Competing Claim on Property at the PD
Curious if anyone has ever confronted this weird legal issue before:
City's PD has a piece of property in its possession that isn't need for
evidentiary purposes and there are two people who are claiming to be the
owners of the property (and each wants the property). What is the best way
to get the ownership dispute resolved? Is it to have the two parties go to
Court and come back with an Order? Is there a way the City can be the one
to get this dispute in front of the District Court (and, if so, is that the
best option)?
Short version: firearm is reported stolen in County #1 and inputted into
NCIC. Pawnshop in County #2 has the firearm, finds out it is stolen, and
contacts the agency that inputted the firearm into NCIC. There's a fact
dispute about what happens next. Pawnshop says that the agency that
inputted the firearm into NCIC said they would come retrieve the gun but 2
years went by and they never did. Originating agency says that they went to
retrieve the gun, but the pawnshop refused to give it to them. Regardless,
2+ years later the gun is sold to a person in County #1...and the City's PD
comes into contact with that person and runs the gun and gets a hit in NCIC.
The complicating wrinkle is that the elected DA in County #1 (i.e. the
County where the PD that currently has the firearm in its possession is
located) is taking the position that the person who purchased the gun from
the pawnshop is the rightful owner and telling the PD that they need to
return the gun to that person. The DA in County #2 (i.e. the County in
which the gun was stolen and where the other PD that inputted the gun into
NCIC is located) is telling the PD that they have to turn the gun over to
the original owner. So the PD has 2 DA's giving them conflicting directives.
Any feedback / insight would be appreciated.
Matt
File an Application for Chief's Sale a/k/a Disposition of Property, notify both parties, and then let them duke it out before the Judge. I am attaching a link to one I did in Owasso. Let me know if you need word versions.
https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&number=CV-2022-1085
Beth Anne Childs
The Childs Law Firm, PLLC
1015 South Detroit Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma. 74120
(918) 521-3092
From: Matt Love via Oama oama@lists.imla.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:03 PM
To: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Competing Claim on Property at the PD
Curious if anyone has ever confronted this weird legal issue before:
City's PD has a piece of property in its possession that isn't need for evidentiary purposes and there are two people who are claiming to be the owners of the property (and each wants the property). What is the best way to get the ownership dispute resolved? Is it to have the two parties go to Court and come back with an Order? Is there a way the City can be the one to get this dispute in front of the District Court (and, if so, is that the best option)?
Short version: firearm is reported stolen in County #1 and inputted into NCIC. Pawnshop in County #2 has the firearm, finds out it is stolen, and contacts the agency that inputted the firearm into NCIC. There's a fact dispute about what happens next. Pawnshop says that the agency that inputted the firearm into NCIC said they would come retrieve the gun but 2 years went by and they never did. Originating agency says that they went to retrieve the gun, but the pawnshop refused to give it to them. Regardless, 2+ years later the gun is sold to a person in County #1...and the City's PD comes into contact with that person and runs the gun and gets a hit in NCIC.
The complicating wrinkle is that the elected DA in County #1 (i.e. the County where the PD that currently has the firearm in its possession is located) is taking the position that the person who purchased the gun from the pawnshop is the rightful owner and telling the PD that they need to return the gun to that person. The DA in County #2 (i.e. the County in which the gun was stolen and where the other PD that inputted the gun into NCIC is located) is telling the PD that they have to turn the gun over to the original owner. So the PD has 2 DA's giving them conflicting directives.
Any feedback / insight would be appreciated.
Matt
I have done these facts before. I told both sides the rightful owner of the gun must be determined as a civil manner and if they want to join the city, city will interplead the gun into court. If City is not named as party, will follow court order or a settlement approved by both parties. It worked. They ultimately resolved the dispute.
Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/
From: Matt Love via Oama oama@lists.imla.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:03 PM
To: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Competing Claim on Property at the PD
Curious if anyone has ever confronted this weird legal issue before:
City's PD has a piece of property in its possession that isn't need for evidentiary purposes and there are two people who are claiming to be the owners of the property (and each wants the property). What is the best way to get the ownership dispute resolved? Is it to have the two parties go to Court and come back with an Order? Is there a way the City can be the one to get this dispute in front of the District Court (and, if so, is that the best option)?
Short version: firearm is reported stolen in County #1 and inputted into NCIC. Pawnshop in County #2 has the firearm, finds out it is stolen, and contacts the agency that inputted the firearm into NCIC. There's a fact dispute about what happens next. Pawnshop says that the agency that inputted the firearm into NCIC said they would come retrieve the gun but 2 years went by and they never did. Originating agency says that they went to retrieve the gun, but the pawnshop refused to give it to them. Regardless, 2+ years later the gun is sold to a person in County #1...and the City's PD comes into contact with that person and runs the gun and gets a hit in NCIC.
The complicating wrinkle is that the elected DA in County #1 (i.e. the County where the PD that currently has the firearm in its possession is located) is taking the position that the person who purchased the gun from the pawnshop is the rightful owner and telling the PD that they need to return the gun to that person. The DA in County #2 (i.e. the County in which the gun was stolen and where the other PD that inputted the gun into NCIC is located) is telling the PD that they have to turn the gun over to the original owner. So the PD has 2 DA's giving them conflicting directives.
Any feedback / insight would be appreciated.
Matt