Buckle up, because this one’s a doozy. The Chevy van you see here was made famous – some say immortal – in the film Van Nuys Boulevard after a short cameo driving down the strip. For whatever reason, the “Wild Cherry” van as it’s known took on legendary status, to the point that one obsessed fan removed it from the private property it was stored on for decades and proceeded to restore the movie star, from stem to stern. As you might expect, he’s caught some flack for his “ambition,” including from the rightful owner. Find the full story here on BND.com.
So, it’s safe to say the original “Wild Cherry” van was sorely neglected. The owners, however, did use it for many years, taking road trips as a family and cruising all across the western U.S. Photos show the van being used a camper, hang-out, and general multi-purpose family machine. As time and life often do, the van was relegated to a piece of property the family owned in California, where it endured years of neglect – to the point it was singed in wildfires and a tree eventually fell on it.
A photographer passing through took a picture of the van, which caught the eye of an enthusiast – who took it upon himself to spend months determining where the van was stored. He then traveled to California, asked an abutter to unlock a padlocked gate on the family’s property, and loaded the van onto his trailer – documenting all of his exploits on a personal Facebook page. A GoFundMe was used to raise money for its restoration, all the while never questioning whether the rightful owners wanted their van removed from private property.
While it looks phenomenal now and the current “caretaker” is enjoying his newfound fame, he may be getting more than he bargained for. The family that owns the van caught wind of its removal from their property and plans to pursue legal action to bring it back home. While we all cry foul when we see a collectible vehicle languishing on private property, it’s important to remember it is the owner’s decision to let it rot or treat it to a frame-off restoration – end of discussion. Regardless of the outcome, I’d rather have the Orient Express if we’re collecting period movie vans.
IMO the article identifies some gray area in California about what constitutes an abandoned vehicle. Should he have blatantly removed it without speaking to the owner? No. Would it have likely stayed in the same spot as-is? Yes. Perhaps the best solution would be to have the van appraised and the restoring party pay 1/2 appraised value of the van back to the previous owner with the restoring party maintaining ownership.
I think the sticking point is that it was on private property, in which case the owner maintains possession even if fees/taxes aren’t paid. If it was on a city street with the same type of abandonment, he might have been able to pull it off. Trespassing and removal from private land, however, will come back to bite him, especially since all property taxes were paid.
Private property is private property. The “rescuer” cannot plead ignorance. It’s theft. Period. Even a “bona fide purchaser for value”, i.e, someone who buys it from the rescuer, would ultimately have to cough it up in a court proceeding. If any of you are having trouble with this consider if this rescuer just wanted the burnt hulk for its remaining good panels and cut it apart. Same result. The fact the “rescuer”, ie :thief” invested large amount of money matters not. Besides that………never heard of the movie :)
Even parked on public streets, an individual can’t do a private impound. Only a government agency can dirrect that. If it is abandoned on your property, you can impound but even then you have to do a lien sale allowing the owner the opportunity to retrieve his goods (or vehicle) to gain title. We are going through that right now with a pickup “abandoned” at one of my rentals when the owner died and his wife moved east leaving it. Had it been left on the public street, the city or county would have jurisdiction. This guy needs to be hung like a horse thief.
Damn, I actually agreed with Adam, better check the ambient temperature in Hades.
Typical the original owners couldn’t care less about this van or they wouldn’t have left it in this state yet now that its been restored and has value they want it back. It was wrong for him to take it I get that and if I was the guy that took it I’d drop a tree on it again and then set it on fire than I’d trailer it back out where I found it and put it back. They real owners would not get to enjoy the benefits of my work. What the photographer should have done was taken detailed photos of it then gone out and bought the same van and built a tribute van. It would have been less work because he could have started with a better unit than this one. I think the owners should let him keep it for a token fee say scrap value.
I don’t think that’s quite fair. I think the owners would have the same level of interest in the van regardless of condition. It’s the fact he accessed their property, illegally, and removed the van, illegally.
Wouldn’t matter if he took a clock off the mantle of their cabin or the van sitting on the property. Theft, regardless of condition of item, constitutes breaking the law – especially so on private property.
Come on Jeff look at the before picture the owner has moved on it was only a matter of time until it got junked. Personally I think the restorer was nuts take it on. And I do realize he stole it and should have to make restitution. But all he stole was a rusted out burnt out tree crushed hulk with about $60.00 of scrap weight value. It would cost more than that to haul it away. Again I know he stole it and that’s not right and if it was a restored vehicle with value I’d be far more outraged. Jeff take a look at the before picture its not a Porsche or a Jaguar it’s an old van that had a tree fall on it and a grass fire scorch it. As I said he should have taken pictures and built a tribute van out of a better van. Yes he’s a thief and an idiot, but he also is a rescuer of this vehicle. We’ve all herd all to often ” I’m going to restore it some day ” and you drive by 10 years later and it’s to far gone, one day to many. JMO.
In this country…….damaging it after the fact would get you more jail time for things like vandalism and damage to private property…….off course we threw out the royalists (many via tar, feathers and a rail) in our country because of unfair laws enforced by King George.
As of this writing, I have two vehicles stored many, many states away from where I live on my in-laws’ property. I doubt they pay much attention to them. I hope to restore the vehicles sometime in the next five years, but in the meantime, no one is entitled to steal them – regardless of whether my plans come to fruition.
I absolutely understand/respect your opinion, but as someone “guilty” of having some dilapidated vehicles (that I assure you no one else wants) sitting around, I would be heartbroken if someone took them given how much time I spend daydreaming about what they will hopefully look like in the future.
It was still theirs, not the thief’s that stole it. I have a 4th generation family member who has every car, truck, van, etc. owned by family members…back to 1938. No, he won’t sell, acres of them. If anyone was stupid enough to remove one of these vehicles, court wouldn’t be an issue because he will shoot thieves, has before.
I don’t know if you guys noticed but I did say it was wrong to take it and if he was smart he would have bought and built a tribute van from a better example. If I was so inclined to have this van I’d never have stolen it nor would I have wanted to restore it its just a Chevy van and it was to far gone from what I could see in the pictures. So it got a short cameo in a movie that I’ve never even heard of, that does not make it more valuable. A tribute van would have been the best option. And no conflict from the owners or the police. Maybe he should have asked the owners if they would sell it before he took it off there property. Personally I don’t see anything that special about this van in either level of condition. Are all his money and effort forfit at this point probably I’ll bet he won’t do that again. Stealing is wrong and I never said it wasn’t and he did do a nice job of bringing it back. Yes your right Dave dropping a tree on it and burning would not be a good idea I take that back it was a stupid comment and you were right to call me out on it. Finally I still maintain that the owners had given up on this van and would have eventually scrapped it.
Private property is private property and the article did not leave anything at all grey in the details. The rescuer is at fault for not putting time into finding out whether the van was on private or state or federal property but took enough time to find the owner of another property adjacent to the van to let him in through a gate, this was also the time to find out if the van was on private property as well.
With a vehicle left on city streets the laws tend to differ with some municipalities allowing what is called ” abandoned vehicle status ” if the person filing the claim on the vehicle can show that it has been left at that location for a defined minimum length of time. This law is more clear with a vehicle left on someones property if the vehicle does not belong to them such as a mechanics shop, temporary parking lot, church, homeowner ect ect.
I think Mr. Carter Iet his enthusiasm for and ambitiousness to acquire the “Wild Cherry” van cloud his judgment. Also, he has not done himself any favors by not returning messages/phone calls to Detective Malone.
It seems the van was sitting on private property in Los Angeles County, which according to CHP Officer Hoey, is not a county that participates in the Vehicle Abandonment Abatement Program. Also, only the State of CA, not Mr. Carter, had a right to take the van even if the owner had lost possession of the vehicle for not registering it every year. CHP Officer Hoey stated the CA law “If somebody has a vehicle on their private property, and somebody removes it without authorization, it is stolen” — pending other unusual circumstances,”. Based on that, I believe the van was stolen.
I believe that Mr. Carter convinced everyone early on, especially the abutter that allowed him access to the property/van and possibly even law enforcement, that he had prearrranged a deal with the Seller to take legal possession of it. If Mr. Carter is lucky, the legal owners may agree to sell him the van or at the very least, throw some money his way for all of the time and trouble he went to in order to restore it. He apparently had a lot of the parts for the van donated by vendors which undoubtedly limited his total investment.
Hey. I know where a Beech D-17S is sitting in an easily accessable hangar. The owner lets his coked-out son fly it but it is not being operated or cared for properly. I think I’ll go grab it to preserve it…. before his doper son bends a slave rod, or pops a jug…. or worse.
I’m all for rescuing the staggerwing as well lol
Mr. Carter needs to spend some time behind bars. There is no difference between him stealing a restored car from your locked garage and what he did. The van was stolen under false pretenses and restored due to other people being lied to in the process. Not only was the van’s owner stolen from, so was each person that helped contribute to the restoration. The Van needs to be returned in it’s present condition to the rightful owner. Mr Carter needs to pay all legal costs and spend time in jail with a felony theft conviction on his record. Anything less would mean that other people can determine if I am a good or bad caretaker of my personal possessions and remove them at will.
Three words: Grand Theft Auto
“(Carter) has no idea the sentimental value that I hold in my heart for that van,” Godin said.”
Strange how some people show their love for things! Obviously Carter should have checked the property lines and done the proper inquiry, but it was clearly abandon and in neglect. My ruling is that they both share in the profit. Next case!!
So, If I don’t like the way you take care of something you own, on your private property, and I want it,I can come and take it? Can I have your address please.
That’s the thing—the sentimental value IS all in her heart. He didn’t take any of that. He took a rusted old hulk of metal. But he is stupid for taking it, it still is theft.
As someone pointed out he could have just made a tribute…and then maybe they would have bought it from him!
bottom line – Carter is a thief with no conscience. If he in fact contacted “people all over the country” he missed the most important ones, the owners.
I had someone come onto my property and take a Fiat 500 that I had bought for parts. They didn’t restore it, they brought it to the crusher and got $85 for it. I paid $400 for multiple parts I needed that got crushed with the car including a beautiful alloy riveted seam gas tank.
The point is, if it is yours AND (this is important) if it is on YOUR property, then nobody has any right to do anything with it. The law will support the original van owner and the van thief will get only a conviction.
That does not mean that I have not been tempted to “rescue” rare cars I know of that are deserving of a better fate. I just don’t.
You are fortunate that you don’t live in Margate, Florida. A parts car or even one in perfect condition, can be declared abandoned by the city if it does not have a current registration and insurance (and be drivable). They then claim the right to come onto your property, remove the vehicle at the owners expense, and destroy the vehicle. Talk about a police state!
I admire his effort to track it down, and even more the effort he put into restoring it, But…don’t you think it would have been just as easy to track down the owner of the property? It’s seems obvious the owner didn’t have a lot of love for it, but it still belonged to him. It’s not as if it were abandoned along some public road. He actually had to track down someone to UNLOCK a gate for him. That constitutes theft in my book.
Why do you say it is obvious the owner didn’t have love for the van?
Did you see the pictures?
The van was involved in a brush fire and then a tree fell on it.
None of that changes the memories this family has of this van nor does it give anybody a right to take it.
I am sure most of us have a car that somebody else would say should be in better condition.
For whatever reason they are not, but that doesn’t give anybody a right to take that property.
Would it have made a difference for you if the van was in the same condition, but this man stole it out of the owners garage?
I certainly wasn’t saying he should have taken it. It doesn’t matter if the owners loved it or not. I think he should have been shot, had he been caught in the act. I have twelve projects sitting patiently waiting for me to get to them. Come try to load one up, without asking.
As for the owners love of the van. I have no doubt they had a sentimental attachment, but for any car I loved, I would at least removed the fallen tree, closed the doors and covered broken windows to keep out the elements. Maybe. they hadn’t seen it recently, and would have done all those things. Purely based on the photos…they weren’t giving it much love.
Abandoned or not. He never purchased it from anyone.
It’s not an abandoned vehicle if it’s yours on your private property.
The Facebook Wild Cherry Van page has lots of stories about the guy including some from his relatives and those who know him. All seem to agree that he’s a crook and a scum bag from way back.
If you’re on Facebook and this story interests you there’s loads of info there
The guy knew exactly what he was doing from the very beginning. The newspaper that published this article did a follow up a few days ago with more information. The guy that stole the van changed the VIN during restoration. Someone on a different website linked to some of his Instagram posts while he was on his way back to Illinois. People were questioning even then about title and permission from the owners.
He might get away with it. I doubt California will ever prosecute him and may not move against the van. This will probably be settled in civil court and the rightful owners may not have the money to pursue the case.
The real sad thing about this whole episode is that so people have so little moral balance that they think the thief was justified to steal the van because the owners had “abandoned” the van by not storing it properly. It was never likely to be restored, but what does that matter? They are the rightful owners, it was on their property, they could do anything with it as they wished.
Steve R
Steve, if you think California won’t go after this you haven’t dealt with California DMV.
With as much publicity as this case has received, if California does nothing, it will look like they falling down on the job.
I am sure they will take care of this guy, especially if the guy changed the public VIN. There is still the hidden VIN to prove who owns the van.
If he did change the VIN, any chance the guy had to get away without charges, went away.
The Facebook page has been removed.
Obsessive movie fan convinces himself that it’s alright to remove something from behind a locked gate. Then documents the whole process, and how does he get a title! I’m sure that van has DEEP sentimental value for the property owners/ van owners. 20-20 hind sight, should have Started with a VIN# search at CAL DMV, contacted the Owner first with an offer!! I call B.S.on this guy’s claim, give up the keys and admit you’re wrong. Nice job on the finished work. Hope everything gets resolved peacefully.
I would hate to be an attorney and try to figure this out if there are some “grey” areas about what’s abandoned.
The only grey area comes from the owners letting the vans registration expire causing it to eventually drop out of the DMV’s system, they also lost the title and might not be able to establish proof that they are the legal owners.
There is no grey area about the vehicle being abandoned, no individual nor the government entity can come onto private property and take a vehicle without the land owners consent even if the land owner has isn’t the legal owner of the vehicle. The state must go through an abatement process first.
According to a follow up article by the same newspaper the thief registered a van with a different VIN at a relatives house in Florida and transferred title to that van to Illinois. That van is using the plates that are on the van he restored. I’m sure when he restored the van he removed every original VIN number, even the con-vin. He may very well get away with this as far as the legal system is concerned.
Steve R
I want to reply to Steve R regarding his comment that no “government entity can come onto private property and take a vehicle without the land owners consent.” A few years ago a major city in my area did just that. A band which I followed had purchased and old Chevy Step Van with the intention of fixing it up to haul their amplifiers to shows. It was sitting on a parking lot of a bar which was owned by one of the band members. After a few years of neglect, the City simply towed it off. Not an isolated incident in this City, as many other non-running vehicles disappeared from private property in a program run by the City to dispose of these types of eyesores.
You left out that I said the government must go through an abatement process first. I’d be surprised if the van wasn’t either tagged with a warning first or a letter wasn’t sent to either the property manager or business owner. If any of those things happened, then it was the bands fault it was towed.
Steve R
Dear Steve R: I fully admit that I do not know the full story. If the City sent the bar owner a notification letter, than it is his fault. If the City simple stuck a tag on the windshield….well… the homeless guy who was living in the van may have thrown it away. In the end it is not a great loss, since it was unlikely that the band would have ever made enough money to repair the Step Van. The homeless guy was kinda upset. The band self-published a CD and used his picture on the cover. Renaldo R.I.P.
Steve R, If he changed the vin numbers on the van, that will be an entirely different charge. He cannot say he used the original for parts because he documented all of it with pictures and video online. Most of the van he has is the original van.
18 U.S. Code § 511 – Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers: (a) A person who—
(1) knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part; or
(2) with intent to further the theft of a motor vehicle, knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters a decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
Amazing to me how many people here think it’s alright to steal a vehicle off private property. Jeez.
Who has the title? If it’s the new “owner” how did he get it? Or did he lie to the state and say the original was lost?
Been following this story for a few weeks. He was supposed to be in CA at a show or cruise recently. Apparently he wasn’t arrested then?
I would restore it back to as found condition and give it back to the family. Was it right to take it no. Did the family even care about van hell no. Look how long it took them to miss it. Like I said I would restore back to the junk condition.
Looks like most of us agree the “rescuer” will have some legal problems. Obviously. The irony of all of this is that only in this age of people relentlessly publicly documenting their every move on social media , would we even know about this. As a society we have become so self involved, solipsistic, that we have abandoned common sense. Had the “rescuer” not responded to the siren call of social media “fame” and need for money by using GoFundMe, he might well have gotten away with this. Its a long way from Illinois to California.
Using Go fund Me to get “donations” to restore a stolen vehicle (or commit any crime) and getting the money from out of state, even though it is on line is now a Federal crime called Wire Fraud. Federal and possibly state Class A felony with serious prison time.
This is theft. No one has the right to just help themselves to someone else’s property no matter the condition or location. My stepdaughter and her boyfriend were trusted in the care of 3 of my vehicles. A 2000 Ford F-150 p/u, my daughters 2000 Hyundai Elantra sedan and my 1973 Plymouth Duster (fully restored). I left these vehicles at her home in Dec of 2016 after my wife of 18 yrs passed away in April 2016 from cancer. I moved to California from North Carolina and told her before I left I would be arranging to have the Duster shipped to California once I got settled. When I contacted her in Oct 2017 about getting my vehicles she claimed all three vehicles were “stolen” from her property, all at the same time!!! Well I do not believe her at all. I filed a stolen vehicle report on all three vehicles with the Sheriff and she refuses to speak to me. I left the titles in the vehicles because I thought I could trust her. And in North Carolina it is required to bring a license of the seller and buyer and appear in front of a Notary to get the title stamped for a legal sale. The detective has tried to locate these vehicles and has had no luck, They were not scrapped nor registered in any state. I did my own detective work and found a listing for my Duster on a website called http://www.davesclassiccars.com and the pictures were taken at where my stepdaughter lives. I forwarded this information on to the detective and he has been investigating and is in the process of getting a court order to find out the IP address of who listed the vehicle for sale as well as who the winning bidder was. Still no sign of my pickup truck or daughters Hyundai (which was in my name) Pretty sad that a family member I trusted could do something like this….
Thomas…sorry to hear your story..,but sadly I have
heard similar ones before.I hope you can get them back.
good luck to you..!!
If she in fact arranged the listing, I am going to have her prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
A whois (domain lookup) for davesclassiccars.com shows this information:
REGISTRANT CONTACT
Name:DAVE BRUCE
Organization:DAVE’S CLASSIC CARS
Street:75 DICKEY ROAD, P.O. BOX 24
City:GLENARM
State:ILLINOIS
Postal Code:62536
Country:US
Phone:+1.2174838331
Doesn’t seem to be an active website at the moment tho.
tell the detective you don’t really need a court order?… just a computer. Maybe call them?
The detective did in fact speak to someone associated with this web site. He was told that this site partnered with E Bay on the listings. After this contact I also noted that the site has been off line. But in the meantime he has got the original E Bay listing number and I guess from what he told me, he needs to go to court and get a court order to get the information from e bay. That’s where it stands right now,
Good luck trying to get a title and tags for this…!! Is it really
the van…?..,or a Vin tag change to another van..?obviously
you can’t take the restorer’s word,cuz he did take the van without permission,
they used to call that stealing,and those who steal,are known to lie..!. .haha..
Between the “state” and the previous junk owner,and the nut job who re-did this,
why would anyone ever want to get involved with this MESS…?
I’am surprised that the EPA isn’t involved yet…Run…run.. far …far… away..LOL…
Now that this is documented online…I am sure it will go away and no one will remember next week.
I hear the internet is just a fad anyway ….,
Seriously take the van back and square it with the real owner or just turn yourself into jail now.
Stored outside on private properly is not abandoned.
I don’t care if it’s s 1968 KR Mustang rotting or a 63 Split window….IT’S NOT YOURS AND this is CALLED THEFT OVER A THOUSAND …….
Here is one of many presidences that will give the restored car back
Any lawyer will eat you alive on theft…
Better Call Sal!
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1107612_stolen-1964-chevrolet-corvette-recovered-40-years-later
I’m curious the allure of the van in the first place? I’ve never seen Van Nuys Blvd but from what I’ve found it was a cheap B movie produced in 18 days? I understand that’s exactly the kind of movie that can become a Cult Classic but, It also sounds like this van was pretty much a backdround vehicle, not a main vehicle in the movie? Is this true? Had the van grown in popularity over time? were other people looking for it?
Brian, it does say here the van was only a background vehicle in the movie from 1979
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_493241-Chevrolet-Chevy-Van-1971.html
Grand Theft Auto!!??? – more like Petty Theft Scrap. The “owners” now claim they have sentimental feelings and love for the van, but who rescued and restored it? Certainly not them! They probably kept it on their own piece of land just so they wouldn’t get in trouble for abandoning it on the street! The restorer should just have to replace it with similar-appearing junk van, towed to the original location on the “owners” property, burned, and the felled tree hoisted over it and dropped onto its roof. Done deal.
There are a lot, A LOT of thieves in this world. There will always be thieves, it’s their culture, uneducated, immoral, inbred, low income scum, as well as higher income, inheirited from their theiving parents.. Just look at TV shows like Bait Car, watch any police video show, read the arrest report in the paper. If you think taking this van was justified, you just let us know what kind of person you are. They will eventually get their just rewards.
That’s right, something like this story shows peoples true colors or their ignorance.
Many of the people that take the side of the thief would cry a river if this had happened to them or someone they know.
Steve R
Jeez, I hope nobody steals my project MG Midget and Sprite parts car that are hidden from view but sitting in/behind a barn with no lock. My neighbors fence has a gate that leads right up to it and we don’t talk much!
What, no comments on the movie from which the van sprang from?
If it had been an old rusty barrel that was taken and painstakingly restored, I highly doubt this would be an issue!
If someone came on to my property to steal my barrel, they would still get shot. It’s MY barrel, not theirs !!!
The only problem for the original owner is she can’t prove ownership. She doesn’t have the title. She claims it was in the van. I find that hard to believe. I read about this when he first got it and he claimed he had went through all of the channels. He even claimed law enforcement was present when he removed the van. California has some funky laws about titles and up to date taxes.
That might keep her from getting it back, and it probably has something to do with why the state didn’t impound the van when the thief drive it to California for the cruise on Van Nuys Blvd last week.
The thief’s story keeps changing, which to me is a pretty clear indication of his original intentions and his character. I’d be surprised if he hasn’t done something like this. All this publicity has also created a roadmap for others to do the same thing, it shows how easy it is to steal a neglected car.
Steve R
Doggone…. with credentials like that, the thief should run for office.
He would fit right in and make more money.
Steve R
He later found the title and contacted the son. The son told the mother (owner) and she then filed a police report. This took place in June 2018
We can only hope. He and the van have gone MIA and his FB page is down.
I noticed he pulled down all his social media pages, too. I suspect he knows his exhaustive documentation is not going to win him any awards from the Boy Scouts.
That is funny Jeff! The Last Boy Scout comes to mind.
The simple fact here is that the current possessor of the van stole it. The condition of the vehicle at time of theft is immaterial, as is what the proper owner of the van intended to do with it.
You can sugar-coat it all you want, but theft is theft He willfully trespassed onto private property, and willfully stole the vehicle..
The van should be returned, and the thief should be given ample time in a prison cell to think about his actions
No matter how crappy and left to rot it was, it was totally irresponsible to just take it off their property… I am sure if he had contacted the rightful owners and told them what he had in mind they would have let him have it for little or no compensation… smh… you can’t fix stupid.
Agreed. Of course he would have risked them suddenly seeing dollar signs and try to gouge him, but the risk he took was even greater. Heck, he would have been better off buying (gulp!) one of Adam’s rusty cars!
Are you so naive that you assume he was going to keep this for life? He was creating as much publicity as he could, this would, without a doubt, hit some high profile auction in the near future.
Steve R
Anybody know if the legal owner showed up at the final stop on the van cruise? See article: “Godin plans to go to the Van Nuys Boulevard car cruise .. and call police when she sees the Wild Cherry. “I want my van back,” she said. “… (Carter) took it across four state lines. Why didn’t he contact me before he started restoring it?”
I applaud his efforts, but doofus could have just as easily made a sweet deal to get the van legitimately. Beautiful workmanship, I only wish I had the ability to cram in a complete panels-off, glass out restoration on a vehicle in the short span of time he had.
The Bullitt Mustang was in just as bad condition and no telling what it could have sold for in found condition. Anybody who dismisses the Wild Cherry as scrap and suggests he give the owner scrap price or another old van is delusional.
If I recall correctly, the Bullitt Mustang was displayed and sold at auction in practically “found condition.” Other than sensible detailing, fluid changes and maybe tires and battery I believe that is how it was cataloged by our favorite auction house not so many years ago… The Wild Cherry van is/was not scrap but close to it, and to me except for a few stoners who think it is iconic it’s not even CLOSE to the icon status of McQueen’s Bullitt movie car!!!! Sorry. And, I believe a second Bullitt scene stealer was recently found in a dilapidated state….
Agreed. What would you suggest as an alternative Suttree? How about 51% of the market value of the van as it currently rolls given back to the property (real estate and vehicular) owners as earlier suggested. Anything less is grounds for legal action IMHO.
Very disappointed in how many Barn Find Readers think that theft is acceptable. Theft is THEFT, be it your rat rod, your neglected daughter or your favorite dog or cat. Returning the item is not sufficient – penalties must be paid. If so many of these readers talk of “restoring” the van to the way it was found. If that’s OK then when some fellow steals your primo finished restoration, drives it for a joyful weekend and then returns it with a thousand extra miles you should be good with it. After all you weren’t driving it when it was “borrowed”. Trash or treassure…..THEFT IS theft!
In Texas the person or persons that removed the van from private property would have been shot several times including in the back while attempting to drive away, the shooter would never be arrested for said shooting.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/08/us/in-killing-of-repo-man-law-shields-the-killer.html
The van was stolen and anyone here who thinks it was OK to do that is just a dumb a$$
I’m just going to re-post the story posted by an associate of mine in another forum in 2015:
“That exact thing happened to a pal of mine in the Northeast last month. He has a ‘pre-restoration’ WW2 3/4 ton weapons carrier (a big tactical truck) and he woke up one morning to the sound of clanking chains on the old farm he lives on, to see that very sight.
He had a pretty clever response, considering he had no idea what was going on.
He came out heavily armed, made the truck guy leave his cell and wallet in the cab, keys in the ignition and then said, “Now, get to walking!” he also made it clear he now knew who the truck guy was and where he lived, with the underlying suggestion that this wasn’t over by a long shot if anything else ever happened he didn’t like.
It was a really long hike to the nearest phone. The police didn’t even call for a few hours. When they showed up, they took his statement. He didn’t get in trouble (amazingly, as he kept the guy’s cell and wallet) as he had clear evidence that the truck guy was committing a felony (grand theft auto) at the time and the state laws apparently considered his to be a reasonable response to the act.
The cops told him that this was actually not an uncommon thing, and when nabbed the thieves seemed to think they were in the right to declare someone else’s property (on their own land) as ‘abandoned’ and therefore fair game. . . .
Oh, I left an important part of that story out, the cops found an unregistered loaded handgun in the cab of the tow truck. He’d said he’d made the guy leave his wallet to ID the guy later, as there wasn’t any way to know the tow truck wasn’t stolen as well and the cell phone was left… well, just to punish the guy and make him walk a few miles to the nearest pay phone on a very hot day.
I emailed him yesterday asking what the final result was, and he said the tow company was investigated for a lot of thefts like this and some people are going to jail for a while over it. And the driver is in a lot of trouble with the law…”
This all sounds legit to me with the exception of “unregistered loaded handgun”. Where I am from, that is the only kind to have. Not stolen, nothing illegal about it. All of my weapons are “unregistered” as well as “loaded”. No point in having one that’s not…
Obviously this was in the “Northeast” as if it happened here in Texas, the guy would most likely have been leaving, just not under his own power, and with a few ounces of added weight, if you get my drift.
The original owners have every right to reclaim their property regardless of its current condition and in fact, they might even be entitled to compensation for damages as all originality has now been destroyed.
Lol! Too funny. “All originality has been destroyed”…
I think the fire and the tree beat him to that a long time ago!
I agree that he had no right to take it, but I love that the owners now say that he had no idea how much the van meant to them and how many memories they made with the van..
If they truly cared about the van, how come a guy from Illinois drove 2000 miles each way, properly restored it, and sank a ton of money into it, but they couldn’t go 2 miles down their dirt driveway, get the van and cover it up? instead let it BURN IN A FIRE, and subsequently let a tree fall on it and let it rot in the CA sun? I WONDER WHO PROVED THEY TRUELY CARED ABOUT THE VAN?
I agree he had no right to it, but lets be honest….they couldn’t have cared less about it and it showed…
From a legal standpoint, none of that matters. The fact is, the van wore the same paint and etc. that it had in the movie, and now it’s gone.
Care or not, the law doesn’t say you have to love your property, maintain it to someone else’s standards, (ok, HOAs excepted), or even look at it regularly, it is YOURS, not some sleezeball who drove across country to STEAL IT. Can I come over to your place and check out your stuff, and take whatever you don’t care enough about? (by my standards)
burn it!!!!
Hello? Anyone? …the rule of law?
If anyone spots this vehicle anywhere there is a reward for information resulting in the recovery and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the theft of this vehicle. Please contact me at 209-263-5983 or Detective Chris Adams of the Johnston County NC Sheriff’s office at 919-989-5010
If anyone spots this vehicle anywhere there is a reward for information resulting in the recovery and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the theft of this vehicle. Please contact me at 209-263-5983 or Detective Chris Adams of the Johnston County NC Sheriff’s office at 919-989-5010
Also, If anyone spots this vehicle anywhere there is a reward for information resulting in the recovery and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the theft of this vehicle. Please contact me at 209-263-5983 or Detective Chris Adams of the Johnston County NC Sheriff’s office at 919-989-5010
And this was my daughters car. If anyone spots this vehicle anywhere there is a reward for information resulting in the recovery and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the theft of this vehicle. Please contact me at 209-263-5983 or Detective Chris Adams of the Johnston County NC Sheriff’s office at 919-989-5010
More than once I have “stumbled” across an old car or truck when out hiking or biking (dirt bikes) across the back-county of Colorado. More than once I have made calls to land owners (and in one case a certified letter) as to the availability of a car or truck I have found. Only once have I been said yes to as for removing it.
Most of the time it was “no its not for sale” or something similar. On several occasions I have asked when the last time they saw the vehicle and most will say when (usual response is “years”). I asked one of them once if they were aware that the car was nearly completely stripped of all its trim, chrome, etc and that the windshield was shot out and he just hung up. I was in the area of that car about a month later and it was gone.
One told me he’d parked it out there so his wife wouldn’t find it during their divorce. I told him that it looked like other people had…
In Pittsburghese, the van thief is what’s known as a “jagoff”. And even if some demented twist in the law allows him to walk away from this it still was not right. Beyond that, if he is forced to turn the van over to it’s rightful owners and he does damage it in order to return it to the condition he found it in he’s an infantile twerp.
And this is why my 66 GT350 is barricaded in my barn in the corner with cars around it. Good luck removing it.
After the person stole and illegally modified the van, how was a title, license plate and registration obtained?
Where additional nefarious acts perpetrated?
Bottom line: THE MAN IS A THIEF!!!!!
👎no matter how u look at it theft👎😲have a 1972 short 3/4 ton gm van (010 corvette, t400, 410 detroit locker 15-31s, running,nonop, i used to use 4 hauling motor cycle, there’s a bed & 3 folding bucket’s too old now 👍😎
why is it that the ones that think all the thief took was a 60$ piece of scrap well if it was worth driving 1900 miles to steal it and restore it to the thief why cant it have the same value and even more value to the owner that actually drove it and raised kids while owning it and has many memories with it and paid for it when he got it —if a half attempt body man can fix it who is to say the real owner could not have done the same thing when he retired or his son do it when they could –nobody biz give the people there property back it was stolen and cops know where it is retrieve it and return it now –it is the laws job to return peoples stolen property when recovered –do your job officers
I wish someone would take one of my project cars and restore it for me…
they can…its a show called “Overhaulin”….
“A locked gate caused a moment of despair, Carter said, but a local landowner agreed to open it and let him drive up the dirt road. The landowner called another neighbor, a deputy sheriff, who arrived in his squad car, as shown in a photo that Carter took at the scene. The Illinois men loaded up the van and hauled it down the mountain.
“In California, you have to register a vehicle every year, and if you don’t do it for so many years, you lose ownership,” Carter said. “And if it’s abandoned, the state can impound it and sell it for scrap or whatever.”
That’s what the thief said, he is wrong about the registration, an owner only loses ownership once the state files an abatement and takes the vehicle. This didn’t happen. He lied, hoping to fool people who weren’t willing to do their own research into taking his side and to cloud the issue. Everything he said was designed to cloud the issue, but they were all misdirects since none had any merit.
Steve R
Actually Steve, in California, if the city takes a vehicle, they call an OPG towing service. That is an Official Police garage towing service.
The towing service must do a lien sale and notify all interested parties of the pending sale and those owners still have the right to pay for the towing fees and recover the vehicle.
At no time does ownership transfer until the new owner who purchased it at the lien sale files for a new title.
This story told by this man is pure BS.
Somewhere in following this story I read that the woman who says she was the original owner had transferred ownership of the van to her son. I also read that Chris tracked this person down (since they were actually the legal owner) and received permission from them to take the van. Not picking a side here, just adding this part to the story.
From what I understand, the police met with him in California and it was “settled”. Not sure what that means, if he paid something to them or the police determined he had obtained it properly.
No mention if this van was on a “None Op” registration in California as required by law IF not currently licensed. If as stated that this van was sitting for YEARS and not currently listed with California on a “None Op” status the registration information will drop out the California system and show NO information as to who is the registered owner of the vehicle therefore it “can” be considered ABANDONED!
No reference to the status of the dirt road. Although there was a locked gate to pass through the person with a key to the gate and the one who opened that gate was described as an adjacent landowner. Why does an adjacent landowner have a key to the gate for access to what is “assumed” by us to be private property? Is this dirt road a fire service road? Is it a fire service road with an abandoned Van sitting on the side of the road?
Each state has laws concerning removal of abandoned vehicles on private property. In some states such Texas the law only allows you the land owner to remove an abandon vehicle from your private property to the nearest public road, call police and have them PU the abandon vehicle. You can’t legally sell it, scrape or do much anything with it other than remove it from your property.
The lady owner who claims the van states she does not have a title showing her ownership as it was left in the van and apparently she also cannot get a duplicate title from the CA DMV showing her ownership which tells me the registration information has been purged from the CA DMV as noted above for vehicles not registered either actively or None Op for a longtime. Basically said she cannot prove current ownership of the van either other than pictures from the past when she possibly did own the van.
Again a van that could be an abandon van on the side of a dirt road on private property where that dirt road could or could not be a legal public right of way through their property.
This will be interesting to see the outcome as there is a lot more to this situation that we don’t know or has been told to us the public.
No, not Non-oping a vehicle in CA doesn’t mean you ‘abandon’ it, it means you’re going to pay a lot of fees if/when you ever try to get it back on the street. If it’s ‘out of the system’, you’ll owe a minimum of 4 years back fees and penalties. No title? You fill out an application for duplicate title, which, when you sign it, is swearing you are the LEGAL owner. If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, you get it towed by an OPG (official police garage), have them do the required paperwork (lein sale), and you can pay them and get the vehicle. You can NOT just see a car sitting on someone’s property, and say “oh, it’s abandoned”, and take it.
Yeah, this is gonna be messy, but, as it stands right now, looks like he’s a thief, a dedicated one (going cross country to steal a car?) The fact that (if true) he changed the vin, then washed the title thru florida, shows he knew he was up to no good.
I did not say placing a car on “none op” is abandoning the car. Read again!
I did not say putting the van on “None Op” meant you abandoned the van.
Re-Read my post.
If the van registration is “Out of the System:” in California and I take the van out of the State of California and use the loose laws of another state to legally register the van in another state and “My” name there are NO back fees to pay to California and therefore also NO previous registration history or information in the California system to cloud my registration and ownership in another state.
You still have the situation of potential theft from private property.
Your original Post:
“No mention if this van was on a “None Op” registration in California as required by law IF not currently licensed. If as stated that this van was sitting for YEARS and not currently listed with California on a “None Op” status the registration information will drop out the California system and show NO information as to who is the registered owner of the vehicle therefore it “can” be considered ABANDONED!”
I did read your comment, you said “NOT” non oped means it “can” be considered abandoned, which is not the case. While it’s true that no current records make it easier to register it in another state, and muddy the ownership, merely leaving your vehicle sit on YOUR property doesn’t mean you’re abandoning it. There are NO circumstances in California where keeping your car on your own property will have it considered abandoned.
It is quite obvious that this van was stolen from private property. What I don’t understand, and no one has mentioned it, is the fact that the tree which “fell” on the van was cut down with a chain saw, again on private property. It appears that someone (the original owners?) cut that tree down to fall on the van. That begs the question: Just how much did they care about it? I realize that the owner can do whatever he wants to his possessions, but felling a large tree on a van you care about is a little strange.
How do you know somebody cut the tree down?
You can’t see the bottom of the tree in the picture.
It looks like somebody cut the upper part of the tree off, but it is possible from the fire the tree fell on its own.
“I realize that the owner can do whatever he wants to his possessions, but felling a large tree on a van you care about is a little strange.”
Like you say, their van, they can do what they want with it. Maybe they belong to an obscure group whose beliefs call for dropping a tree on their vehicles to cleanse them of evil spirits, who are we to say? I’ve seen people do stranger things. Besides, you’re looking at the top of the tree, opposite side from where it fell, appears they were trimming it off prior to attempting to remove it (or maybe the thief cut it?)
How is that fire damage? Unless the tree was burning when it fell on the van. A brush fire would have burned from the bottom up. Also, a fire would have done more damage to the paint, the ‘Wild Cherry’ Lettering isn’t blistered or burned. I’ve seen cars in the desert that get caught in brush fires, since there’s (usually) no one to extinguish them, they will completely burn the vehicle, down to the frame, that’s obviously not the case here. If it was the thief who claims ‘fire damage’, I’d take anything he says as BS.
It was a brush fire, just burnt a little of the back lower corner. You can see the burnt area in the picture of it on the trailer.
Seems to me that if it can’t be proven that the van was stolen via court documents (Godin says she transferred ownership to her son, but left the title in the glove box, Carter says he got verbal approval from said son), then the theft can’t be proven. Also, this isn’t grand theft, or theft over a thousand, as the value of the van would have to be proven to be over that (and sentiment rarely has value in criminal court). Carter might be subject to a civil suit, in which he would have to prove his allegations, but it would cost Godin a lot of money to pursue, and likely would raise the question of the stated value of the van: if they have the money for the lawsuit, they had the money to restore the van, and chose not to. Ergo, they did not value the van, and thus flimsy grounds for a civil case.
TL;DR: Godin cannot prove ownership of the van, Godin says she gave it to her son, Godin’s son says Carter can take it, not theft.
I’m no lawyer, but I’m willing to bet that the property owner will end up with a nice restored Chevy van at no cost; other than attorney fees and court costs.
the State (guvmnt, whatever term) can do anything they want – as long as it’s within the law. I’m betting they were involved somehow. Otherwise he’d B in jail now (he did not follow the law as far as the info presented here).
This is the website I found my Duster on.- http://davidsclassiccars.com/..
I looked and the listing for my car has been pulled but I’ve tried to e mail the site to inquire about my vehicle and have not received any response. Does anyone out here know how I can find out who runs this site?????
REGISTRANT CONTACT
Name:Registration Private
Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
Street:DomainsByProxy.com
14455 N. Hayden Road
City:Scottsdale
State:Arizona
Postal Code:85260
Country:US
Phone:+1.4806242599
Fax:+1.4806242598
Email:email@domainsbyproxy.com
1) Was in contact with the family who owned the van, didn’t receive permission to purchase it– took it anyways.
2) Did a terrible job “restoring” a famous vehicle by replacing engine, replacing doors, roof, side, interior, etc. and painting over all original handpainted graphics incorrectly. Not much original left!
3) Added terrible gullwing door kit to the back.
Yes it’s sad to see neat old things neglected, but the guy is a thief AND ruined a classic. Now it’s just an incorrect tribute van owned by a sketchball.
I cant help you Thomas, but can we end the stolen van comments? Hope you get your rig back buddy.
Miguel, you are absolutely right. I thought the tree had been cut from the right side, outside of the frame. I didn’t notice the way the branches were growing. I’m going to throw this bottle away!
IF I fly from Virginia all the way out to California, it will be to drive home across our beautiful United States in a classic automobile… one paid for in full !! Wow, what an interesting conversation here this evening. A follow up after the dust up for the supreme court hearings earlier today. Peace
Bottom line the van was on privately owned property with a locked gate blocking entry. He clearly knows it was not there for the taking and did not have consent or bill of sale from the rightful owner to enter the property and remove the van. He had to obviously provide false info to title the van in another state. You don’t know the situation of the legal and rightful owner of the van so in no way can you judge them. She will easily be able to prove ownership and his own bold statements and pictures of how he obtained it will clearly help prove he stole it off of private gated land. There have been similar cases like this and the rightful owner wins these cases. He stole an iconic vehicle and restored it for her. Lesson to be learned for all stealing does not pay. I hope she enjoys her restored van when she gets it back!
I completely agree with what you are stating with one hundred percent legal confidence.
The Van wasn’t on private property. The state of California Department Of Forestry and Fire owns that Road, and 50 feet on either side. According to California Law, it was abandoned.
Boy did this one ever bunch up a lot of panties! I do not believe I have ever seen this many comments. I had an opinion on this earlier but after reading the article and the 10 million comments here, I came to the conclusion that I don’t give a ‘dam’ one way or the other. Kind of hope at this point that the van gets truly stolen and is never to be seen by either party again.
without a tittle to confirm the vin, who knows if he is really driving the wild cherry van, for all we know he stole the wild cherry van used it for the details to clone it off to a van he already had, the pictures he has showing him restoring a van might just be pictures of him cuttting up the wild cherry to dispose of it, could what i say happen, sure it could, but did it only the one restoring the van really knows, ps in the pics the wild cherry van has two opening back doors, in the restred van did he weld them together for one?
Stan… Van Crazy Customs J&J Fiberglass Doors.
Interesting story about this on Autoweek.com today:
https://autoweek.com/article/car-life/wild-cherry-1970s-movie-van-rescued-restored-and-embroiled-charges-felony-theft?utm_source=DailyDrive20181005&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=headline-top&utm_content=body&utm_campaign=awdailydrive
Thanks Dennis, from the story. “Update: Chris Carter was arrested and booked at the Madison County Jail in Edwardsville, Illinois, later that day for felony possession of a stolen vehicle”
Looks Like Chris Carter’s Cherry Got Busted, Wa, Wa, Wa.
Taking something without asking is THEFT, and to make up for it he’ll be giving it back to the owner restored…..lesson learned…by all hopefully.
The van was found in Los Angeles county stripped and I mean stripped.
https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article220675495.html
Who stripped the cherry?
Gee I wonder ??
This article leaves a lot out. He had a sherriff sign off on him taking it and due to an easement, the van was no longer on private property either. Soooo, now what?
You don’t understand what an easement is……..it is most defiantly private property. An easement only gives specific people access for some reason across private property. Many are utility or road easements. The owner can do what he wants with the property as long as he follows the rules in the document.
You don’t understand what an easement is……..it is most defiantly private property. (Could also be public) An easement only gives specific people access for some reason across private property. Many are utility or road easements. The owner can do what he wants with the property as long as he follows the rules in the document. Public property rarely needs an easement unless they are allowing access through it by a private person. I have many easements around the ranch for various reasons, I still own the property. Wasn’t he convicted?
Dave Wright is 100 percent right, the CLOWN should have never removed the van from private property.
Thousands of people have derelict vehicles parked on their properties, it is there choice to do what they want with them.
The CLOWN is lucky he was not shot for trespassing and left inside the Cherry Van, that might just be an appropriate resting place unless someone wants to legally claim the CLOWN remains.
Dictionary
ease·ment
/ˈēzmənt/Submit
noun
1. LAW. A right to cross or otherwise use someone else’s land for a specified purpose.
What is an easement on a property?
When someone is granted an easement, he is granted the legal right to use the property for a specific purpose but the legal title to the land itself remains with the owner of the land. Most commonly, easements are granted to utility companies to run power lines, cable lines, roads thru a property and other specified access to the property. Property rights remain with the land owner with the exception of those granted in the easement agreement.
It’s hard to believe this is even a discussion, especially in this community. A thief stole a van from a person off their property.
The “van” was stolen from private property. Lucky is the restorer that he has not been arrested. The go fund me donors “ co-conspirators” to grand theft auto after having read the story and donated to the restoration of “taken” personal property.
Sad that so many feel this justified to support such poor judgement even providing consolation to the taker.