• 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.

Can I sue to get my atv back?

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



justalayman

Senior Member
It was an oral agreement at best. Until all terms of this agreement were met, the ATVs remained the legal property of the title-holders. All terms of the agreement were not met.
Op is owed the agreed value of his own atv from decedents estate. It would be no different than had the guy written a bad check. The value (of either the atv or the check) was not adequate to compensate op for the bargain made. He is not entitled to his atv back though. He sold it and with any sale, the seller has a right to demand agreed upon compensation. He could seek to rescind the sale but until a court orders such, this is simply a sale where the buyer has not paid for the merchandise purchased.


I suggest the eventual buyer of op's atv will be considered a bonifide purchaser and as such, has a right to claim ownership of the atv.
 

quincy

Senior Member
This is one for Judge Judy.
I am not sure Judge Judy would be up for this title nightmare. :)

Another interesting wrinkle is that the dead guy, when he died, was apparently driving a truck traded to him by the guy in possession of Jerry's ATV - the truck was in exchange for Jerry's ATV.

I wonder if the dead guy had the truck titled in his name before the accident or if it was still titled in the name of the current possessor of Jerry's ATV.

I see this differently than you and Zigner do, justalayman.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
A certificate of title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Title itself is intangible and transferred when the atv was delivered per the contract. Now op is simply a creditor looking to get paid what the contract called for.

Basically the deal was struck. All op has a right to demand is performance which means he gets paid.
 

quincy

Senior Member
A certificate of title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Title itself is intangible and transferred when the atv was delivered per the contract. Now op is simply a creditor looking to get paid what the contract called for.

Basically the deal was struck. All op has a right to demand is performance which means he gets paid.
How do you prove any deal was made? There was no bill of sale. There is nothing to evidence this oral agreement.

And one party to this oral agreement is now dead.

There was no transfer of title. Jerry still holds legal title to his ATV and the bank still holds legal title to the dead guy's ATV.

Guy number three traded his truck to the dead guy for an ATV that the dead guy had no legal title to and, therefore, no legal right to sell or trade.

I do not see that Jerry can sue the dead man's estate with any hope of success. It would be like me trying to sue the dead guy's estate saying I made a deal with the dead guy. Where is the proof?
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
How do you prove any deal was made? There was no bill of sale. There is nothing to evidence this oral agreement.

And one party to this oral agreement is now dead.

There was no transfer of title. Jerry still holds legal title to his ATV and the bank still holds legal title to the dead guy's ATV.

Guy number three traded his truck to the dead guy for an ATV that the dead guy had no legal title to and, therefore, no legal right to sell or trade.

I do not see that Jerry can sue the dead man's estate with any hope of success. It would be like me trying to sue the dead guy's estate saying I made a deal with the dead guy. Where is the proof?
Unless op lies, he would have to admit to it.

Beyond the evidence of op having possession of the decedents atv and the decedent having the op's atv shows there was some agreement to trade vehicles.

Again, I disagree with your assertion dead guy didn't have title. The certificate of title is presumptive and rebuttable proof of ownership. Once the atv was delivered per the contract, title transferred.

Maybe this will help;

I buy a car. Seller doesn't have the certificate of title in hand but holds title free and clear. I take the car home with me with the title to be delivered at a later time.

So, at what point in the transaction does the car become mine?

Arguing anything other than at the moment of delivery would mean that seller could come and take the car at any time up until the certificate of title was delivered. Is that Your position?
 

quincy

Senior Member
Unless op lies, he would have to admit to it.

Beyond the evidence of op having possession of the decedents atv and the decedent having the op's atv shows there was some agreement to trade vehicles.

Again, I disagree with your assertion dead guy didn't have title. The certificate of title is presumptive and rebuttable proof of ownership. Once the atv was delivered per the contract, title transferred.

Maybe this will help;

I buy a car. Seller doesn't have the certificate of title in hand but holds title free and clear. I take the car home with me with the title to be delivered at a later time.

So, at what point in the transaction does the car become mine?

Arguing anything other than at the moment of delivery would mean that seller could come and take the car at any time up until the certificate of title was delivered. Is that Your position?
First, the dead guy did not have Jerry's ATV at the time of his death.

Second, possession is not legal ownership. If it were, thieves would be legal owners of all that they steal.

Third, until there is a transfer of title, the original title holder retains rights.

If you have a contract to purchase a car and you do not fulfill all of the terms of the contract, the holder of the title can repossess the vehicle. The bank repossessed the ATV because the dead guy did not fulfill all of the terms of the contract he had with the bank. The bank retained ownership rights and title to the ATV.

Jerry did not have any agreement with the bank and Jerry did not hold title to the dead guy's ATV. He, in other words, never owned the ATV. He had an oral agreement to purchase it/trade for it but the terms of the agreement were not met (or, in the words of Jerry, he and the dead guy were "unable to finalize the trade").

Titles were never transferred on either of the ATVs. I do not see that Jerry has any claim he can pursue against the dead man's estate that has any chance of success. He needs proof he had an oral agreement with the dead guy to trade ATVs and he needs proof that all terms of this oral agreement were met. I do not see that he has proof of any of this. All he has is title to his own ATV.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
First, the dead guy did not have Jerry's ATV at the time of his death.
and...? It was delivered to him though. There is no requirement to retain possession for any period of
Time.

Second, possession is not legal ownership. If it were, thieves would be legal owners of all that they steal.
but there was deleivery and intent to transfer title. Not comparable to a still pen item.
Third, until there is a transfer of title, the original title holder retains rights.
there was a transfer of title (the intangible asset) upon delivery with intent to transfer ownership. The cert of
Title is simply a physical manifestation intending to represent ownership. It is rebuttable.

If you have a contract to purchase a car and you do not fulfill all of the terms of the contract, the holder of the title can repossess the vehicle.
actually that is not correct. You have a right to seek performance of the contract. IF the contract allows for repossion for a failure to comply with the contract, then one can repossess.

The bank repossessed the ATV because the dead guy did not fulfill all of the terms of the contract he had with the bank. The bank retained ownership rights and title to the ATV.
not correct. A lien does not afford ownership rights. In fact it doesn't give the lien holder any particular rights. The rights of the lien holder are granted by the associated contract. The lien being registered on the title merely prevents the transfer of the certificate of title. True title can still be transferred, even if the certificate of title cannot be transferred.

Jerry did not have any agreement with the bank and Jerry did not hold title to the dead guy's ATV.
. Yes, he did. The bank never owned the atv and cannot prevent transfer of constructive title.
He, in other words, never owned the ATV.
He had an oral agreement to purchase it/trade for it but the terms of the agreement were not met (or, in the words of Jerry, he and the dead guy were "unable to finalize the trade").
actually we don't know if the terms of the contract were met because we don't know the actual terms of
The contract. We don't know if Jerry agreed to accept the atv with encumbrances or not.

Titles were never transferred on either of the ATVs.
you are confusing the certificate of title with actual title.

I do not see that Jerry has any claim he can pursue against the dead man's estate that has any chance of success.
He needs proof he had an oral agreement with the dead guy to trade ATVs and he needs proof that all terms of this oral agreement were met.
he needs to convince a court there was a deal and dead guy did not complete the contract. That allows Jerry to seek specific performance. It does not necessarily allow jerry to rescind the contract and since dead guy subsequently transferred title to another purchased, that person's claim as a bonifide purchased will prevent Jerry from rescinding the contract and leaves him no option but to seek payment under specific performance of the contract from dead guys estate.
 

quincy

Senior Member
You are welcome to disagree just as I am welcome to disagree with you. And I do.

The only proof Jerry has of any agreement with the dead guy is ... oh, wait. He doesn't HAVE any proof of an agreement with the dead guy. He has title to his own ATV which is in the possession of a third guy.

Sure, though. Jerry can sue the dead man's estate over the dead man's ATV that the bank repossessed, with the suit based on a trade that Jerry himself says was not finalized and for which there is no evidence, written or otherwise.

I do not see him having any success with such a suit but if you feel comfortable recommending Jerry pursue such a lawsuit, you can do so. And I will recommend that Jerry seeks a consultation with a Louisiana lawyer prior to doing so.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
The only proof Jerry has of any agreement with the dead guy is ... oh, wait. He doesn't HAVE any proof of an agreement with the dead guy. He has title to his own ATV which is in the possession of a third guy.
And jerry's explanation of how the third guy came to possess jerry's atv might be what?

Additionally it is provable Jerry had dead guys atv. He had his atv why?

Jerry will be hard pressed to explain how dead guy had jerry's atv for somewhere around a year and didn't report it stolen.

And we haven't even addressed the possibility of other parties being aware of the contract.

So since you believe Jerry can't sue dead guy for the money, is he just out everything? If the third guy has proof of
Purchase (or trade of equity) for a reasonable value, he can claim to be a bona fide purchaser where the law will allow him to retain the Atv. Jerry would not be able to sue third guy for any money either. Jerry now has no atv and no money. Jerry is sad. :(
 

quincy

Senior Member
And jerry's explanation of how the third guy came to possess jerry's atv might be what?

Additionally it is provable Jerry had dead guys atv. He had his atv why?

Jerry will be hard pressed to explain how dead guy had jerry's atv for somewhere around a year and didn't report it stolen.

And we haven't even addressed the possibility of other parties being aware of the contract.

So since you believe Jerry can't sue dead guy for the money, is he just out everything? If the third guy has proof of
Purchase (or trade of equity) for a reasonable value, he can claim to be a bona fide purchaser where the law will allow him to retain the Atv. Jerry would not be able to sue third guy for any money either. Jerry now has no atv and no money. Jerry is sad. :(
Jerry did not have an agreement with the bank. If he planned to take over the payments on the ATV from the dead guy, this agreement would have NEEDED to be in writing. That is a legal necessity.

Because there were NO agreements in writing and there was, apparently, reason for the bank to repossess the ATV (a good indication that the ATV was not paid for in full), Jerry could not be the legal owner of the dead guy's ATV, not until the bank was paid in full and the title transferred.

Jerry could potentially have receipts for payments made to the dead guy that were to cover the bank payments. That could be indication that there was some sort of an oral agreement between Jerry and the dead guy. Beyond that, I do not see that Jerry has any proof of an oral agreement or any evidence that shows the terms of an oral agreement.

There MUST be some proof of the existence of the oral agreement and its terms before a court can or will enforce it.

Jerry has title to his own ATV. That's it. The former truck owner, who now possesses Jerry's ATV, has no title to Jerry's ATV. The dead guy traded an ATV he did not own because the trade between Jerry and the dead guy was not finalized. There was never a transfer of titles.

It appears to me that the truck owner is stuck with an ATV to which he has no legal title and Jerry is stuck with legal title to an ATV he does not possess.

I do not see that Jerry has a supportable legal action against the dead man's estate.

Again, though, Jerry can have an attorney in Louisiana personally review the facts and advise him on what Jerry's best course of action is. Jerry will be hopelessly confused if he reads the posts in this thread. No sense in confusing him further.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
Jerry did not have an agreement with the bank. If he planned to take over the payments on the ATV from the dead guy, this agreement would have NEEDED to be in writing. That is a legal necessity.
accepting title with encumbrances does not require approval of the lender. Of course the lender can enforce their contract if the transfer is not approved. That often allows for them to exercise the commonly included right to repossess.

Because there were NO agreements in writing and there was, apparently, reason for the bank to repossess the ATV (a good indication that the ATV was not paid for in full), Jerry could not be the legal owner of the dead guy's ATV, not until the bank was paid in full and the title transferred.
not true. Simply not true. Title can be transferred at any time. Whether the lien holder has action under their contract is another matter.

Jerry could potentially have receipts for payments made to the dead guy that were to cover the bank payments. That could be indication that there was some sort of an oral agreement between Jerry and the dead guy. Beyond that, I do not see that Jerry has any proof of an oral agreement or any evidence that shows the terms of an oral agreement.
there would be no such proof as dead guy was supposed to pay off the loan.

There MUST be some proof of the existence of the oral agreement and its terms before a court can or will enforce it.
Well, jerry's testimony is some proof. If that is enough for a judge to rule there is a contract and what the terms
Are is something only the judge can say.
Jerry has title to his own ATV.
no he doesn't. He may have the certificate of title but he transferred legal title upon the transfer to dead guy in exchange for dead guys atv. Granted dead guy was supposed to pay off his atv but the failure to do so is a breach of contract. A breach may alllow for rescission but it requires a court to make that decision. So far all jerry has is a right to demand payment for the atv (perfomance).

The former truck owner, who now possesses Jerry's ATV, has no title to Jerry's ATV. The dead guy traded an ATV he did not own because the trade between Jerry and the dead guy was not finalized. There was never a transfer of titles.
surely you are familiar with a bona fide purchaser for value, right? A subsequent purchaser has a right to retain even stolen property in some cases if they are bona fide purchasers. If their purchase was in good faith (no knowledge of any illicit actions involving the merchandise and they paid a reasonable value for the merchandise), the law can determine they acted in good faith and as such, can be ruled the legal owner of the property in question.

It appears to me that the truck owner is stuck with an ATV to which he has no legal title and Jerry is stuck with legal title to an ATV he does not possess.
truck owner does not have certificate of title but if he is a bona fide purchaser for value he can go to court and be awarded the certificate of
Title.

I do not see that Jerry has a supportable legal action against the dead man's estate.
and I believe that is the only action he has available.

Again, though, Jerry can have an attorney in Louisiana personally review the facts and advise him on what Jerry's best course of action is.
well at least we agree on something here;)

I'll let it die at this point.
 

quincy

Senior Member
accepting title with encumbrances does not require approval of the lender. Of course the lender can enforce their contract if the transfer is not approved. That often allows for them to exercise the commonly included right to repossess.
If an agreement is made to take on another's debts, this agreement must be in writing. There was no written agreement between Jerry and the dead guy.

Well, jerry's testimony is some proof.
Not much proof, if the dead guy is not around to confirm (or refute) it.

well at least we agree on something here;)
It is nice to find agreement somewhere :), even if it is only an agreement that Jerry should see an attorney in Louisiana to advise and guide him.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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