Lawrence v. Superior Court

Petitioner purchased a rare 1947 Cisitalia automobile from Ohtomi, a Japanese company, then began restoration.The California Highway Patrol (CHP) received a stolen vehicle report on behalf of Takihana, a Japanese citizen who owned the Cisitalia before Ohtomi. CHP seized the car from a repair shop. Petitioner provided evidence that Takihana’s complaint was not that the car was stolen, but that Ohtomi had failed to pay the full amount due under their purchase agreement. CHP determined that the dispute was essentially civil in nature but refused to return the car without a court order. CHP indicated that it was unable to determine the true owner but was no longer investigating the report as a criminal matter; that one person had been arrested in Japan and there was no confirmation whether criminal proceedings would be instituted; and that the car was being properly stored. CHP submitted no evidence. The trial court denied Petitioner relief, pending CHP’s filing of an interpleader complaint. Takihana filed a cross-complaint, indicating that he had released the car for its evaluation as security for a loan and that the loan was not made and the car was not returned. The court of appeal vacated. CHP cannot demonstrate that the car was stolen or embezzled and must return it to Petitioner under the principles of due process. View "Lawrence v. Superior Court" on Justia Law