[ my son was caught shoplifting at sears , weeks after I received a letter stating we have to pay $500.00 dollars or legal actions will be taken against us. Since he is a minor (15)and this was his first offence , what can I do as a parent? Am I obgligated to pay up?

My son was caught shoplifting at a sears store. Weeks later we were told in a letter we should pay $500.00 or face civil court. Since he is a minor are we obgligated to pay since the single item is way less than $500.00 and was retrived by the store security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheppy

[ my son was caught shoplifting at sears , weeks after i recieved a letter stating we have to pay $500.00 dollars or legal actions will be taken against us. since he is a minor (15)and this was his first offence , what can i do as a parent? am i obgligated to pay up?

---

Is this letter from Sears?

Were any goods damaged, lost, or otherwise rendered unsellable? If not, it appears to me that what Sears is doing is akin to extortion: threatening criminal prosecution unless you pay them money.

Are you obligated to pay? Probably not.

This "argument" has gone back and forth on AMHD for quite a while. A lot of people think it's extortion but can't provide any case law or anything else to back up that position; a lot of people think it's NOT extortion but, likewise, can't back up that position. A Canadian Attorney was involved in the discussion at one point and said it is NOT extortion BUT also couldn't give any type of law.

I have been told that the charge is to cover the expenses of apprehending and processing the shoplifter. The one letter that was posted on this subject did NOT say "if you don't pay we will take you to Court for shoplifting." It said "if you don't pay we will take you to Court to collect the $500."

What specifically does this letter say?

Hello s:

I don't think you're obligated to pay. I'd tell Sears to sue if they think they have a case. Judy is right. They'll claim the costs of arresting and processing your son... Your argument, in rebuttal, should be that these are NOT extraordinary expenses Sears had to incur. These people were on the payroll ANYWAY, and as a result, Sears suffered NO losses.

I can't believe they're threatening criminal action, if you don't pay. That's tantamount to an admission of extortion. But, maybe Sears doesn't hire very smart lawyers.

excon

PS> (edited) Somewhere in my drug addled brain I remember reading about a case that mirrored the position I suggested you take. I'mna go look now...

Hello again:

I didn't find the case I was looking for, but I DID find some other disconcerting information. Apparently there ARE a few states where civil demand is legal.

California's "civil recovery" statute is California Penal Code section 490.5(b) and (c).[3] The statute provides that a person who steals merchandise from a merchant or a book from a library may be civilly liable to the merchant or library for between $50 and $500, plus costs, plus the value of the item stolen if it has not been recovered in its original condition. The parent(s) of a minor may be sued if the crime is committed by an unemancipated minor. An action to recover damages under this section may be brought in small claims or traditional civil court.

The Supreme Court of Oregon held that Oregon's civil recovery statute is constitutional.

Tennessee law allow the recovery of the greater of $100 or twice the value of the stolen item.

I think the law is still developing on the matter.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I can't believe they're threatening criminal action, if you don't pay. That's tantamount to an admission of extortion.

---

Just a note here. This is exactly what the RIAA does when they sue people they think have downloaded music. It's been going on for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

... Apparently there ARE a few states where civil demand is legal.
...
I think the law is still developing on the matter.
...

---

Interesting.

As far as the OP is concerned, I would ask if the letter from Sears cited such a statute.

If you go back to #4 I asked specifically what the notice/letter says - and OP didn't answer.