Lost and found 1916 Gibson F2 - Need input

[journeybear]

HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! Only a guy from Florida would suggest someone from Alaska to move there!!!!!!!!

Ha indeed! I should have mentioned this would make more sense in the winter, not right now. I'm thinking this would be the time of year for me to go up there!

[Ivan Kelsall]

From BobA - "The mandolin was purchased in good faith,...". ''Good faith'' has nothing at all to do with the laws apertaining to theft & illegal trade deals. If i stole John Reischman's Lloyd Loar & sold it to a.n.other who paid for it ''in good faith'' - who does that mandolin belong to ?. Not me & not to the new owner. It still remains the property of JR. Whether he'd 'loaned' it to me doesn't cut the mustard either. If i sell something that does not belong to me - that is theft, & the action of selling it is an illegal transaction. How could it not be ?.
In the UK we have the ''Sale of Goods Act'' which outlines in no uncertain terms who can sell what,& i'm pretty sure the US has exactly the same laws in place.
The bottom line is that you can't sell somebody else's property either stolen or ''loaned'' ,because not being your legal property,you have no right in law to sell it - or indeed,give it away.
If one of us had our car stolen,only to find it a few days later in somebody else's ownership,because the thief had sold it & the new owner had paid for it ''in good faith'' - would you accept the new owners plea of ''i bought it in good faith'' as a good reason for him to keep it ? - I think not !. Even if you do think that's 'reasonable',how would you feel if the new owner offered you the car back for the $20,000 US he paid the thief for it. Beware ! - any truthful answers might get you banned from the Cafe for life,
With regard to Jimmy Powells post # 41 read this :-
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/co...right-to-sell/
"If you buy something which turns out to be stolen, you won’t own them. The general rule is that they will still belong to the original owner, even if you pay a fair price for them and didn't know that they were stolen"
Ivan

[Tom C]

I agree with Alaksmando for trying to work it out. Who would feel right playing it knowing it's at somebody else's expense. It all goes back to Dan Ison but unfortunately he' not around so somebody is going to have to absorb the expense and it may have to be the "collector" if he wants his mando back. Sometimes it's more than the money and more about the instrument so I understand when Alaskamando says it cant end happy for all.

[Isaac Revard]

This poor mandolin, like a foster child without a real mom and dad. The way I see it is the mandolin is the victim here. What can we do to ensure it has some sort of "normal" life and upbringing? Perhaps in a players hands is best? I think listening to a banjo player in this case would be similar to taking the advice of some crooked cps worker. Tragic situation.

[Jeff Mando]

A lot of good points here. Interesting, for sure.

Many people feel if an item was stolen a long time ago and bought and sold many times over the years that it somehow becomes "unstolen". It doesn't. It always remains the property of the original owner who lent it. This differs from the old adage, "possession is nine tenths of the law" and has become the story line of great movies, like The Maltese Falcon.

People are asking where the blame should be. It is on Dan. When he pawned something that was not his, he stole it. Of course, Dan is not around to face the blame. The others who bought and sold it are victims. The pawn shop had a right to sell it, as there was no police report stating otherwise. The man who bought it at the pawn shop had a right to sell it on Craigslist--he probably even had a bill of sale from the pawn shop. Alaskamando bought it from someone who felt they had clear ownership. It gets messy at this point.

The "good" news in all of this is that the mandolin never left town! If the pawn shop or the Craigslist guy had used eBay, the mandolin could be in Japan by now....(or anywhere, for that matter). That would complicate things to another level. (and the mandolin probably would never return).

I think local politics should prevail. Music is a small community. Like I previously stated, given the population of Alaska, it is probably the ONLY 1916 Gibson F-2 in the entire state. Even in NYC or Los Angeles, I'm guessing there might only be two or three 1916 F-2's still around in music circles. And yes, as previously stated, somebody is going to lose money and probably lose a cool mandolin. No winners here, really. Good luck and best wishes.

[fscotte]

The collector is really at fault, and its his issue to work out. I think he should have filed a stolen report the moment he realized it wasn't coming back. For whatever reason he failed to do so - maybe he like Dan too much to do that.. but that's irrelevant. You can't loan out an item and then expect to get it back 10 years later when you've never filed it stolen. There's laws and then there's ethical law. The law is clearly on the buyers side. The item is NOT stolen. The ethical law however falls somewhere in between.

There's good reason why the collector is at fault. Otherwise, my grandad loaned out at least 10 Loar's way back when he was 20 years old. I want them back.

[Austin Bob]

The collector is really at fault, and its his issue to work out. I think he should have filed a stolen report the moment he realized it wasn't coming back. For whatever reason he failed to do so - maybe he like Dan too much to do that.. but that's irrelevant. You can't loan out an item and then expect to get it back 10 years later when you've never filed it stolen. There's laws and then there's ethical law. The law is clearly on the buyers side. The item is NOT stolen. The ethical law however falls somewhere in between.

There's good reason why the collector is at fault. Otherwise, my grandad loaned out at least 10 Loar's way back when he was 20 years old. I want them back.

I understand your logic, but I think saying the collector is at fault is a bit strong. Negligent... yes, he did not file a police report. But he is a victim of Dan's actions. Obviously he was a fan of Dan, and most likely did not want to get him in trouble with the law, or perhaps he was simply not aware of the consequences of not acting as soon as he knew Dan had left the area. Maybe he did not want to add any more grief to Dan's family after he learned that Dan had taken his own life.

[jljohn]

EDITED TO ADD: I also posted this before seeing the Page 2 update from the OP, but I will leave it anyway:

The volume of legal advice given and assertions made in this thread is really quite funny, especially the legal decalarations coming from those in other countries! I am assuming you are in a state of the United States, right? If so, the best piece of advise you've been given is to consult a lawyer in your state. It should only take a brief consult and maybe a short bit of research to establish whether the original owner has a claim. My guess is that he would try to establish if you are a good faith purchaser, whether that cuts short another's interest in the mandolin, and whether there are any other relevant issues to consider. But, you need to talk to an attorney in your state, and he will be qualified to give you the legal advice you need.

The other questions are: First, is this even the mandolin of local lore? If not, then there is no issue. Second, if it is the mandolin of local lore, was it disposed of without the knowledge of or against the wishes of the then owner? If not, again there is no issue. So, I suppose you could let it ride and see if the original owner comes calling, or you could be proactive and go talk with the original owner. If you decide (out of a moral compunction) to go ask him about it, I'd be savvy about it. I wouldn't take the mando in and ask "is this yours?" It's been a long time--he might just say "yes" and be wrong. Instead, I'd ask him if he has a verifiable record of identifying features, like the serial number. But that's just what I would do. YMMV!

If it was once his, and if it was disposed of against his wishes, I see three options--(1) seek the proper outcome under the law, (2) seek a solution that you deem ethically best (I could imagine this being either "it belongs to him" or "it belongs to me"), or (3) seek a compromise. None of us can settle this for you. There are solid arguments to be made in favor of each position. On the one hand, you could say that the law exists to settle these disputes, and you should follow the law. On another hand, you could look at it as if ownership is absolute until given up or legitimately taken, and since the mando was stolen, it is still the property of the original owner. Finally, you could look at transactions from a systemic and pragmatic perspective and argue that if the marketplace is to operate efficiently, people need to be able to be secure in owning what they buy in good faith (i.e. without any knowledge or suspicion that it is stolen). Under this thinking the recourse of the original owner would be only against the thief or any who purchased in bad faith. In other words, the mando is yours now. Only you can settle this quasi-moral question.

Best of luck with all of this, and keep us posted!

[jljohn]

A lot of good points here. Interesting, for sure.

Many people feel if an item was stolen a long time ago and bought and sold many times over the years that it somehow becomes "unstolen". It doesn't. It always remains the property of the original owner who lent it.

If you actually believe this, what do you propose that we do with the majority of the land "owned" in the U.S.? I know that this notion sounds good, but it's strict application would yield ridiculous results. There has to be cutting-off point somewhere or all ownership would be highly suspect! The contents of most major museums would be plundered, all land ownership would be called into question, and then you would get the really hard questions like, if an item you bought was built with stolen (i.e. slave or underpaid) labor isn't at least a portion of its existence the rightful property of it's maker from whom labor was stolen? In my opinion, your proposed bright-line rule cannot function in this imperfect and complicated world.

[barney 59]

If you actually believe this, what do you propose that we do with the majority of the land "owned" in the U.S.? I know that this notion sounds good, but it's strict application would yield ridiculous results. There has to be cutting-off point somewhere or all ownership would be highly suspect! The contents of most major museums would be plundered, all land ownership would be called into question, and then you would get the really hard questions like, if an item you bought was built with stolen (i.e. slave or underpaid) labor isn't at least a portion of its existence the rightful property of it's maker from whom labor was stolen? In my opinion, your proposed bright-line rule cannot function in this imperfect and complicated world.

Museums seem to have been able to skirt this situation. Museums are loaded with stolen art and antiquities. The Elgin Marbles come to mind. People and countries want their stuff back and can't get it or get compensation or maybe get "compensation" of some sort when really all they want is it! The OP has communicated with the man who lent it. It seems that everyone involved believes this to be THE mandolin so there is no reason to question that. Both parties define as to what happened to this mandolin a series of events that add up to one result--It was stolen! So whether there is hard legal paperwork that this belongs to the collector or not all parties know the actual truth of the matter. People lose out in court all the time because of technicalities when they really are in the right morally and ethically. Personally I believe this mandolin belongs to the collector just like I think the Elgin Marbles belong to Greece. As people we can decide to do what is right or if we have the ability, hide behind the "Law". It's a moral choice but no matter what one lawyer says if it were to go that way my bet that the one that walks away with the mandolin is the one with the better lawyer or that is willing to spend the most money to get or keep the thing!
I might add that from all appearances it seems that the OP is attempting to work this out in a proper way. Hopefully he doesn't take too much of a hit!

[jljohn]

Museums seem to have been able to skirt this situation. Museums are loaded with stolen art and antiquities. The Elgin Marbles come to mind. People and countries want their stuff back and can't get it or get compensation or maybe get "compensation" of some sort when really all they want is it! The OP has communicated with the man who lent it. It seems that everyone involved believes this to be THE mandolin so there is no reason to question that. Both parties define as to what happened to this mandolin a series of events that add up to one result--It was stolen! So whether there is hard legal paperwork that this belongs to the collector or not all parties know the actual truth of the matter. People lose out in court all the time because of technicalities when they really are in the right morally and ethically. Personally I believe this mandolin belongs to the collector just like I think the Elgin Marbles belong to Greece. As people we can decide to do what is right or if we have the ability, hide behind the "Law". It's a moral choice but no matter what one lawyer says if it were to go that way my bet that the one that walks away with the mandolin is the one with the better lawyer or that is willing to spend the most money to get or keep the thing!
I might add that from all appearances it seems that the OP is attempting to work this out in a proper way. Hopefully he doesn't take too much of a hit!

Agreed. I think that there are some clear cases (the Elgin Marbles come to mind), and I agree that the OP is handling this in an admirable manner. I was only questioning the blanket and generalized assertion that a stolen item will always and forever belong to the one it was stolen from. That sort of unqualified dictum can yield some bizarre results. In this case, kudos to the OP for seeking a right and fair resolution for all parties.

OP--have you considered looping the craigslist seller and the pawnshop owner into any potential resolution, if they are willing? Maybe all four of you would be willing to split the loss in some way that lessens the blow to the victim of the theft and to the fellow holding the hot potato (i.e. you). Especially since it sounds like craigslist seller got 10 or more years of use out of it, it might be nice if he could participate.

[BJ O'Day]

This poor mandolin, like a foster child without a real mom and dad. The way I see it is the mandolin is the victim here. What can we do to ensure it has some sort of "normal" life and upbringing? Perhaps in a players hands is best? I think listening to a banjo player in this case would be similar to taking the advice of some crooked cps worker. Tragic situation.

By god you're right. I'll "Adopt" this mandolin and give it a good home.
BJ

[Jeff Mando]

point already made by someone else

[Ivan Kelsall]

From jljohn - "Only you can settle this quasi-moral question.". Since when have theft & illegal transactions in disposing of other people's property been ''quasi-moral'' ?. They're ILLEGAL !,
Ivan

[stevedenver]

bobby bills info is the same as colo. law.
i understand your lawyers rationale, but i also think based on striking an accord with collector, there is obviously doubt.
failure to file is not , imho, an estopple.

if collector takes no action now, that may change.

based on your op,


you own stolen property.
there is no statute of limitations.
without more info, loan items don't morph into ownership

its really in the collectors hands, and what he says.
(unless of course there are more 'maybes')

while you are likely to be able away with continued possession / ownership
either because it is isn't worth it to the collector to pursue, or, some thing else.....

this has been an assumption that many have made, to thier detriment.
posting here.....honest but not so good for your "good faith" position.
your notifying Collector, that changes everything.

i have been in a similar situation, and i am certain of what i say, at least under colorado law.

[Phil Goodson]

All good points above. The conscience must guide.

But, since it hasn't been mentioned, I'd also ask if the collector happened to deduct the loss on his income tax that year. Although there might actually be (3 years maybe?) a statute of limitations on correcting tax records, it might give the collector a more comfortable way out if he recalls that he has gained some benefit from the loss.

Just a random thought.

[jljohn]

From jljohn - "Only you can settle this quasi-moral question.". Since when have theft & illegal transactions in disposing of other people's property been ''quasi-moral'' ?. They're ILLEGAL !,
Ivan

Ivan,

Are you a licensed attorney in the state of the OP? Your profile indicates that you are in England, so I am guessing not. You are really trying to make a moral statement and assuming that the your view of the moral outline of this situation is mirrored by the law. The OP consulted an attorney, and the attorney did what he is paid to do--assess the known facts and give advice under the law. The advice is that, under the law, the mandolin belongs to the OP. Apparently, under the law of the state in which the OP resides, the law allows once stolen property to become lawfully someone else's, leaving the original owner only monetary redress against the thief. (FWIW, I don't think your stolen automobile example above is a good case study, because the transfer of an automobile requires a signed sheet of paper. If you buy a car by paying cash and walking away without the legal documents of ownership, I don't see how you could be acting in good faith. Whereas, buying an instrument from a private seller who owned it for more than a decade and has purchase documents from a business seems like good faith to me.) I don't know how the attorney reached that conclusion. There may also be other issues in play here.

Let's not forget that significant time has passed, elevating the importance of other significant questions. One of the two key people is dead, and the only one alive stands only to gain from this situation, so his word is automatically suspect. He may have told Dan, "Shucks, just keep it. It's yours." Dan may have paid him $100 bucks for it. I can imagine any number of situations. We don't know, and local legend and scuttlebutt is worthless in establishing what actually happened. A reasonable person who suffered the loss of a, what, $4,000??? mandolin via theft would do something--file a police report (although he might skip this if he wanted spare Dan's family), deduct it on his taxes as a theft loss, mentioned it in an email to his sister, etc. The point is, he should have done something if he hoped to get it back. If there is nothing anywhere from 13 years ago that indicates that this was an actual theft, it raises substantial suspicion that it wasn't a clear theft.

My point is that this is a difficult situation for the OP. He wants to believe the collector--who wouldn't; we all want to believe each other. And he wants the collector to be made as whole as can be without taking the entire hit himself. Kuddos to him on that. Under the law, according our only authorized source (the OP's attorney), the mandolin belongs to the OP. So, given the mix of moral compunction in play and the possibility that the collector for file suit to recover the mandolin, the question of how to move forward is a quasi-moral/quasi-legal/quasi-pragmatic question. It bears elements of all three, and it cannot be reduced to the simple principle you have asserted.

[FLATROCK HILL]

Ivan,...the question of how to move forward is a quasi-moral/quasi-legal/quasi-pragmatic question...

...all we'd need is for one of the involved parties to live in a bell tower...

[jljohn]

...all we'd need is for one of the involved parties to live in a bell tower...

Touche!

[fscotte]

Ivan,

Are you a licensed attorney in the state of the OP? Your profile indicates that you are in England, so I am guessing not. You are really trying to make a moral statement and assuming that the your view of the moral outline of this situation is mirrored by the law. The OP consulted an attorney, and the attorney did what he is paid to do--assess the known facts and give advice under the law. The advice is that, under the law, the mandolin belongs to the OP. Apparently, under the law of the state in which the OP resides, the law allows once stolen property to become lawfully someone else's, leaving the original owner only monetary redress against the thief. (FWIW, I don't think your stolen automobile example above is a good case study, because the transfer of an automobile requires a signed sheet of paper. If you buy a car by paying cash and walking away without the legal documents of ownership, I don't see how you could be acting in good faith. Whereas, buying an instrument from a private seller who owned it for more than a decade and has purchase documents from a business seems like good faith to me.) I don't know how the attorney reached that conclusion. There may also be other issues in play here.

Let's not forget that significant time has passed, elevating the importance of other significant questions. One of the two key people is dead, and the only one alive stands only to gain from this situation, so his word is automatically suspect. He may have told Dan, "Shucks, just keep it. It's yours." Dan may have paid him $100 bucks for it. I can imagine any number of situations. We don't know, and local legend and scuttlebutt is worthless in establishing what actually happened. A reasonable person who suffered the loss of a, what, $4,000??? mandolin via theft would do something--file a police report (although he might skip this if he wanted spare Dan's family), deduct it on his taxes as a theft loss, mentioned it in an email to his sister, etc. The point is, he should have done something if he hoped to get it back. If there is nothing anywhere from 13 years ago that indicates that this was an actual theft, it raises substantial suspicion that it wasn't a clear theft.

My point is that this is a difficult situation for the OP. He wants to believe the collector--who wouldn't; we all want to believe each other. And he wants the collector to be made as whole as can be without taking the entire hit himself. Kuddos to him on that. Under the law, according our only authorized source (the OP's attorney), the mandolin belongs to the OP. So, given the mix of moral compunction in play and the possibility that the collector for file suit to recover the mandolin, the question of how to move forward is a quasi-moral/quasi-legal/quasi-pragmatic question. It bears elements of all three, and it cannot be reduced to the simple principle you have asserted.

Well said and my sentiment as well. The more I think about the situation the more I see the OP as 100% rightful owner.

[Spnrclf]

The attorney for the collector should assert that there has been a tort known as "conversion" perpetrated by the borrower upon the collector as the original title holder, see 512 P.2d 937, Supreme Court of Alaska. Leo ROLLINS, Appellant, v. Hans M. LEIBOLD, Appellee.No. 1646. July 25, 1973 (a case about conversion of a crane). Also, that the conversion has been continued by the current possessor. He could then institute an action for replevin under Alaska Statute § 09.40.260. Claim for delivery of personal property. "In an action to recover possession of personal property, the plaintiff may, at any time after the action is commenced and before judgment, claim the immediate delivery of the property."

Conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, resulting in the alteration of their condition, or to the exclusion of the owner's rights.

The burden of proving that the collector holds title is on the collector. It would appear from above that he may be able to find witnesses to validate that the borrower had publicly acknowledged borrowing the mandolin from the collector. The borrower then made the "conversion" when he sold it to the pawnshop. The current bona fide purchaser is unlikely to be seen by a trial court as holding a clear title and could be viewed as continuing the conversion. The remedies open to the collector are for trover (damages) or replevin (possession).

[stevedenver]

Ivan,

Are you a licensed attorney in the state of the OP? Your profile indicates that you are in England, so I am guessing not. You are really trying to make a moral statement and assuming that the your view of the moral outline of this situation is mirrored by the law. The OP consulted an attorney, and the attorney did what he is paid to do--assess the known facts and give advice under the law. The advice is that, under the law, the mandolin belongs to the OP. Apparently, under the law of the state in which the OP resides, the law allows once stolen property to become lawfully someone else's, leaving the original owner only monetary redress against the thief. (FWIW, I don't think your stolen automobile example above is a good case study, because the transfer of an automobile requires a signed sheet of paper. If you buy a car by paying cash and walking away without the legal documents of ownership, I don't see how you could be acting in good faith. Whereas, buying an instrument from a private seller who owned it for more than a decade and has purchase documents from a business seems like good faith to me.) I don't know how the attorney reached that conclusion. There may also be other issues in play here.

Let's not forget that significant time has passed, elevating the importance of other significant questions. One of the two key people is dead, and the only one alive stands only to gain from this situation, so his word is automatically suspect. He may have told Dan, "Shucks, just keep it. It's yours." Dan may have paid him $100 bucks for it. I can imagine any number of situations. We don't know, and local legend and scuttlebutt is worthless in establishing what actually happened. A reasonable person who suffered the loss of a, what, $4,000??? mandolin via theft would do something--file a police report (although he might skip this if he wanted spare Dan's family), deduct it on his taxes as a theft loss, mentioned it in an email to his sister, etc. The point is, he should have done something if he hoped to get it back. If there is nothing anywhere from 13 years ago that indicates that this was an actual theft, it raises substantial suspicion that it wasn't a clear theft.

My point is that this is a difficult situation for the OP. He wants to believe the collector--who wouldn't; we all want to believe each other. And he wants the collector to be made as whole as can be without taking the entire hit himself. Kuddos to him on that. Under the law, according our only authorized source (the OP's attorney), the mandolin belongs to the OP. So, given the mix of moral compunction in play and the possibility that the collector for file suit to recover the mandolin, the question of how to move forward is a quasi-moral/quasi-legal/quasi-pragmatic question. It bears elements of all three, and it cannot be reduced to the simple principle you have asserted.

I guess I too ask are you a lawyer?

I would guess that in fact the law in every state is the same as in Colorado, even Alaska, (I have looked briefly at the criminal statute), and, once stolen always stolen, and nothing would limit restitution /damages to monetary only. IMHO, to think otherwise (regarding monetary damages as the only recourse) is irrational in terms of unique property. Its irrational in giving someone the incentive to steal something and hide it away, fence it, pawn it, etc. That's why there's no statute of limitations.

Why would the original owners word be suspect for his property? This is, imho, simply dumb in light of OP's own statement saying he believes the OP and that the mando was his. This whole d*&^ned thing depends on credibility. Who's story will a judge believe.

I can think of a few things as to why no action was taken; because the lendee didn't have an estate, his whereabouts wasn't known, his death might not have been known for a year or more, etc.

I suspect that the OPs lawyer is being a smart lawyer, ie don't admit or surrender anything until you have too. I am certain he/she has some good arguments. I would be willing to bet too, that the lawyer didn't do one jot of investigation, other than to speak with OP, and no others, other than the Collector. As I mention above, this changes things from OP being an accessory to being a bona fide claimant.

Might it be that the Collector, having received a call from a lawyer, or knowing one had been consulted, could be intimidated, fearing a tangle resulting well in excess of the mandos worth.... ? I think this may well be the reality.

The lack of a receipt by the Collector may make his claim more difficult, but its well established that ownership/payment is not dependent on having a receipt. It just helps establish that payment was made. (different for auto titles, real estate and other stuff governed by statute to avoid this kind of issue). OTOH, of all my stuff, I doubt I have any receipts after six months.

I fully suspect, however, that what the lawyer will attempt to do is try to shift the burden of proof of ownership to the collector. IMHO< doesn't change a thing. Arguable, you bet. That's how lawyers make a living, regardless of the real merits. Its creating an economic stake. Who do you believe? And, a judge might well think, too bad, you were sloppy with your toys, and I have doubts, tough.


Simply, if it was loaned, as was stated, and cannot be contradicted be a dead person or anyone else as far as we know, its ownership has not changed. No mention of abandonment, or, gift. Certainly an argument. But the mere passage of time tolls nothing, imho. (yet many a lawnmower or snow shovel loaned to a shifty neighbor has IN FACT suffered a different fate....LOL.

im afraid I agree with Ivan's straight forward logic on this one. and short of other facts,
not one of which has been put forth, and upon which I rely, I think a judge would as well.

I don't take issue with the good faith of the OP at the time of purchase. he had no reason to believe anything else. Just like any of us buying from the classifieds. As for title, imho, doesn't change a thing.

[billhay4]

This should be put to a well-deserved rest.
Bill

[fscotte]

It may be considered abandoned property by the personal property definition as well. If you loan an item to another, then fail to keep possession of it, then it becomes abandoned, which then anyone can lay claim. Keeping possession of a loaned item means you know the whereabouts of said item. So the collector seems to have lost all interest in maintaining its position in space, thus he loses his claim - abandoned. It is not a good defense to say that you didn't want to cause trouble with the borrower. You lose your loaned items position in space, you lose your rightful claim. Once you realize the loaned item is missing, then you have the obligation to report it lost or stolen.

[Spnrclf]

This mandolin is unlikely to be considered abandoned property. Abandoned property is usually personal property that was deposited with a bank in a safe deposit box, and then never claimed after the rent ran out. In Massachusetts, abandoned property then comes under the control of the State Treasurer who will seek the owner. Property that is not returned to original owners is then auctioned off.

You have heard the phrase "caveat emptor". Anyone purchasing an instrument is wise to assure themselves in whatever fashion that the person selling the instrument has the authority to do so, either as the owner of title or as an agent for that owner. Purchasers should also document their purchases. This situation is a real eye-opener. Some bargains are not bargains at all.

One of the questions I have is: did the Craigslist seller sell in "good faith", or had he an inkling that the mandolin's title was clouded?