There were 243,085 Camaros built in 1969 how did he know that this was his car from an e bay add?

sometimes you can just tell.

Damn right you can. Good for him! I used to have nightmares about my baby being stolen.....

WOW! - this is bad as classic boat restoration.......waait a minute....no, it's not : boats are much worse.

Congrats to the real owner though.

No mention of where Dockery got the car? Or the guy or guys before him?

Hope they catch the thief.

I smell a lot of law suits here from buyers suing sellers.

He can sue all he wants but that won't change a thing. My brother-in-law bought a stolen car once and fixed it up nice.... a couple years later the cops took it back and he wasn't entitled to anything. He had no idea it was stolen of course... he lost a lot of money. Dockery is SOL.

I agree. His best bet is to track down the thief who sold him the stolen car and sue him.

Davis County detectives obtained a search warrant and found the authentic VIN in the door panel, which confirmed Neeley's suspicions.

VIN on old classic cars predominately dash (stamped tag), door (sticker), frame (embedded), and under fuel tanks (sticker) and occasionally glove box (sticker).

VIN on newer cars...all over the place.

Occasionally a car owner will put copies or stamps/etchings of the VIN or other identifiers in various hidden places in a car.

Notforsale 1.1

I'm guessing the Camaro was a Z28. There were only around 20,000 built that year. Maybe it was a Yenko or Motion Performance Camaro or a much rarer COPO Camaro. Easier to identify.

It wasn't a COPO or Z28, not for $16K, at least. More like $70K.

I would suggest a GPS tracker for his car just in case it is stolen again.

It would be nice, but if I were the guy I would not hold my breath. They should be able to track back through ownership records, but the odds on the thief having used his real name when he sold the car to the first victim is pretty slim. Going after the person who sold him the car is one possibility, but unless he can prove that person knew it was stolen, he may have trouble getting his money back. As for removing the upgrades, assuming it could be done without leaving any damage to the car, it seems like a reasonable request. However, if it means leaving the car with holes or other problems where things have been removed or without parts needed for it to run, then he is going to be out of luck. The only way would be if he has the old parts that were removed to reinstall them. It sucks losing all that money, but I do not know that there is much the guy can do.

the 'rightful' owner should compensate the guy who installed $10k into the car... not full price, but a percentage of that... the prior owner will have a case aginst the guy who sold it to him... but the rightful owner does not have to pay back the $16k the prior owner paid for it...

the rightful owner is benefiting from the improvements and should pay something for them...

he should also pay back the insurance company for any bernefits they may have paid him when the car was originally stolen..

The rightful owner should have to pay for the "improvements" only if they were changes that he would want in his car. Otherwise, the previous owner should remodify the car to its original condition. What he considers to be an improvement to the car may not be an improvement to the rightful owner.

@Rollicking George: Exactly right. In real property law, that's called "constructive waste." (For example, when a renter paints the inside of a house chartreuse; yes, it's painted, but chances are the landlord would not consider that an "improvement.") Not sure if that legal principle would apply to a car or not - but I'd certainly be willing to argue the point in court if necessary. At any rate, any improvements made to the car were not requested by the previous legal owner, so there's no reason he should have to pay for them.

OK -What about insurance. I am supposing that the car was originally insured. If he collected after the car was stolen would he have to pay back his claim? Just wondering.

Miker lets not confuse things here... this is not "real" property but chattel. From a legal perspective, as you ended, the original and now rightful owner has no obligation to pay for "improvements". As to the insurance I think the statute has expired on any rightful/wrongful gains he may have collected. It would be rightful for the owner to at least provide some form of compensation to the "finder" who made the improvements but there is no legal obligation.

As I said, in REAL property, the principle is called constructive waste. And, again, as I said, I'm not sure the same concept would apply to a car since that is not REAL property but personal property. But, I'd certainly be willing to argue that the same concept should be applied.

Something not mentioned is whether the car was insured or not when it was stolen. If it was and the insurance company paid, the car doesn't belong to Neeley either, but the insurance company.

You are correct and he will have to purchase it from the insurance company.

The bottom line is the VIN. I do feel for the guy who bought it, improved it, and has now lost it.

About 30+ years ago my brother had a beat-up '62 Chevy, and he had a collision that messed up the left front fender. He went to a junk-yard and bought a fender and fender well. The fender was brown, and his car was blue. A few months elapsed, he was stopped by the police on a minor violation and they ran the VIN. Back then, the VIN numbers were embossed into the fender well. Sure enough, the VIN came up as a stolen car! The cops knew it was an honest mistake, and did not hassle my brother. However, the car was towed and returned to its "rightful owner".

It has happened many times.

Nowhere does the story say that the police won't or aren't pursuing the original thief. But, odds that they'll find them are probably slim. I'm sure most people feel sorry for the guy who is out $25k, but what about the guy from whom the car was stolen? He deserves to get his car back, doesn't he? Seems to me, if I were going to spend $16k on a used/classic car, I'd check the VIN myself very carefully. (And, to be frank, after spending $16k, I wouldn't have to worry about being able to spend another $10k on "improvements!)

Is it a Z28?

Reading this I was thinking the same thing. I have an Expedition, I see them all the time. Unless I get in it or look in it, never know. Driving down the street and seeing what I think is my car..............whatever! (and the VIN number was changed? that could have been ANY car!)

The vin number is in several location on a vehicle. Most are hidden in places it would make it difficult for a thief to change easily. The manufacturer does not make it common knowledge where they are located.

So, there is a possibility this article should read something like "Man gets back car door stolen in 1995 along with car and $10,000 worth of upgrades?" I don't know much about VIN placement, however, one would hope that there's a lot more to the story. It would make more sense to me that a car like that would be chopped down and sold off in parts to other car restorers rather than sold whole. However, theives aren't the smartest and may have figured changing out the VIN in the most obvious places was enough to pull it off.

You just know. A car that has been around over 40 years develops its own "personality." It would be harder to NOT know.

As far as a car like this being chopped and sold for parts? No way. A classic like this in mint condition would be worth FAR more than four fenders and a few chrome bits. Of course, it would still yield an infinite profit margin for someone who STOLE the car. . . Just glad they didn't decide to do that!

$10,000 worth of upgrades? Maybe not so much, uupgrades to one person is damaging an original classic car to someone else. If I had an original 1969 Camaro and someone put some crappy ass after market "upgrades" in it, and did not have the original parts to put back, I would be royally pissed.

Sorry, But as an owner of three muscle cars, I can spot mine a mile away. And if I see one that is even close in resemblence I know almost instantly the differences. A 69 Camero may be more common of a muscle car, but we don't know if there was a minor dent, or a certain bolt, blemish, tire brand, etc that the original owner could spot. And a classic car of this value prb hasn't been driven too much (esp if it was a stolen car) so chances of those being still with the car is pretty common.

I'm sure that every time the original owner seen a 69 Camero (even a different color), he prb paid close attention to it and hoped it may be his. This time He finally got lucky and spotted his. So it's not uncommon at all for him to be able to tell right away that this one was his. Even if it turned out to not be his, he should still be congratulated for his efforts in his research.

I agree with your principle that checking VIN numbers would make selling stolen cars harder to do, but buyers could check VIN numbers just as easily as the DMV. And, given the long lines to register a car without having to actually go out in the parking lot to let the DMV people physically verify the VIN number, I'd have to say I'd rather handle that task myself. It's pretty easy. . . If the seller doesn't have the title or has some wonky-sounding excuse as to why he can't produce one for you, don't buy the car.

(I also agree about the pot thing, but that's another issue.)

Yep, it's a man thing!

Just think about your favorite purse and then you'll get it!

I don't carry a purse, but try and take my computer bag and you WILL have a fight on your hands. But I get the meaning of it.

lol barbrara

I'm a woman, and I totally get it.

Tell that to the owner of Pappa Johns Pizza. He sold his Camaro to keep the then struggling company going but after hitting it big posted a ($250,000.00?) reward for the car and got it back.

Must be something about those Camaro's that have drawing power.

I don't know if it's a man thing. When I was young and very, very poor, I didn't care much about cars at all. Because I could not afford a nice one, I never thought twice about cars.

Now that I'm older and have some disposable income, I love cars and think about them all the time.

I don't even like to drive fast. Some cars, like the 1969 Camaro, are things of pure beauty. Take a test drive in one if you ever get the chance. You'll know exactly what I mean.

Why bring loose women into this tragic story?

I found some classic car keys in one once.

I couldn't find a flashlight so I assume the car's still there.

Hans, that brings up so many funny images. Thanks for the laugh

hans i like your version the best. they should make a movie about this.

Yeah and maybe McQueen and Tater could pay a visit also. Good going, Hans. I agree with mrpotatohead, a movie would be a good follow up....Hey, Pixar, are ya readin' us?

Whoops! My kids will never forgive me...I meant 'Mater'...so much for accuracy in typing.

Actually, it doesn't say where the first buyer - the guy who bought the originally stolen car - got the car. He could have bought it off a lot or anywhere. Thanks to eBay, the actual owner was able to find his car. . .

(Although I despise eBay now and haven't used eBay for years, I did buy several cars there and never had a single problem. Just depends on the seller, I guess.)

And you have the failed policies of the #@%^" regime to thank for that!

We stand corrected, thanks for keeping the streak alive.

Because in many places they don't look at the actual car when a buyer registers it. You get the title, take it to the DMV, sign it on the line where it says "Buyer," and that's it. Honestly, as long as the lines at DMV usually are, I don't have a problem with that - although it can result in this happening. Chances are the DMV wouldn't have spotted the fraud any quicker than the buyer could have.

Theres no title for a 69'. All you have is transferrable registration. VERY easy to get around. I'm damn surprised the guy was able to lay claim! Good for him!

I agree. Our DMV and my insurance company always ask me what color the car is, even though it's embedded in the VIN. The cops had a search warrant, so they must have had some solid evidence that the car was stolen.

I would guess the original owner ran the eBay VIN, found the color didn't match the picture in the ad, and took it from there.

No,I'm car guy not a rib guy!

I was humming the jingle to myself when I read that. Good observation.

(Now I'm going to get in my cookie-cutter econobox that nobody in their right mind would ever want to steal and go get some ribs and tater salad.)

The dude sold a '59 Vette to buy furniture? And he was a high school graduate??? No way!

(Well, maybe. Could have been my cousin. . . who traded a '53 Vette go-kart that my grandfather won at the 53 Chicago auto show for a paint job on a 71 Chevelle - which my cousin later accidentally set on fire in the garage. . . )

Trust me, he would rather sit on the floor now! His wife used to drive it also. Watching them sit in their old baby was sad in a way, but they were thrilled to see her back to her showroom glory. He told me my Mom and Dad gave him $3,250 cash for it. Seemed like alot back then.

Imagine finding it now with a new outfit, and a sharp new bowtie!!!!!! Ahhh the crackle grumble of slight retardation. Nothing like it in the world.

Sirlafalot. You must be laughing by yourself.

You wouldn't mind if I come & take them for a test drive say 20-30000 mi.

Cool! As long as you empty the ashtrays first - can't stand dirty ashtrays.

And have them washed with double wax before delivery. Be sure to clean the door posts too - everybody forgets those.

"segdirb" It's not just a car to someone who is into cars as their hobby. It doesn't matter how much money it cost or how much you make to say "oh well, it was my fault for someone else deciding to steal my property, Ill just go out and buy another" "my bad".

"if the car was so precious..." That's a sorry statement. What if it were stolen while he was away from home right out of his garage? Or if he had it locked and went inside the store for two minutes? Classic cars are targets for theft.

your comment about it being his fault for someone stealing his car is as pointless as you needing to say you own a BMW and mercedes.

Oohh A real BMW and MERCEDES.... people that feel the need to broadcast that they own high end vehicles are shallow and have an inferiority complex.

I bet you park it in the economy lot at the airport though don't you?