptions not been able to shift the burden of proof of ownership. The dealer was wrong. The officer was under no duty.....and I repeat.....no duty.....to go beyond title which shows ownership......the contract or testimony means nothing for an officer who is not a judge.....his call if he is uncertain is to not bring charges, ask the person with the car to take the car back to the dealership, and get a lawyer to file a civil suit, or arrest based upon title. Your opinion that the officer was liable shows an utter lack of knowledge of duty and proximate cause which are precursors of breach of a duty......but again this is just silly, because the police were never sued, nor will they ever be sued unless malice could be shown and the tort immunity could be eliminated.