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

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more