Private party motorcycle sale

[AKKM]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland


I sold a motorcycle to a guy 3 months ago. He knew at the time of the sale that I did not have the title. I had the MSO and had to have it titled into my name. I also let him know that I had purchased an extended warranty on the bike but was not sure if it had expired or there was another year left on it. He buys the bike and a couple weeks later I get an email saying he called the warranty office and they said it had expired in may of this year and demands that I give him money back. I decided that I would give him the difference of what was thought to be left on the warranty ( took the cost of the warranty and divided it by 3 and thats the amount I told him I would give him ). Well I ended up falling behind on some stuff and wasn't able to get the title work done right away but let him know that I was working on it. I finally got the title to him the 13th of this month and apologized it took so long. He is now demanding that I compensate him for the extended amount of time it took to receive the title or he is going to sue me. My question is, does he have a right to sue and on what grounds. He has the motorcycle and the title now. I feel I owe him nothing other than the $100 that I agreed to give him because of the confusion on the warranty. Am I wrong?

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland


I sold a motorcycle to a guy 3 months ago. He knew at the time of the sale that I did not have the title. I had the MSO and had to have it titled into my name. I also let him know that I had purchased an extended warranty on the bike but was not sure if it had expired or there was another year left on it. He buys the bike and a couple weeks later I get an email saying he called the warranty office and they said it had expired in may of this year and demands that I give him money back. I decided that I would give him the difference of what was thought to be left on the warranty ( took the cost of the warranty and divided it by 3 and thats the amount I told him I would give him ). Well I ended up falling behind on some stuff and wasn't able to get the title work done right away but let him know that I was working on it. I finally got the title to him the 13th of this month and apologized it took so long. He is now demanding that I compensate him for the extended amount of time it took to receive the title or he is going to sue me. My question is, does he have a right to sue and on what grounds. He has the motorcycle and the title now. I feel I owe him nothing other than the $100 that I agreed to give him because of the confusion on the warranty. Am I wrong?

The buyer has no case.

You failed to transfer title at the time of purchase, but you have since corrected that. The title is now in the possession and under the name of the buyer, as is the motorcycle.

I can see no legal basis upon which he could sue you at this point, as he got what he paid for. I could see there being a case if the buyer ha incurred specific monetary damages between the time he took possession of the bike and the date you finally transferred the title to his name, but no damages generally means no case.

Sounds to me like he is just trying to figure out some way to make an extra buck off this situation. If it were me, I would tell him to pound sand.

 

[AKKM]

I basically did. I told him threatening to sue me was not going to get him anywhere.

He knew from the day he picked up the bike about the title situation. He took a loan from his bank (federal credit union) and paid with a check from them. I told him the check was going straight to my lender to release the lien on the title, which it did.

As I said, I could not get to the DMV as soon as I hoped and let him know that I was working on getting the title. He told me that his bank was telling him that if he didn't produce a title that they were going to redo his loan at a higher interest rate and that I would be liable for the difference (over $2,000). I told him good luck with that. He asked me to fill out a bill of sale and mail it to him so I did.

In the last email I sent to him I asked what grounds he thinks he can sue me on and his reply was "When you receive the subpoena all the answers will be in there."

I didn't think he had anything to sue for since he had possession of the motorcycle and now the title.

Say his loan interest rate did increase. Would I be liable to pay the difference even though he knowingly bought the motorcycle without having the title and no set date of when he would get it?

 

[AKKM]

Anyone else see it the same way? I just want to double check and make sure Im covered

 

[sandyclaus]

If the buyer can show that he was damaged by your delay in producing the title, then he might be able to sue for the additional costs he incurred.

But in order to prevail, he would need to prove that the bank DID re-negotiate his loan due to his inability to produce a clear title, and that his loan payments and interest were increased as a result of this delay.

I personally find it difficult to believe that the bank would put such a condition on his loan, yet grant his loan anyway on the original terms, and then change the terms of that loan AFTER he had already received the money and sent it to you. I'd be very interested to see the proof in that. If he does sue you, I would be sure to subpeona ALL of his loan documents that support his claims - both the original loan documents that he signed, from which he received the money and paid you, AND the allegedly changed loan documents he signed and received AFTER the fact, that resulted in an increase in his loan payments and interest. Something tells me that the reason his loan may have changed might have NOTHING to do with your delayed title at all.