Towing Company Fees, License

[taxicrab]

What is the name of your state? Washington

Last summer I was in an accident that rendered the car undrivable and as a result the car was towed. I was the registered owner of the car but my father was the legal owner and had the title. If I had had the title I would have paid the fee to let the towing company keep and auction the car. Because I did not possess the title I could not do this. I informed my father on the day of the accident that the car had been towed and would receive storage charges until either the car was picked up or the title given to the towing company. Because he choose not to do either of these things the car accrued over a thousand dollars in storage fees and was eventually auctioned. Because I was the registered owner, these fines are legally my responsibility, even though I did not have the title and could not have prevented them from being charged. Additionally, I am not able to renew my license until this is payed. Is taking my father to small claims court the only option?

 

[JETX]

I was the registered owner of the car but my father was the legal owner and had the title.

HUH?? The ONLY legal owner is the actual name ON the title.

Because I was the registered owner, these fines are legally my responsibility, even though I did not have the title and could not have prevented them from being charged.

See above.

Is taking my father to small claims court the only option?

Nope.

 

[PrinceCharming]

This post will not help you much if any.

There needs to be a little clarification here.

As you are the registered motorist, I don't see why the government wouldn't give you the car back. In addition, it sounds to me that you should be contesting all charges exactly based on what you said... The government refused to give you the car and therefore, they should not bill you for storage charges. You can request to the a judge for this. If the judge rules against you, ask for a copy as proof for small claims court.

On the other hand, you can take your father to small claims court, if you paid up his bill to clear your name.

The only problem is that you are at fault for getting the car towed in the first place, so the initial charge you will not see, you have hope for the storage charges if you can prove that you had to pay the fines because your father was negligent.

 

[Zigner]

On the other hand, you can take your father to small claims court, if you paid up his bill to clear your name.

He can take him to small claims court and lose. The legal owner (ie: lienholder) does NOT have responsibility for things like this.
What OP is saying is that his father would not release the lien from the vehicle until said lien was satisfied. The same thing would have occurred if our OP had received his loan from a bank. You can't just give up the car and expect the lien to be satisfied.
What our OP would have had to do was to have paid his father in full. This should have been done using the proceeds from his insurance. (OP - you DID have insurance beyond liability, right?) After dad was paid, he would have signed the title over and OP could have then taken care of his obligations with the tow company.

There is no-one to sue or complain to. The "government" did nothing wrong. The tow company did nothing wrong. Dad did nothing wrong.

 

[JETX]

As you are the registered motorist

Clearly, you are a legal moron.
There is no such thing as a "REGISTERED MOTORIST". There ARE 'licensed drivers' and 'registered owners'.

I don't see why the government wouldn't give you the car back.

I can see why you can't see that!!

 

[JETX]

What OP is saying is that his father would not release the lien from the vehicle until said lien was satisfied.

And how EXACTLY do you KNOW that to be the case??
I read the confusing OP as just as likely saying that the father is possibly a co-signer on the NON-NEGOTIABLE title... and that 'Dads' name is on the title.
The simple truth is... what the OP is describing simply is NOT correct and we can't go further until the OP returns and explains his confusing and contradictory post.

 

[Zigner]

And how EXACTLY do you KNOW that to be the case??
I read the confusing OP as just as likely saying that the father is possibly a co-signer on the NON-NEGOTIABLE title... and that 'Dads' name is on the title.
The simple truth is... what the OP is describing simply is NOT correct and we can't go further until the OP returns and explains his confusing and contradictory post.

OP posted: "I was the registered owner of the car but my father was the legal owner and had the title."

OP didn't say the father was "on the title" rather that he was the "legal owner" and had the title.

Consider the following statement: My car is financed - My registration shows The Bank as the legal owner, with me as the registered owner. The Bank has the title, I do not.
This is exactly what our OP said, except his father is "The Bank"

Additionally, in my state, even the statement that "The Bank is on the title" would be technically correct, because the title document itself lists the RO *and* the legal owner/lienholder.

 

[JETX]

Consider the following statement:

More 'leaky logic' from the illogical.

Bottom line... until the OP comes back and clears up his confusing and contradictory post, your 'logic' is just a guess.

 

[Zigner]

More 'leaky logic' from the illogical.

Bottom line... until the OP comes back and clears up his confusing and contradictory post, your 'logic' is just a guess.

Jet - you're a great wealth of knowledge, but in this case, I think you are wrong. I *will* stand by my position that, as asked, the situation has a straight-forward explanation.
However, Jet - you're right. If the OP comes back and changes his story, then my information may not be as accurate.

 

[FlyingRon]

Additionally, in my state, even the statement that "The Bank is on the title" would be technically correct, because the title document itself lists the RO *and* the legal owner/lienholder.

The fact that the bank holds a security interest in the car and that interest is listed on the title doesn't make them any sort of owner.
The OWNER is the one who's name is in the block marked OWNER.
That person is the one the DMV will come after for settling up the fees.
They aren't going to go after the bank.

And no matter how you spin it, the original posters comments make no sense whatsoever. There's some splainin' that needs doin' here.

 

[racer72]

Because I was the registered owner, these fines are legally my responsibility, even though I did not have the title and could not have prevented them from being charged.

You had total control and could have prevented most of the charges. All you had to do was pay in initial towing and storage fees after the accident and had the car towed someplace else. Like your father's.

 

[Zigner]

The fact that the bank holds a security interest in the car and that interest is listed on the title doesn't make them any sort of owner.
The OWNER is the one who's name is in the block marked OWNER.
That person is the one the DMV will come after for settling up the fees.
They aren't going to go after the bank.

And no matter how you spin it, the original posters comments make no sense whatsoever. There's some splainin' that needs doin' here.

I never said the bank would be an "owner" other than for the lienholder purposes. In my state, there is the "legal owner" (ie: lienholder) and there is the "registered owner". From what our OP posted wayyyy at the beginning, he is the REGISTERED OWNER and his father is the Lienholder (legal owner). As such, his father has no obligations for any expenses incurred. His father was well within his rights to withhold the title until such time as the lien is satisfied. This does NOT make father responsible for the towing charges.