Skip to main content

If You Buy A Rolex That Was Stolen (But You Didn't Know), Do You Have Legal Ownership Of It?

Interesting case from New York County Civil Court (a kind of small claims court). I don't have access to the court filings (none of them were e-filed), just a short summary from the New York Law Journal (pay wall).

But based on that short article, this appears to be what happened: dealer/jeweler Choraria sells Rolex watches. In 2007, the subject watch was stolen from him. At some point between 2007 and 2017, another dealer/jeweler, Jeffrey Bouvier, bought the watch (from somebody). I assume Bouvier didn't know the watch had been stolen, and we have no idea how many times it passed hands before it was eventually sold to Bouvier. Thus, Bouvier would be a "good faith" purchaser.

It turns out the watch was damaged. So, Bouvier innocently enough sends the watch off to Rolex to be repaired. Rolex runs a search of the watch's serial number and learns it had been reported stolen back in 2007.

Choraria says the watch belongs to him because it had been stolen. Bouvier argues no, the watch belongs to him, he bought it fair and square. Rolex doesn't know what to do, so it brings an interpleader action in court to say here is the situation, we don't know who the watch should belong to, so you, judge, decide.

The judge declared that Choraria was the rightful owner of the watch because Bouvier could not lawfully acquire title/ownership of a stolen watch. The guy who originally stole the watch could never pass legal title to anyone else.

Rolex apparently has to bring these kinds of actions every now and then. Here is a decision from a 2009 case.

So, Choraria gets his watch back, 10 years later, and after paying a lawyer, but Bouvier is out the money he paid for the watch and the watch. Only the watch thief comes out a winner in this situation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more