Theft recovery but clear title?
 

I'm looking at a 3.2 Carrera that was stolen in 2001, taken for a joy ride and recovered 5 days later. After the theft the tires and windshield were replaced.

The seller was up front about this and it shows on the car fax. They also say they have a clear title (not salvage).

Does this negatively impact the value of the car? Would it affect resale value down the road?

Honestly, I have the same question...

Is there a difference between a car that has a current salvage title, vs a car that has a clean title (but was salvage in the past)??? What if the last 2 titles were clean? The last three???

Clearly, a clear title NOW is valuable. It allows easy insurability, and the car is more sellable.

I suspect there are millions of cars out there, that were salvage in the past, but the last several titles are "clean." I believe several states allowed this in the past.

The car the OP mentioned is in this category...

So how do you value this??? Clearly its probably not worth what a pristine car is worth. But, I would think its worth more than a car with a current salvage title, right?

I know some folks will say that some dishonest person will try to pass such cars off as "perfect" to an unsuspecting buyer - but thats not what I am referring to...

Thoughts?

Well this car was stolen from the current owner just a few weeks after they bought it in 2001 and this is the first time they are selling it.

I would assume the title never changed? If a car is stolen and recovered with very little damage why would it be designated as a salvage vehicle?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood. I thought the car in the original post was salvaged, but now is clear...

I thougt every theft was a "salvage," as the insurance company worries about other damage/trans/motor/etc...

Bo

Wouldn't deter me.

I guess this is really my question. If a car is stolen and quickly recovered with little damage and the title does not change, is it still considered salvage?

If the car passes a PPI I would like to buy it because its in great condition with all documentation. The only thing I'm concerned about is this incident.

I believe that in order to have a salvage title:

the insurance company has to declare the vehicle to be a 'total loss', claim the vehicle and title, and then sell the wrecked car with the re-issued salvage title to the new buyer/rebuilder. The new (post-insurance company) owner then rebuilds it, parts it out, lets it rust, etc. At this point the prior history would be notated with 'salvage' in the title.

So, since I don't think that any of this happened to the car you are looking at buying, it wouldn't be subject to the description "salvage title".

In the case posted by the OP, the title would not be salvage, it would be clear and should provide no pause as long as the circumstances of the theft/recovery are disclosed.

The fact that you raise this questions indicates yes, there could be issues down the line. If its an issue to you, assume it an issue for the next buyer.

Cars with stories like this are always a harder sell than those without stories.

The older they get the less a branded title matters. If you were offered a really nice driver quality '68 S with salvage title that was "totalled" in 1978 and then repaired perfectly with factory panels by a well known builder, would you think twice about it? I might expect it to be a $90K car instead of a $100k car, but the older they get the more condition matters and the less the stories take away from it.

Stories on old cars are patina. Some like it, some don't.

Just me, but I wouldn't own a stolen car. Haven't you heard the phrase "Drive it like you stole it."? There's no way a thief would drive a car in the same manner a respecting car enthusiast would.

The only way I could even think about owning a previous theft vehicle is if my purchase price was the second time the car was "stolen".

True but then again you could go with a car that's been poorly driven for years by a previous owner who tells you he's babied it.

Same value as a "rebuilt" title car. Insurance will treat it the same way if they ever have to pay out on it.

The seller just informed me that the title was also stolen along with other things from the house. A "duplicate title" was issued and states that on the title. Not sure what to make of this.

If the owner has some documentation saying what was replaced and it wasn't anything requiring repaint value impact would be very low imo. I imagine the fact it was found only 5 days later is why it wasn't totaled by insurance.

A duplicate title supersedes the prior title. If the duplicate title is clear, the car has a clear title.

bwall has the best explanation of the salvage title situation.

The car has a 'story.' It is not a huge deal as the car has been driven for 12 years since the recovery.

Are you sure? Again, lots of cars currently have clear titles, but were salvage in the past...

I really wonder how an insurer would look at this.

I have seen folks on the net post that once a car is a salvage vehicle, its always a salvage vehicle...

It is funny though, when you look at some of the current multimillion dollar ferraris/porsches... and then see pics "pre-restoration." The cars look like they should have been labelled "salvage" 10 times over. Yet, its not an issue...

Bo

In this case, if what the seller is saying is true, there never was a salvage title. The title and car were stolen, the car was recovered and a duplicate title was reissued.

If I buy and keep this car for 10 years I can't imagine a story like this mattering much for a 37 year old car.

Pack a lunch...
https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/ferraris/417864-only-le-mans-blue-355-spider-bordeaux-interior-19-hres-17k-just-%2459k.html