Ronnie Montrose wants his 59' Burst back....from Gary Moore

[EXPcustom]

The only thief here is Ronnie Montrose's lawyer.

This guitar was purchased in good faith. Gary Moore is in the UK so how are they going to serve him with papers unless he comes to the USA? Even if they serve him and he never shows up and they get a default judgement they still cant by law force him to surrender the guitar. All they can do is award monetary compensation.

This is not a criminal case they cant seize evidence so...

Moore is in possesion of the guitar and can claim it is a different serial if he choses to or not disclose the serial, then have a expert wood witness on the stand to state it is possible that the guitar has a different top that is similar.

Its a frivalous lawsuit at best and the only ones winning are the lawyers.

There is a difference between doing the right thing and the legal thing.

 

[Marshall Law]

they say possession is 9/10's of the law

 

[JTyson]

If he has pics, should not be that hard to match the flame, the serial no does not seem to be in question. I doubt Gary is the one who stole it. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Same guitar, no question....

Wow thanks for putting that up, they are the same. To me, thats the same thing as a fingerprint. numbers can be changed. Gee, what to do? Both of those guys made history with that guitar, although Gary has probably spent more time with it. I dont know. I had a one-off Jackson Soloist ( a real one, from the earliest days) that got stolen, if I ever find someone with that guitar, I would want it back. I have no idea what the answer to this is. I do think Gary has put it to better use in the last 18 years than Ronnie would have, although the Montrose album is one of my all time killers.

 

[JTyson]

There is a difference between doing the right thing and the legal thing.

Agreed

 

[SeaDog]

Am I crazy here? I was under the impression that if you received stolen property in the US then the courts could definately sieze it and return it to the actual owner. I used to work at a music store and we had many items returned to us that people were forced to return when they bought it from thieves. I'm seeing many people state otherwise, are we sure that if he returns to the US that they can't force him to give it up? Sucks for both of them and I'm interested to see who actually stole it.

 

[Anonymous]

The real problem is gonna be this. Do you really think either of these guys have the money this guitar is worth? i doubt it.

 

[EXPcustom]

Am I crazy here? I was under the impression that if you received stolen property in the US then the courts could definately sieze it and return it to the actual owner. I used to work at a music store and we had many items returned to us that people were forced to return when they bought it from thieves. I'm seeing many people state otherwise, are we sure that if he returns to the US that they can't force him to give it up? Sucks for both of them and I'm interested to see who actually stole it.

This is a civil case not a criminal case. So no evidence can not be taken into custody since there is no Law Enforcement or warrant involved..

Next problem is the guitar is in the UK. How are you going to go get the guitar? You think the FBI is going to fly out with a warrant that is legally binding in both countries and take it for a civil case? Not going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 3860]

...

 

[Marshall Law]

the real tragedy was that J geils sold it for $750.00 30 years ago they should put him in jail

 

[Anonymous]

1973 the guitar was only 14 years old. nobody had insurance on anything. also all this vintage shit people pay stupid money for was new when all these recordings/ bands were done/ playing.

Ronnie tours with a valuable guitar. I'm guessing it was insured, either directly or as part of the touring gear. It is stolen. He files a claim. We'll assume Ronnie cashed the payout check.
In the event the guitar is recovered, the insurance company would own the guitar. Ronnie would have to first return the money and then could claim original ownership.
If the insurance company in question is no longer in service, then Gary would be the rightful owner because Ronnie has already been compensated.

If the guitar wasn't insured, then tough shit to Ronnie. He should have known better.

I'm not a lawyer, but that would be my argument in court if I were Gary.

Russ

 

[rupe]

The only thief here is Ronnie Montrose's lawyer.

This guitar was purchased in good faith. Gary Moore is in the UK so how are they going to serve him with papers unless he comes to the USA? Even if they serve him and he never shows up and they get a default judgement they still cant by law force him to surrender the guitar. All they can do is award monetary compensation.

This is not a criminal case they cant seize evidence so...

Moore is in possesion of the guitar and can claim it is a different serial if he choses to or not disclose the serial, then have a expert wood witness on the stand to state it is possible that the guitar has a different top that is similar.

Its a frivalous lawsuit at best and the only ones winning are the lawyers.

There is a difference between doing the right thing and the legal thing.

How the hell is this frivilous??? Purchased in good faith is meaningless if an item is determined to be stolen. There is a concept in the law that if an item is stolen, the theif cannot pass good "title" to whoever he sells it to and therefore no one who comes after the thief can have good title to the goods. Therefore, the original owner can reclaim the goods. This is the theory which allows hiers to try to obtain return of items stolen during war etc.

If this was truly stolen (and not sold) and there is proof (ie police report), then Ronnie should and most likely will get it back.

 

[Anonymous]

Shit rareguitar has more money than these guys.M aybe he should buuuuuy it.

 

[EXPcustom]

The only thief here is Ronnie Montrose's lawyer.

This guitar was purchased in good faith. Gary Moore is in the UK so how are they going to serve him with papers unless he comes to the USA? Even if they serve him and he never shows up and they get a default judgement they still cant by law force him to surrender the guitar. All they can do is award monetary compensation.

This is not a criminal case they cant seize evidence so...

Moore is in possesion of the guitar and can claim it is a different serial if he choses to or not disclose the serial, then have a expert wood witness on the stand to state it is possible that the guitar has a different top that is similar.

Its a frivalous lawsuit at best and the only ones winning are the lawyers.

There is a difference between doing the right thing and the legal thing.

How the hell is this frivilous??? Purchased in good faith is meaningless if an item is determined to be stolen. There is a concept in the law that if an item is stolen, the theif cannot pass good "title" to whoever he sells it to and therefore no one who comes after the thief can have good title to the goods. Therefore, the original owner can reclaim the goods. This is the theory which allows hiers to try to obtain return of items stolen during war etc.

If this was truly stolen (and not sold) and there is proof (ie police report), then Ronnie should and most likely will get it back.

Problem is Gary Moore and the guitar are in the UK. If I was Gary Moore I would tell the US lawyers to get bent. They can try and serve him papers.

We are not talking about war treasures or criminal war proceedings at the Hague. This is a guitar that disappeared over 30 years ago and unless Montrose has tons of cash to send process servers overseas and file a claim in the UK to make the summons even binding he is not getting shit, just his money taken by the lawyers.

Bottom line is no civil court can make anyone return property only monetary damages of the item at the time of loss, meaning he can only get back what it was worth at the time of loss. He should have just filed this in small claims and tried for 750 bucks back.

 

[johnnyjellybean]

1973 the guitar was only 14 years old. nobody had insurance on anything. also all this vintage shit people pay stupid money for was new when all these recordings/ bands were done/ playing.

Actually the reason all the players were buying old guitars was because the 70's guitars were so sh*t out of the box. It's because of the 70's guitars that the whole vintage market got started.
In 1973-75 sunbursts were selling anywhere from $1000 to $1500 and they went to about $2500 by 77.

 

[JTyson]

The only thief here is Ronnie Montrose's lawyer.

This guitar was purchased in good faith. Gary Moore is in the UK so how are they going to serve him with papers unless he comes to the USA? Even if they serve him and he never shows up and they get a default judgement they still cant by law force him to surrender the guitar. All they can do is award monetary compensation.

This is not a criminal case they cant seize evidence so...

Moore is in possesion of the guitar and can claim it is a different serial if he choses to or not disclose the serial, then have a expert wood witness on the stand to state it is possible that the guitar has a different top that is similar.

Its a frivalous lawsuit at best and the only ones winning are the lawyers.

There is a difference between doing the right thing and the legal thing.

How the hell is this frivilous??? Purchased in good faith is meaningless if an item is determined to be stolen. There is a concept in the law that if an item is stolen, the theif cannot pass good "title" to whoever he sells it to and therefore no one who comes after the thief can have good title to the goods. Therefore, the original owner can reclaim the goods. This is the theory which allows hiers to try to obtain return of items stolen during war etc.

If this was truly stolen (and not sold) and there is proof (ie police report), then Ronnie should and most likely will get it back.

Problem is Gary Moore and the guitar are in the UK. If I was Gary Moore I would tell the US lawyers to get bent. They can try and serve him papers.

We are not talking about war treasures or criminal war proceedings at the Hague. This is a guitar that disappeared over 30 years ago and unless Montrose has tons of cash to send process servers overseas and file a claim in the UK to make the summons even binding he is not getting shit, just his money taken by the lawyers.

Bottom line is no civil court can make anyone return property only monetary damages of the item at the time of loss, meaning he can only get back what it was worth at the time of loss. He should have just filed this in small claims and tried for 750 bucks back.

Oh, I see what you are saying now, they took his money, knowing they could not do anything about it. I did not know a civil proceeding could only result in monetary awards. wonder why that is?

 

[Anonymous]

1973 the guitar was only 14 years old. nobody had insurance on anything. also all this vintage shit people pay stupid money for was new when all these recordings/ bands were done/ playing.

maybe in canada. i bought les pauls used between 76-80 for $500 all day long for years. 60/70`s marshall`s for 300-400 all day long. i was there.

Actually the reason all the players were buying old guitars was because the 70's guitars were so sh*t out of the box. It's because of the 70's guitars that the whole vintage market got started.
In 1973-75 sunbursts were selling anywhere from $1000 to $1500 and they went to about $2500 by 77.

 

[Anonymous]

i re- read your post and i assume you are talking about 58-59 burst correct? if so i agree.

 

[* velcro-fly *]

maybe in canada. i bought les pauls used between 76-80 for $500 all day long for years. 60/70`s marshall`s for 300-400 all day long. i was there.

Shawn - you were buying 58' / 59 'Bursts for $500 ????

 

[Anonymous]

i wish

 

[Marshall Law]

I remember the days of $500 used les pauls, and marshall amps, I paid $450 for my 1981 2204 in 84
and $350.00 for my 1977 2203 those were the days