Legal definition required | GTAMotorcycle.com

Legal definition required

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Let's say mom and dad kick the bucket and one of the heirs starts selling off mom or dad's stuff before the estate is settled, keeping the coin for themselves. Theft? or is there a more accurate term.
 
nobbie48 said:
Let's say mom and dad kick the bucket and one of the heirs starts selling off mom or dad's stuff before the estate is settled, keeping the coin for themselves. Theft? or is there a more accurate term.
Click to expand...

Certainly sounds like burglary or theft. The property belongs to the estate until the will/executor have done their job.
 
I believe that the appropriate term is "unlawful conversion", meaning treating the property of another as if it's your own. DoubleJ is correct that assets must be assigned via probate.
 
Thank you. I was referring to it as theft, which it is, but wanted the more accurate sub set.
 
The "legal principle" is termed "color of right" This means the "lawful owner" has color of right over the property. If someone removes the legal owner's, (in this case the estate, until the will is probated), color of right then it would be considered theft.

This is the term used in Canada by the courts. the term conversion is generally also accepted but it is primarily a US based term
 
Last edited:
hedo2002 said:
The "legal principle" is termed "color of right" This means the "lawful owner" has color of right over the property. If someone removes the legal owner's, (in this case the estate, until the will is probated), color of right then it would be considered theft.

This is the term used in Canada by the courts. the term conversion is generally also accepted but it is primarily a US based term
Click to expand...

Doesn't "colour of right" imply a good faith error on the part of the person who wrongfully takes possession of the property?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Doesn't "colour of right" imply a good faith error on the part of the person who wrongfully takes possession of the property?
Click to expand...

No it implies the person who took the item is denying the rightful owner the "color of right", of the item which constitutes the act of theft. That is what the law professor taught us when he was guess lecturer at the police academy oh sooo long ago..lol The term "colour of right" is what in legal terms defines ownership of the property. Without being able to establish "colour of right" you re unable to establish ownership.

Section 322 of the CCofC states:


  • 322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

    • (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

    • (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

    • (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

    • (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

The term convert or conversion, is used in the context of when the theft occurs and other relevant "explanations and definitions" of the act of the theft.

The remainder of CCofC Section 322 states, then section 323 and 324 deal with theft of oysters and oyster beds.:


  • [h=6]Time when theft completed[/h](2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.

  • [h=6]Marginal note:Secrecy[/h](3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.
  • [h=6]Marginal note:purpose of taking[/h](4) For the purposes of this Act, the question whether anything that is converted is taken for the purpose of conversion, or whether it is, at the time it is converted, in the lawful possession of the person who converts it is not material.
  • [h=6]Marginal note:Wild living creature[/h](5) For the purposes of this section, a person who has a wild living creature in captivity shall be deemed to have a special property or interest in it while it is in captivity and after it has escaped from captivity.

  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 283.

[h=6]Marginal note:Oysters[/h]
  • 323. (1) Where oysters and oyster brood are in oyster beds, layings or fisheries that are the property of any person and are sufficiently marked out or known as the property of that person, that person shall be deemed to have a special property or interest in them.

  • [h=6]Marginal note:Oyster bed[/h](2) An indictment is sufficient if it describes an oyster bed, laying or fishery by name or in any other way, without stating that it is situated in a particular territorial division.

  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 284.

[h=6]Marginal note:Theft by bailee of things under seizure[/h]324. Every one who is a bailee of anything that is under lawful seizure by a peace officer or public officer in the execution of the duties of his office, and who is obliged by law or agreement to produce and deliver it to that officer or to another person entitled thereto at a certain time and place, or on demand, steals it if he does not produce and deliver it in accordance with his obligation, but he does not steal it if his failure to produce and deliver it is not the result of a wilful act or omission by him.
 
Good luck bud.

My aunt cheated my father (her brother) bad....

This stuff breaks up families quicker than child protection services .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom