[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.

[freedox]

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

This still would not explain why Ed Smart allowed Ricci to continue using the jeep while it was still in Ed Smart's name. Apparently, there was enough doubt there that Ed Smart declined to rehire Ricci.....which once again brings up the question of how and when Ricci paid off the jeep. Based upon today's posts, we now have 3 different stories on that.....Ed Smart says the jeep was worked off, David Smart says it was a gift, and Angela Ricci says it was paid off in cash.

"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."

So you are assuming that Ed Smart continued to carry insurance on this vehicle for the several months that Ricci was in possession of it prior to title transfer? Why would he do something like that for a fired handyman?