# Homeowner Terminates Our Contract And Keeps Our Tools !



## builditguy (Nov 10, 2013)

Go talk to the police. Maybe an officer did tell them this. I've seen officers say some unbelievable things. If an officer did say it, he won't admit it. Tell the police the story. Then have an officer go with you to get your tools. They are most likely still at the residence. They probably didn't go to the trouble of moving the tools. They also probably never talked to the police in the first place. Get your tools. If the homeowner says they don't have them or they are in storage, the officer will make the homeowner turn over the tools or get arrested for theft.
After you and the police get your tools, file a lien. Eventually they will settle because it is cheaper than fighting a lien.
The dispute over the work completed or not completed is a civil matter. The police and the DA will not touch it. The stolen tools is a criminal matter. The police and the DA will have no problem charging the homeowner. Especially if the homeowner moved them to a storage facility. It shows intent. If they left them sitting in their basement they will just say they moved them because they were in the way and were waiting for the contractor to come back and get them.
I'll bet money they never called the police or the DA.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

libbycop said:


> Best most accurate advice on this matter
> 
> 100% Civil matter-Not a Criminal matter
> 
> ...


Police have no authority or mandate to investigate a stolen property report? Since when... :blink:


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

libbycop said:


> Best most accurate advice on this matter
> 
> 100% Civil matter-Not a Criminal matter
> 
> ...


Sure they can. A criminal complaint can be made in regards to the tools. They have every right to investigate the charge. The may not be able to do much but they do have the authority to investigate.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

libbycop said:


> .....Police have no authority to mandate or even investigate this matter........


Damn!

I'm gonna start stealing tools since the cops won't get involved any more, don't investigate theft and there's no chance I'll get arrested or charged. That is now outside the scope of their work. 

Whoo hoo! You heard it here first, folks! Absconding with tools is now legal.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Damn!
> 
> I'm gonna start stealing tools since the cops won't get involved any more, don't investigate theft and there's no chance I'll get arrested or charged. That is now outside the scope of their work.
> 
> Whoo hoo! You heard it here first, folks! Absconding with tools is now legal.


Everyone has their opinions on what should happen, I agree but it is not theft. They did not take them from his vehicle, trailer or whatnot, call the police but do not be shocked when you are told it is civil because it is. 

Police are not required to investigate a matter that is not criminal, just FYI.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

brhokel606 said:


> Everyone has their opinions on what should happen, I agree but it is not theft. They did not take them from his vehicle, trailer or whatnot, call the police but do not be shocked when you are told it is civil because it is. Police are not required to investigate a matter that is not criminal, just FYI.


It don't matter where the tools are. They can be in the middle of the hood in the middle of the road. Theft if theft. They took something that didn't belong to them. That's criminal theft. Makes no difference if it was at the customers house or his brothers house. Theft is theft. 

A "friend" of my mums stole a bottle of perfume from her house. Police got involved and arrested her.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> Everyone has their opinions on what should happen, I agree but it is not theft. They did not take them from his vehicle, trailer or whatnot, call the police but do not be shocked when you are told it is civil because it is.
> 
> Police are not required to investigate a matter that is not criminal, just FYI.


It was theft the moment the refused to return them.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

One of the criteria to prove theft is merely the intent to deprive the owner of their property. Hence, just by keeping it at HO's residence and not allowing Contractor access to retrieve it is theft.

However, the totality of the circumstances makes this a civil problem and law enforcement will not intervene until they have a court order to do so.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

If it's not theft, what is he just "loaning" them the tools without his permission?... :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

brhokel606 said:


> Everyone has their opinions on what should happen, I agree but it is not theft. They did not take them from his vehicle, trailer or whatnot, call the police but do not be shocked when you are told it is civil because it is.
> 
> Police are not required to investigate a matter that is not criminal, just FYI.


You're entitled to your opinion.

However, the law says otherwise. It's *theft*. Pure and simple. Hands down. Case closed.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

480sparky said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> However, the law says otherwise. It's *theft*. Pure and simple. Hands down. Case closed.


I understand your point, I wish it was the way you explain but it is not. I do have experience in this and unfortunately it is civil not theft. The law states:

No person who takes, obtains, disposes of, or otherwise uses or acquires property, is guilty of theft by reason of such act if the person reasonably believes that the person has a right, privilege or license to do so, or if the person does in fact have such right, privilege or license.

If the HO makes the point about the reason the tools are there and reason for keeping them, it's Civil


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

brhokel606 said:


> I understand your point, I wish it was the way you explain but it is not. I do have experience in this and unfortunately it is civil not theft. The law states:
> 
> No person who takes, obtains, disposes of, or otherwise uses or acquires property, is guilty of theft by reason of such act if the person reasonably believes that the person has a right, privilege or license to do so, or if the person does in fact have such right, privilege or license.
> 
> If the HO makes the point about the reason the tools are there and reason for keeping them, it's Civil


The flaw in your reasoning is the HO *does not* have a right, privilege or license. They may _think _they do, but legally they do not.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

480sparky said:


> The flaw in your reasoning is the HO *does not* have a right, privilege or license. They may _think _they do, but legally they do not.


But they believe they do, I also work in Iowa, spent 21 years having a very intimate knowledge of Iowa Law, it is enough of a defense that makes it Civil.

I would think that at court the judge would require the tools to be returned but I have seen crazier things happen with 
Judges, so I never speculate what their verdict might be anymore.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

brhokel606 said:


> But they believe they do, I also work in Iowa, spent 21 years having a very intimate knowledge of Iowa Law, it is enough of a defense that makes it Civil.
> 
> I would think that at court the judge would require the tools to be returned but I have seen crazier things happen with
> Judges, so I never speculate what their verdict might be anymore.



Oh, I get it.

It's not what the law says, it's what _*I* think_.


Kewl.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> But they believe they do, I also work in Iowa, spent 21 years having a very intimate knowledge of Iowa Law, it is enough of a defense that makes it Civil.
> 
> I would think that at court the judge would require the tools to be returned but I have seen crazier things happen with
> Judges, so I never speculate what their verdict might be anymore.


But to say the police don't have the authority to investigate is flat out wrong. They have to determine if it is civil first. They must first rule out criminal action. During that investigation they would discover that they contractor never had intention of abandoning anything and would require the ho to return the tools.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

TNTSERVICES said:


> But to say the police don't have the authority to investigate is flat out wrong. They have to determine if it is civil first. They must first rule out criminal action. During that investigation they would discover that they contractor never had intention of abandoning anything and would require the ho to return the tools.


If the reporting party says enough that the officer believes it is civil, there is no investigation. Taking a report is not an investigation. 

Law enforcement CAN NOT legally make someone return property, that is civil! Sometimes they do to make things easier (make people believe they can do it)but in no way can an officer require someone to return items! They can arrest HO, take items as evidence, then it is the responsibility for the prosecuting attorney to decide if property needs to be retained for evidence or can be documented, then returned to the owner.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> If the reporting party says enough that the officer believes it is civil, there is no investigation. Taking a report is not an investigation.
> 
> Law enforcement CAN NOT legally make someone return property, that is civil! Sometimes they do to make things easier (make people believe they can do it)but in no way can an officer require someone to return items! They can arrest HO, take items as evidence, then it is the responsibility for the prosecuting attorney to decide if property needs to be retained for evidence or can be documented, then returned to the owner.


You are arguing symantics now. Showing up and asking questions is an investigation. I thought you said you know the law? Ever heard of being arrested at a scene because one was what? Wait for it...obstructing an investigation. Yep, if they show up and ask questions, they are indeed investigating it.

And they use the threat of arrest all of the time to compel parties to surrender property. Again, I thought you said you know the law and how it works. Funny, doesn't seem like it to me.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

TNTSERVICES said:


> You are arguing symantics now. Showing up and asking questions is an investigation. I thought you said you know the law? Ever heard of being arrested at a scene because one was what? Wait for it...obstructing an investigation. Yep, if they show up and ask questions, they are indeed investigating it.
> 
> And they use the threat of arrest all of the time to compel parties to surrender property. Again, I thought you said you know the law and how it works. Funny, doesn't seem like it to me.


I do not consider taking the report an investigation, subsequent follow up on the report is an investigation. I do have some knowledge there. Both of us are preaching semantics there. 

So next time you see an officer threatening to return property, push the issue, because I am correct on my statement. Have them arrest the party then return the property to the owner, see how that flies. 

I am glad you took police or law related studies, worked in the field and have a years of experience to fall back on when you judge something you have no idea about. Because wether or not "it seems like it too you", I am correct on this. 

Ask Libbycop, I am sure they will agree


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

I will however apologize that this thread has been derailed, I was trying to give the original poster the correct information so they have the knowledge to know how to proceed next. I have knowledge in this field and thought it was wise to share that, apparently what you feel should happen trumps that as to what actually can be done


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> I do not consider taking the report an investigation, subsequent follow up on the report is an investigation. I do have some knowledge there. Both of us are preaching semantics there.
> 
> So next time you see an officer threatening to return property, push the issue, because I am correct on my statement. Have them arrest the party then return the property to the owner, see how that flies.
> 
> ...


I'm not preaching semantics but facts. It is an investigation period. It doesn't matter what you consider it.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

TimNJ said:


> You should be stating in your contracts that all material is "yours" until it is installed,


Wouldn't that make it legally theirs once installed? How about everything is yours until payed for in full?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

RangoWA said:


> Wouldn't that make it legally theirs once installed? How about everything is yours until payed for in full?


Because the law states that once you attach it their structure it becomes part of the structure and therefore their property.

Always surprises me when a contractor doesn't know that.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Because the law states that once you attach it their structure it becomes part of the structure and therefore their property.
> 
> Always surprises me when a contractor doesn't know that.


Always surprises me when you speak. Why are you such an a-hole and did you have to work on it or did it come naturally to you? You know all 50 states laws do you? I'm sure there's more to it or they would just owe for labor. 

Get a life. Can someone tell me how to filter out this jackass? Thanks.


----------



## Unger.const (Jun 3, 2012)

RangoWA said:


> Always surprises me when you speak. Why are you such an a-hole and did you have to work on it or did it come naturally to you? You know all 50 states laws do you? I'm sure there's more to it or they would just owe for labor.
> 
> Get a life. Can someone tell me how to filter out this jackass? Thanks.


Soooooooo..........how do you really feel about him? Lol


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

Unger.const said:


> Soooooooo..........how do you really feel about him? Lol


I don't feel anything I just don't want to see any more of his personal crap. Which is mostly what he does.


----------



## BamBamm5144 (Jul 12, 2008)

RangoWA said:


> Always surprises me when you speak. Why are you such an a-hole and did you have to work on it or did it come naturally to you? You know all 50 states laws do you? I'm sure there's more to it or they would just owe for labor.
> 
> Get a life. Can someone tell me how to filter out this jackass? Thanks.



Well he is right...


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

BamBamm5144 said:


> Well he is right...


I asked a question and didn't need the juvenile reponse. But if you install a set of cabinets and it becomes legally theirs at the last turn of the screw, what's to prevent them from paying you only for labor? If it's theirs why pay for it?


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

RangoWA said:


> I asked a question and didn't need the juvenile reponse. *But if you install a set of cabinets and it becomes legally theirs at the last turn of the screw, what's to prevent them from paying you only for labor? If it's theirs why pay for it?*


Same thing that makes them pay for the labor... Contract...

If you put yourself in a position of leaving lots of money at the end of a job to lose, you increase your chances of doing exactly that...


----------



## pinwheel (Dec 7, 2009)

RangoWA said:


> I asked a question and didn't need the juvenile reponse. But if you install a set of cabinets and it becomes legally theirs at the last turn of the screw, what's to prevent them from paying you only for labor? If it's theirs why pay for it?


Dude, you need to unwind a little bit. He is right, don't take it personal.

As stated, don't leave a lot of money on the table at the end of the project. Large jobs, the most I'm gonna get burned for is 10%, because that's all I haven't collected near the end of the project.

Never had to yet, but I can walk from 10% without a lot of pain.


----------



## BamBamm5144 (Jul 12, 2008)

Yep. You can install 100k worth of material if you want. As soon as it's installed, it's theirs and you can't go back and take it out. That's why you get the money beforehand or have a very large bank account to pay for an attorney to get that money.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Depends on how it is worded. Not all castle doctrine based laws are the same.


They not the same in the very state? Weird, I have studied criminal law in 2 states and I guess you are right, there are differences, I never noticed that until just now! You are just so much more advanced and smarter than most of us I guess. 

I know, I have studied criminal law and civil law in Nebraska and Iowa, I think I have pretty good understanding of what would happen in either state. Thanks for your guessing though....


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

RangoWA said:


> Always surprises me when you speak. Why are you such an a-hole and did you have to work on it or did it come naturally to you? You know all 50 states laws do you? I'm sure there's more to it or they would just owe for labor.
> 
> Get a life. Can someone tell me how to filter out this jackass? Thanks.




Take it easy Rango.
You are fairly new to this site.
One thing that can be guaranteed from this site is that at some point, some time, somebody will always post something that may p*** you off.
Learn not to take it personal.

That same person may also give you a very valuable piece of advice at some point down the line.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

KAP said:


> Same thing that makes them pay for the labor... Contract...
> 
> If you put yourself in a position of leaving lots of money at the end of a job to lose, you increase your chances of doing exactly that...


The assertion is that the cabinets become their property when installed. Now you are saying that the cabinets are not their property? I'm trying to understand, it sounds conflicting.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

pinwheel said:


> Dude, you need to unwind a little bit. He is right, don't take it personal.
> 
> As stated, don't leave a lot of money on the table at the end of the project. Large jobs, the most I'm gonna get burned for is 10%, because that's all I haven't collected near the end of the project.
> 
> Never had to yet, but I can walk from 10% without a lot of pain.


I think you are assuming quite a bit. I don't take it personal, the opposite seems to be true. I asked a question and get a bunch of crap over it.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

TimNJ said:


> Take it easy Rango.
> You are fairly new to this site.
> One thing that can be guaranteed from this site is that at some point, some time, somebody will always post something that may p*** you off.
> Learn not to take it personal.
> ...


Thanks for your generous help, you too assume a lot. I wasn't born yesterday, it wasn't the first comment from the guy and I'm not the only guy he does it with. I asked how to filter him since it isn't like other sites I'm used to. Specific answers would be better, if you don't know that's fine but don't act like my daddy.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

RangoWA said:


> Always surprises me when you speak. Why are you such an a-hole and did you have to work on it or did it come naturally to you? You know all 50 states laws do you? I'm sure there's more to it or they would just owe for labor.
> 
> Get a life. Can someone tell me how to filter out this jackass? Thanks.


I'm not being an a-hole to point out something you should already know, or at least know before you dole out legal advice.

But yea, I am pretty sure that it's the law in the pretty much every state. Hell, I think it's even the same in Canada.

And if you don't want to see my posts, just put me on ignore.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> They not the same in the very state? Weird, I have studied criminal law in 2 states and I guess you are right, there are differences, I never noticed that until just now! You are just so much more advanced and smarter than most of us I guess.
> 
> I know, I have studied criminal law and civil law in Nebraska and Iowa, I think I have pretty good understanding of what would happen in either state. Thanks for your guessing though....


Lol...are you guys a bunch of girls. Holy cow, I have never seen so many panties in bunch and butt hurt guys in my life.

There's probably a reason you are a contractor and not a lawyer. But I guess my question is are you saying that the castle laws are the same every where? I just said they were not all the same after you said this:

"Ummmmmmm, if *your state* has the Castle Law, you can be killed for trying to retrieve you're tools......is it worth that?"

Seems like you are the know it all here. I'm not saying I know what they are, but I no for sure they are not all the same. That my friend is a fact.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

RangoWA said:


> I think you are assuming quite a bit. I don't take it personal, the opposite seems to be true. I asked a question and get a bunch of crap over it.


Nah, you have been reduced to calling me names, pretty obvious that you are taking it personal.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

RangoWA said:


> The assertion is that the cabinets become their property when installed. Now you are saying that the cabinets are not their property? I'm trying to understand, it sounds conflicting.


It's not an assertion, it's a fact. If you attach something to the dwelling or structure it become part of that dwelling or structure. You do not have the legal right to remove it. 

What he is saying is make sure that you get paid for it before you attach it. Again, something every contractor should know and should practice and this type of thing could be avoided all together.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I just don't see the issue here.


----------



## brhokel606 (Mar 7, 2014)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Lol...are you guys a bunch of girls. Holy cow, I have never seen so many panties in bunch and butt hurt guys in my life.
> 
> There's probably a reason you are a contractor and not a lawyer. But I guess my question is are you saying that the castle laws are the same every where? I just said they were not all the same after you said this:
> 
> ...


I never said I was an attorney, you assume something that is not a "fact". As you seem the love the word "fact". My earlier statement was referring to the Castle Law in general. I never stated it was the same in every state, I have NO IDEA where the OP lives as there was nothing in profile, so I made a blanked statement. 

We are adults here, there is no reason for you to be a constant dick that is apparently angry at the world. Maybe some of us took up a profession and grew tired of dead kids, the constant threat of death and people hurting there fellow man. You do what I have done for 21 years and see what I've seen, then and only then you can judge why I enjoy being a contractor.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

brhokel606 said:


> I never said I was an attorney, you assume something that is not a "fact". As you seem the love the word "fact". My earlier statement was referring to the Castle Law in general. I never stated it was the same in every state, I have NO IDEA where the OP lives as there was nothing in profile, so I made a blanked statement.
> 
> We are adults here, there is no reason for you to be a constant dick that is apparently angry at the world. Maybe some of us took up a profession and grew tired of dead kids, the constant threat of death and people hurting there fellow man. You do what I have done for 21 years and see what I've seen, then and only then you can judge why I enjoy being a contractor.


You said that if your state has a castle law you can be shot. That isn't blanket, especially when you quoted him when doing so. That is a direct statement to him. 

"Ummmmmmm, if *your *state has the Castle Law, *you* can be killed for trying to retrieve you're tools......is it worth that?"

Some states the law states if they have a reasonable path and time to escape they must try. Next time if you are being general clarify it with the proper language.

"Ummmmmmm, if a state has the Castle Law, one may be killed for trying to retrieve their tools......is it worth that?"

See the difference. That would have been a general statement, not a specific one like you made.

I'm not angry at the world. If it makes you feel better to think that go right ahead. I am just a straight shooter and don't think a grown man needs me to sugar coat things, but if you do, be sure to know that you aren't going to get it from me.


----------



## BamBamm5144 (Jul 12, 2008)

Don't worry TNT, I won't put you on my ignore list!


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

BamBamm5144 said:


> Don't worry TNT, I won't put you on my ignore list!


You get me.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Brings to mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3hRvXGpyAQ


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

RangoWA said:


> The assertion is that the cabinets become their property when installed. Now you are saying that the cabinets are not their property? I'm trying to understand, it sounds conflicting.


Well actually, you were saying and what I responded to was...
*
if you install a set of cabinets and it becomes legally theirs at the last turn of the screw, what's to prevent them from paying you only for labor? If it's theirs why pay for it?​*
I am not saying they are not their property once they are installed... What I was addressing was the pay part and what prevents them from not paying for the cabinets...

It's the contract (and enforcement if need be) that gets you the pay whether it's the cabinets or the labor...


----------

