• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Repossession of a vehicle that is still titled and registered to you

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Supercat106

Junior Member
I need to repossess a vehicle that is supposed to be being paid for but I have not received payment this month. The woman doesn't have insurance or a valid driver's license. The vehicle is still titled and registered in my name. What am I to do? It is imperative that I get it back and then get rid of it.
 


I need to repossess a vehicle that is supposed to be being paid for but I have not received payment this month. The woman doesn't have insurance or a valid driver's license. The vehicle is still titled and registered in my name. What am I to do? It is imperative that I get it back and then get rid of it.
So: get insurance,
 
Last edited:

latigo

Senior Member
So: get insurance, return any property left inside, and list it on craigslist.
Let me ask you Jane. Suppose the item sold on time was not a motor vehicle subject to regulations governing registration, titling, transfer of ownership, etc., but a chattel say an LG refrigerator retailing at over a thousand bucks. Also that we are given no more information than appears here. To-wit, the refer was sold and has not been paid for.

Would your answer remain the same? Could the seller exercise self help and with impunity seize the refer and dispose of it as seen fit?
 
Let me ask you Jane. Suppose the item sold on time was not a motor vehicle subject to regulations governing registration, titling, transfer of ownership, etc., but a chattel say an LG refrigerator retailing at over a thousand bucks. Also that we are given no more information than appears here. To-wit, the refer was sold and has not been paid for.

Would your answer remain the same? Could the seller exercise self help and with impunity seize the refer and dispose of it as seen fit?
No. My answer would not remain the same.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Insane Jane, please explain why you would recommend one course of action for Supercat106 and another for the seller of a refrigerator? Cite laws that support your reasoning, please. Thank you.
 
Insane Jane, please explain why you would recommend one course of action for Supercat106 and another for the seller of a refrigerator? Cite laws that support your reasoning, please. Thank you.
quincy, I don't have free time to jump through any hoops for you today. However, you've managed to hold your ground without me before. You are asking questions on only the info given. Admittedly acknowledging that I don't know what land those laws you refer to would be coming from, I'm turning the stage over to you for the answers.
Thank you.....
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
quincy, I don't have free time to jump through any hoops for you today. However, you've managed to hold your ground without me before. You are asking questions on only the info given. Admittedly acknowledging that I don't know what land those laws you refer to would be coming from, I'm turning the stage over to you for the answers.
Thank you.....
You forgot one last thing: Retracting your incorrect advice above.
(Assuming, of course, that this situation involves US laws ;) )
 

quincy

Senior Member
quincy, I don't have free time to jump through any hoops for you today. However, you've managed to hold your ground without me before. You are asking questions on only the info given. Admittedly acknowledging that I don't know what land those laws you refer to would be coming from, I'm turning the stage over to you for the answers.
Thank you.....
The "hoops" you are being asked to jump through are not for my benefit but for the benefit of the original poster from the unknown state/country.

If you do not have any legal support for your answers to posters perhaps you should not be providing answers.
 

latigo

Senior Member
The "hoops" you are being asked to jump through are not for my benefit but for the benefit of the original poster from the unknown state/country.

If you do not have any legal support for your answers perhaps you should not be providing answers.
I wasn't trying to start a quarrel with Jane. But the thread raises something that has troubled me.

We learn early on that the title to personal property can pass from seller to purchaser without regard to the payment of the purchase price. That is that payment can be deferred and yet ownership can be vested in the purchaser.

For example a lady sees a hat in a millinery store she is fond of. Asks a clerk the price of the hat, agrees to the price and tells the clerk to charge her store account and will return the following day to take delivery of the hat.

Ergo, title to the hat passed to the customer when the clerk agreed to sell it and she agreed to purchase it. NOV the selling price was deferred.

But would it hold true were we to substitute a motor vehicle in place of the hat? And if not, why?
 
You forgot one last thing: Retracting your incorrect advice above.
(Assuming, of course, that this situation involves US laws ;) )
Ok. Which crazy advice should I retract: :rolleyes:
1. Get insurance
2. return any property left inside,
or
3. list it on craigslist.


I need to repossess a vehicle that is supposed to be being paid for but I have not received payment this month. The woman doesn't have insurance or a valid driver's license. The vehicle is still titled and registered in my name. What am I to do? It is imperative that I get it back and then get rid of it.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I wasn't trying to start a quarrel with Jane. But the thread raises something that has troubled me.

We learn early on that the title to personal property can pass from seller to purchaser without regard to the payment of the purchase price. That is that payment can be deferred and yet ownership can be vested in the purchaser.

For example a lady sees a hat in a millinery store she is fond of. Asks a clerk the price of the hat, agrees to the price and tells the clerk to charge her store account and will return the following day to take delivery of the hat.

Ergo, title to the hat passed to the customer when the clerk agreed to sell it and she agreed to purchase it. NOV the selling price was deferred.

But would it hold true were we to substitute a motor vehicle in place of the hat? And if not, why?
You are troubled, latigo?

I have a sneaking suspicion you know the answer to your own questions here. It would be interesting to see if Insane knows.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top