Ex-girlfriend demanding money one year after breakup (property involved)

[Zigner]

Not trying to be ignorant here, but how is me taking the car back any different from a bank repossessing a vehicle after defaulting on loan?

Because that's part of the written agreement with the bank.

She and I agreed that she would continue to make the car payments, if she stops doing so, she has gone outside of that agreement. How does she still have the only right to the vehicle in that case? It's her car based on agreement between her and I (which she is now going against), but in terms of the DMV title and loan documents, it's owned jointly between the two of us.

Yes, the DMV isn't going to get involved, and the police would say it's a civil matter, but when you get to court, it's going to be her vehicle, and any expenses that she incurs because of your improper repossession of the vehicle are going to be awarded to her.

On a side note, I find it pretty unsettling that you want to hold her to one agreement, but can't understand holding yourself to another.

 

[torimac]

You really should remove your name from the car title. If something happens - it's stolen and used in a crime, she is in an accident and someone dies, etc. - you will have to deal with the legal issues. Forget repossessing the car and get your name off the title. At the very least it protects your credit rating if she is late or misses payments.

 

[LegacyGT]

Because that's part of the written agreement with the bank.

Yes, the DMV isn't going to get involved, and the police would say it's a civil matter, but when you get to court, it's going to be her vehicle, and any expenses that she incurs because of your improper repossession of the vehicle are going to be awarded to her.

On a side note, I find it pretty unsettling that you want to hold her to one agreement, but can't understand holding yourself to another.

I'm not sure if i"m confused here or not properly conveying the situtation, so please forgive me. If she stops making the car payment and takes me to court over additional monies owed to her regarding the house, then SHE has broken both sections of the agreement we signed last November. She agreed in writing that A) the $2500 I paid was to be full and final settlement for the financial aspect of our relationship aside from B) the car payment which she would continue to make.

The agreement we had was not that the vehicle was hers regardless of whether she made the payments or not. I agreed verbally with her when be separated that the vehicle is hers to drive as long as she makes the payment on it. She then further agreed to continue payments, in writing, in November. So how am I not holding myself to our agreement if she stops making the payment and I take possession of the car?

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure if i"m confused here or not properly conveying the situtation, so please forgive me. If she stops making the car payment and takes me to court over additional monies owed to her regarding the house, then SHE has broken both sections of the agreement we signed last November. She agreed in writing that A) the $2500 I paid was to be full and final settlement for the financial aspect of our relationship aside from B) the car payment which she would continue to make.

I agreed verbally with her when be separated that the vehicle is hers to drive as long as she makes the payment on it. She then further agreed to continue payments, in writing, in November. So how am I not holding myself to our agreement if she stops making the payment and I take possession of the car?

If your agreement allows you to repossess the car, then you're good.

Take ALL of your paperwork to a local attorney and have a chat. Really.

 

[Zigner]

You really should remove your name from the car title. If something happens - it's stolen and used in a crime, she is in an accident and someone dies, etc. - you will have to deal with the legal issues. Forget repossessing the car and get your name off the title. At the very least it protects your credit rating if she is late or misses payments.

You make a good point about potential liability and the various legal issues that come with being listed as a registered owner of a car.

 

[LegacyGT]

If your agreement allows you to repossess the car, then you're good.

Take ALL of your paperwork to a local attorney and have a chat. Really.

That's where my agreement falls short, the extent of it is that she agrees to continue making payments, there is no second line regarding what the consequences are if she fails to do so. Am I out of luck here?

I'm absolutely going to take everything I have to a local attorney. If you could kindly enlighten me as to your thoughts on the agreement issue i'll take what knowledge you've provided and speak with a local attorney. Thanks again for everything, you've been very helpful.

Also, I've literally never had legal issues in the past, what type of attorney should I seek to get a consultation? Would it be best to speak with a divorce attorney even though we were never married?

 

[Silverplum]

That's where my agreement falls short, the extent of it is that she agrees to continue making payments, there is no second line regarding what the consequences are if she fails to do so. Am I out of luck here?

I'm absolutely going to take everything I have to a local attorney. If you could kindly enlighten me as to your thoughts on the agreement issue i'll take what knowledge you've provided and speak with a local attorney. Thanks again for everything, you've been very helpful.

Also, I've literally never had legal issues in the past, what type of attorney should I seek to get a consultation? Would it be best to speak with a divorce attorney even though we were never married?

As you dribble out one factoid at a time, Zigner is wasting his time because he/we cannot review the entire agreement. Just take it to an attorney, please.

 

[LegacyGT]

As you dribble out one factoid at a time, Zigner is wasting his time because he/we cannot review the entire agreement. Just take it to an attorney, please.

Didn't realize that asking and answering questions was considered "dribbling factoids." I thought that was actually the point of an information forum, guess I was misinformed. But thank you for your constructive response.

 

[Ohiogal]

You really should remove your name from the car title. If something happens - it's stolen and used in a crime, she is in an accident and someone dies, etc. - you will have to deal with the legal issues. Forget repossessing the car and get your name off the title. At the very least it protects your credit rating if she is late or misses payments.

Getting his name off the title does NOTHING about protecting his credit. Why people liked this idea, I do not know. She would need to refinance to protect his credit.

 

[xylene]

Please elaborate as to how I did that. I didn't force her to give me her money and would have prefered to have her pay 1/2 of the reasonable expenses every month. She asked me to manage the money so that she could feel free to go out and charge up the credit card each month and not worry about it. She benefited from that the entire time we were together, while I worried about the finances and took on the liability of owning the home. There could have just as easily been a drop in the housing market which would have left me upside down on the home loan, not her.

From a legal aspect, please elaborate as to how can she burn me on the car loan? If she stops paying for it, is there a reason I can't continue to make the payments myself and take the car back? It's titled in my name as well as hers.

Given your reply I can tell you are controlling piece of work and you profited handsomely by having control of this lady's income to pay for a home you could not afford alone.

"Didn't force her." Please. You're explanation that this arrangement wasn't exploitative is that it wasn't built on violence?

'Look see, I'm fair I didn't commit a violent felony at all.'

 

[Ohiogal]

Are you sure she has an attorney? If so, how?

 

[Zigner]

Getting his name off the title does NOTHING about protecting his credit. Why people liked this idea, I do not know. She would need to refinance to protect his credit.

He won't be able to remove his name from the title without the lienholder's approval anyway, so it's kind of part & parcel with the whole deal.

 

[Proserpina]

Getting his name off the title does NOTHING about protecting his credit. Why people liked this idea, I do not know. She would need to refinance to protect his credit.

I'd imagine it's the same "logic" (or, more accurately, "lack of logic") which makes separating couples/spouses very eager to take their name off of the deed to the house, thinking it also releases them from the mortgage obligation.

If we had a dollar for every time we've seen that happen, we'd have ourselves that island in the South Pacific (and Zig's plane, of course!).

 

[henbob6]

Given your reply I can tell you are controlling piece of work and you profited handsomely by having control of this lady's income to pay for a home you could not afford alone.

"Didn't force her." Please. You're explanation that this arrangement wasn't exploitative is that it wasn't built on violence?

'Look see, I'm fair I didn't commit a violent felony at all.'

That's one way of looking at it. I think you're reading a lot into this. I see that in just a few months after they split, she was in financial straits, and he was in a position to give her $2,500. If he had been exploiting her, he wouldn't have cash after they broke up.

Bottom line is he needs to see an attorney.

 

[xylene]

That's one way of looking at it. I think you're reading a lot into this. I see that in just a few months after they split, she was in financial straits, and he was in a position to give her $2,500. If he had been exploiting her, he wouldn't have cash after they broke up.

Bottom line is he needs to see an attorney.

You seem to think that whether or not the situation of him solely deriving equity while in a shared financial arrangement was exploitative hinges on her level of personal financial responsibility.

It doesn't.