In case anyone tried to answer - I screwed up and posted it for a vote. I can guess where that vote would go. So, to try it again, is anyone proesecuting these cases in which the renter makes "rent payments" for some months and then absconds? That seems to kill intent to deprive at the time of transfer. Any thoughts on theft of service? Thanks.

You may want to try one of the check fraud /theft by check division prosecutors in your office?? If you don't have one, I suspect that Bexar or Travis counties do. If not, Fort Bend and Harris counties have one. They handle those situations all the time.

Prosecuting under Theft of Service 31.04?

Having family members in the equipment rental business, there is a difference between this type of rental business and rent-to-own companies. In my opinion, rent-to-own companies are set up to charge a usurious interest rate to poor credit risk people. When these bad risks don't pay, I think they've gotten what they deserve. And that's a civil matter. On the other hand, a real rental business, that rents something to someone with a return date, is in a lot better position to prosecute for theft of service than the rent-to-own business. It's still hard to prove intent sometimes. The renters seem to always have the story that "I gave it to my friend and he was supposed to bring it back."

The language of 31.04 (and 31.03 for that matter) do not seem to exclude rent-to-own. I have also been looking for case law on this (have found none pro or con) and notice that the rent-to-own contract is closely patterned after the wording of 31.04, right down to the number of "notice" days. Has anyone had cases dealing with this issue?

see page 5 of this forum under the heading "show me the money...". Some ideas regarding this issue were batted around there.

Thanks for the info. As I read the discussion under the "Show Me the Money" thread on pg.5, if you wanted to pursue the case under 31.03, you would have to use only the retail value of the item when setting the charge. In this case, it appears that the item may have been almost - or even completely 'paid for' using the retail value stated in the contract (paid one year of a two year rent-to-own contract). The merchant, of course, expects charges to be filed based upon the full amount of the contract. This would have to come under 31.04 Theft of Service, and I can see where a good argument could be made to refuse these cases since the merchant has been compensated for the retail value. However, these contracts are worded to support a criminal charge under 31.04 and this seems to have a deterrent effect as long as it is enforced. If the cases are not prosecuted, doesn't that give a green light to experienced rent-to-own comsumers to exploit the 'service' knowing that once they have paid up to the retail value, they can skip town with impunity?

My policy at that point is the merchant can file in civil court to collect the "interest", that way I avoid any usury defenses or DTPA defenses that might be raised. From visiting with others about theses cases it appears the policy differs greatly from office to office.
Good luck. Let us know what you decide.