[freedox]

"Ricci worked for the Smarts last year for several months and was paid with a white Jeep in lieu of cash.....Ricci and two others were fired when some items were stolen from the home. Ricci later approached Ed Smart and said he wasn't involved and wanted his job back. Ed Smart declined to rehire him."

I'm still curious about this jeep deal. If Ricci was fired, how and when did he pay off the jeep? According to Ed Smart, the title to the jeep wasn't transferred to Ricci until September or October of 2001, several months after Ricci was allegedly fired. Why would Ed Smart allow a THIEF to possess and use a vehicle for several months while it was still titled in his name? As I understand it, Ed Smart was exposing himself to a huge liability risk during those several months......surely a businessman like Ed Smart was aware of this risk. Who, if anyone, was carrying insurance on the jeep during those months? At what point was Ricci's debt on the jeep considered "paid in full"?

This issue was bandied about on this forum some weeks ago......I don't think anyone ever came up with a reasonable explanation. I still find it bothersome.

[Jolly Green]

Why would Ed Smart allow a THIEF to possess and use a vehicle for several months while it was still titled in his name? As I understand it, Ed Smart was exposing himself to a huge liability risk during those several months......surely a businessman like Ed Smart was aware of this risk.

1) During that period Ed knew that one of the three workmen had stolen from him, but didn't know which one;

2) Smart's liability has more to do with when he cancelled the insurance on the Jeep than it does with when he transferred the title. In all probablilty, he did both at the same time - like most people.