The 1973 Astroglass watercraft -- 15 foot -- Registration IN 0989 HL-INZ030987037 will be titled in the name of Mr. Carl Pitcock.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On July 3, 1990, the department of natural resources (the "Department") made the decision to title an Astroglass boat -- 15 foot-- Registration IN 0989 HL-INZ030987037 (the "Boat") in the name of Carl Pitcock.
2. On July 20, 1990, Robert Nicodemus (the "Claimant"), by counsel, filed an objection to said titling.
3. Mr. Nicodemus maintained that he was the current lawful owner of the boat.
4. IC 4-21.5 and 310 IAC 0.6 apply to this proceeding.
5. The natural resources commission (the "NRC") is an agency as defined in IC 4-21.5-1-3 and is the ultimate authority for this proceeding.
6. The Claimant was a prior owner of the boat.
7. He stored the boat in Hancock County at the home of a Mr. Sandifer in August 1988.
8. He testified that since that date he assumed the boat was in storage and only upon receiving a letter from the Department did he realize that Mr. Pitcock had the boat.
9. He then filed a stolen property report with the Hancock County Sheriff on July 17, 1990.
10. Mr. Nicodemus now wants his boat back and a new title as he claims that his old title was lost during a traumatic period in his life (divorce, bankruptcy, etc.).
11. Mr. Pitcock obtained the boat from Mr. Ed Tiller for $1,000. The boat had passed through several owners and the title disappeared. The chain had apparently begun with Mr. Sandifer, who had accepted the boat from the Claimant for storage.
12. The question here is: did Mr. Sandifer illegally convert the boat?
13. The Claimant testified that no storage fee had been discussed with Mr. Sandifer and that the title had not changed hands.
14. However, Mehawee ("Stormy") Runion of the Division of Law Enforcement testified as to a telephone conversation she had with the Claimant in the summer of 1990 reference the boat.
15. Stormy testified as follows as to what Mr. Nicodemus said:
a. He knew for a year the boat was gone but had not filed a stolen boat report.
b. He owed the storage facility money for storage.
c. He gave the title to the boat to Mr. Sandifer to cover his large storage bill.
d. Therefore, when he found his boat was missing, it did not really bother him.
16. While Stormy's testimony is hearsay, it is admissible under the admissions of a party exception to the hearsay rule.
17. In addition, Stormy made a contemporaneous written record of this conversation.
18. Mr. Nicodemus does not recall making the admissions that Stormy testitied to. In fact, he denies that there is any truth in her statements.
19. Mr. Sandifer is ill and out of state, and could give not evidence in this case.
20. Neither Mr. Pitcock nor Mr. Tiller had any first hand knowledge of any deal made between the Claimant and Mr. Sandifer.
21. This case hangs on the conflicting testimony of Ms. Runion and Mr. Nicodemus.
22. Ms. Runion's testimony is much more credible than Mr. Nicodemus' for two reasons:
a. She has no interest in the boat, and therefore,
b. she produced a writing made contemporaneously with the alleged conversation which authenticates her statements.
23. Therefore, it must be concluded that the Claimant agreed to pay storage when he left the boat with Mr. Sandifer.
24. Further, he gave title to the boat to Mr. Sandifer when the storage bill became large and could not be paid.
25. The Claimant never paid
[VOLUME 6, PAGE 17]
his storage bill, so Mr. Sandifer sold the boat to satisfy the bill.
26. This boat sale must have been contemplated by the Claimant when he left the title with Mr. Sandifer, and then never returned to pay his bill.
27. Mr. Pitcock made a bonafide purchase of the boat from Mr. Tiller.
28. Based on the above facts, it would not be fair to return the boat to Mr. Nicodemus.
29. Mr. Pitcock should be allowed to title the boat.