[nwiswell]

> My inkling, as a former lawyer, is that this would not be theft if you didn't know the item was there

Not theft, but still conversion. The thief could sue you for the value of the items. When a car is repossessed the chattels (personal items) have to be returned to avoid liability. There is case law establishing that if you tell the repo agent you have stuff in the trunk and he drives off anyway, that's prima facie conversion (monetary liability) regardless of whether they try to return the items later.

[gnicholas]

I hadn't considered conversion, but it looks like under some statutes this still requires knowledge and/or intent. [1] It also appears that the 'unclean hands' doctrine could be invoked as a defense, and a thief who seeks return of his laptop that he stashed in your car that he stole would most certainly have unclean hands!

There is one wrinkle in the intent issue, which is that you may not have had intent to take the item when you drove off, but if you later discover it and didn't give it back, you might form the requisite intent at that time. All in all, this sounds like a good law school exam question!

1: https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/cali...

[CPLX]

Is there a citation for that case law?

It seems extremely unlikely that the simple repossession of a car with personal property is conversion given that roughly 100% of all repos will have at least some personal property within.

It’s clear they are obligated to return it to you, but your argument here doesn’t sound right.

[mannykannot]

This is not a repossession situation, so it is not obvious that the law is the same as it is with repossession.

[withinboredom]

Isn’t it literally repossessed when you steal back your car.

[mannykannot]

Not in the sense nwiswell is using the term, where the issue is the legal obligations that surround the case of repossession in response to loan default. Context matters.

Even more to the point, driving your own car is not stealing it, either.