Does an apparently abandoned car become my property if it&#39;s parked on my land? In South Carolina (USA), if a car is left on somebody else's land, does it become their car after a certain amount of time has passed? Is there any obligation in the land owner to attempt to find or contact the vehicle owner? Does the answer change depending on whether the vehicle registration is current?
There's the question whether something is lost property or abandoned property. You'd be allowed to keep abandoned property, but keeping lost property without looking for the owner is in many places considered theft. A car on your land is quite likely abandoned by the last driver (people don't usually lose cars). But the question is whether it is abandoned by the owner; if the car looks like it has some value then it is unlikely to be abandoned by the owner and more likely that it has been stolen. I'd report the car to the police; then it's up to them to find the owner or not. If they can find him, and the car was not abandoned, but actually lost (unlikely) or stolen (more likely), you have the satisfaction of being an honest person helping either a very stupid car owner or a crime victim to get their property back. If they can't find him, usually the property will then belong to the finder.
You cannot pass on better title than you have The fraudster (B) in this scenario does not have good title in the car and so the thief (C) doesn't either: 1) because they are a thief and 2) because the person they stole it from didn't own it. If C had paid B for the car then C would still not own it because while they are no longer a thief, B still doesn't have good title. This is the case even if C didn't know that B didn't own the car. A is entitled to recover the car from whoever has it. There are 3 exceptions to this rule: Voidable title: If B acquires title through a contract that is voidable (e.g. A is a minor) and then sells it to C. C as an owner in good faith owns the goods even if A voids the contract with B. Entrustment: If B has been entrusted the goods by A and sells them (perhaps by mistake) to C in the ordinary course of B's business. C as a good-faith buyer owns the goods. A can seek recompense from B but cannot get the goods from C. This probably needs an example, I take antique jewellery to an antique jeweller for cleaning, the jeweller's assistant mistakenly sells them, I lose the goods and the jeweller must compensate me. Negotiable instruments: Certain things, notably cash, cheques, shares and bearer bonds are subject to different rules. If B steals, say cash, from A and then uses that cash to buy something from C, A cannot demand the return of the cash from C unless they can prove that C knew that B had stolen it. Negotiable interests belong to anyone who acquired them in good faith. In all cases, a good-faith actor who is out of pocket is owed compensation from the bad faith actor - whether it’s possible to collect this is a practical rather than a legal issue.
The technical difference is that theft is illegal, and adverse possession is not. I'm assuming you're talking about why there's a difference. Historically, there are two basic reasons for adverse possession. First, land lasts for a very long time, and a sale is generally invalid unless the seller has valid title. That means that no property title is secure, because someone could always come out of the woodwork with a claim that your great-great-great-grandfather threw their great-great-great-grandfather off the land 300 years ago. Not only is all land title insecure, but you might not even be able to defend such a claim (do you know the history of your land for the past 300 years?) Adverse possession, then, is a way to let people know no one else can claim title to their land based on something so long ago no one remembers properly. Even with modern public land registries (which did not always exist), this situation can still arise if someone mistakenly believes that they own some land and starts using it. The second reason is that if someone isn't doing anything with the land for a long time, and someone else is doing something useful with it, the government would rather give it to the person doing something useful. People who lose property through adverse possession are unwilling to take the extremely minor steps needed to keep their property. It tends to move land from totally nonproductive users to productive users, and then keeps those nonproductive users from kicking out people who improved the land and keeping the improvements. The notion that leaving something for too long removes your right to claim it is not restricted to real estate. Almost everything in law has a time limit of some sort.
So why are Amish people not required to register their &quot;vehicle,&quot; and to have a driver's license when driving on public roads? The Texas registration requirement in Texas is at Sec. 502.040. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE: a) Not more than 30 days after purchasing a vehicle or becoming a resident of this state, the owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for: (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year. (emphasis added) Now, you might argue that this requires owners of motor vehicles also to register their non-motorized vehicles, but I doubt that this is the prevailing interpretation. Regardless, an Amish person who does not own a motor vehicle is certainly not required by this subsection to register horse-drawn vehicles. Similarly, the requirement to hold a driver's license is at Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter. (emphasis added) Similarly, this requirement does not apply to the operation of a horse-drawn vehicle. In other words, one statement in your question is incorrect: A driver's license is required for all persons &quot;driving&quot; a vehicle. In fact, a driver's license is generally required to drive a motor vehicle (and even there, exceptions exist).
Both the police and the courts are likely to look at the situation as a whole, rather than adopting any policy specifically in relation to drivers or owners. For example, it's unusual for people to rent cars to their friends for months on end. That might suggest there is something untoward about the arrangement. Is there evidence of the commercial arrangement, or is the owner pretending to have rented the car out for months, when in reality they had stashed the drugs then let a friend borrow the car for a day? It would also be unlikely for a drug dealer to stash a large amount of drugs in a car then lend the car out on a long-term basis, so if the car is out of the owner's hands, that would tend to suggest the drugs belong to the person in possession of the car (and not the owner). But if the amount of drugs were small, typical of personal use, then it becomes more credible to imagine they could be forgotten by the car owner before lending the car to a friend. Police intelligence might also have a bearing. Does one party or the other have known links to the drugs trade? Also, is the lifestyle of one or the other, in particular, inconsistent with known sources of legitimate income? My point with all these questions is to highlight how sensitive the issue is to the fine details of the circumstances, and that it's impossible to give a strictly general answer.
The will is overridden by the new law. Suppose the owner had not died: then he would have to comply with the change in the law. When a person inherits property, they gain the right to that property which the originally had, and they do not gain any additional immunity to the usual obligation to obey the law.
It appears that title changes when both the seller and the buyer sign the reverse side of the vehicle registration certificate. While a vehicle registration with the government is prima facie evidence that a vehicle is owned by the person indicated in the register of the transportation department, Section 140(2) of the Finance Act (1992) under which Ireland's current vehicle registration system was established effective January 1, 1993 (ignoring grandfathered cases) states that this is a rebuttable presumption of ownership only. Nothing in the regulations issued pursuant to the Finance Act states otherwise, and there is language in one of the forms reproduced in a schedule to the regulations which seems to state that registration is something that one must do promptly upon a change in ownership, rather than change of ownership being something that only actually happens upon a change in registration. This is a deviation from the common law that was subsequently codified in the law of sales for untitled tangible personal property, in which title transfers upon delivery of the goods, or if it is covered by a document such as a negotiable warehouse receipt, upon deliver of a negotiated (i.e. signed) warehouse receipt. Likewise, the historical rule for transfer of real property before ownership registration was established for it, was &quot;signed, sealed, and delivered&quot; meaning that a deed had to be signed by the seller, notarized, and delivered to the buyer or the buyer's agent, for title to be transferred. Generally speaking, when property is represented by an ownership certificate or is intangible, transfer of the certificate or relevant document, rather than physical possession, governs transfer of title (before real property records were formalized and bureaucratized, one had to deliver constructive possession of real property with &quot;livery of seisen&quot; by handing over a rock or dirt or twig from the real property to the buyer to signify delivery of possession of real property, the modern equivalent of which would have been to hand over keys to a building). But, the Finance Act and the associated regulations and forms seem to make clear that you need to have both parties, rather than merely the seller (under this historical rule and the rule in most U.S. jurisdictions), sign the relevant form to transfer title. The question is, at what point does the car actually become mine? The reason I ask is that my insurance policy covers me to drive a car of the specified registration (not the one I just bought) and any other car not owned by me. So if I own the car the moment I hand over the money, I am suddenly not insured to drive it home! But if I own it when the government dept. process the form (or when the seller posts it), I probably have a day to get in touch with the insurance provider to change the coverage to the new car (e.g. if the sale is outside of business hours) My suspicion is that this issue is addressed not by the time that title transfers itself, but by a clause in a standard form car insurance contract in Ireland. There is probably a &quot;tail&quot; provision that extends the previous owner's insurance coverage until the registration is processed if it is processed within a reasonable time. But, I don't have the full text of an Irish car insurance policy contract at my disposal to review in order to confirm that fact. You could probably read the terms of your current car insurance policy contract, if you have one, and determine the answer, as this is likely to be effectively uniform for all car insurance policies in Ireland. Or, as @chepnor notes in the comments, &quot;if you call your insurance company ahead of time and tell them you will be purchasing the car. They'll tell you how to ensure you are covered.&quot;
There is a requirement that you register your vehicle in Maryland within 60 days of having moved to Maryland. There is no statutory definition of &quot;moving&quot;, so the courts apply an &quot;ordinary meaning&quot; interpretation to the concept. Various things constitute evidence that you have &quot;moved&quot; to a new state, for example, moving out of some other state and arriving in Maryland. Tax residency is completely unrelated to vehicle-registration residency (or in-state tuition residency). It has nothing to do with your driver's license, and everything to do with actually living in Maryland. It also does not have anything to do with signing a lease. For example, if you stay with a friend for a few weeks after arriving in Maryland, you have been living in Maryland. It is possible that you are on a road trip (with all of your stuff, having decided that no matter what you won't live in Ohio anymore), spend a week on vacation in Maryland, then decide &quot;I should just live here&quot;, in that case there is some discrepancy between when you first appeared in the state vs. when you started &quot;living&quot; there. Barring any such complications, it starts with when you arrived in Maryland, with the intention to live there. The lease / move-in discrepancy is mildly peculiar, but I can imagine a situation where you have to nab an apartment in advance, while living in Ohio, and then you actually move there two months later. It comes down to when you actually started living there, even if you leave the state for short trips.