"No, I did not GIVE her my car."
*** I'm not going to argue semantics over this... you clearly gave her the car, gave her the keys and put the car in her name. That is about as 'give' as it can be.
***Okay, I understand where you are coming from, but as I said, she never had control over the car. I have always had it, both when we were together and I still have it now.
"It was verbally agreed that she turn the title back over to me in one year."
*** And I am sure that is NOT what she will say if it comes to it in a court. And that, dear sir, is the problem. Simply, the facts speak for themselves and unless you can provide substantial proof of your 'side deal', you lose.
***I am sure she would say otherwise. And I am a woman. I feel I have plenty of proof and witnesses to verify what I am saying. Along with all the letter documentation, declaring what I am saying, and letters of the proposed "Pay of Money" and her written statement to turn the title back over to me if I paid her."
Again, I do understand what your saying and why. I guess what I still don't understand is that I have more than ample proof od everything I am saying. In more ways than one. Letters, witnesses, and the fact that she has NEVER had keys to my vehicle, let alone possession of it. There has to be something I can do.
"What consitutes "all elements of a contract?"
*** One thing that you are missing is called 'mutual consideration'. Simply, even if you could prove that she made that statement, she gets nothing in return for signing the title to you..... and that means no contract.
***She got the money agreed on, in exchange for giving me the title back.
"After arguing about this for some time, she wrote me and stated that I pay her a certain amount of money (blackmail but no proof), and she would relinquish my title to me. I did this and have receipts to show for it."
*** See above.
***Same as you. There was a mutual agreement made and in writing.
"It isn't scamming if we are a couple at the time."
*** You're own post says that you put the car in her name "for multiple auto insurance discount". Clearly, without the title in her name, the insurance premium would not include the discount. Doing what you now claim was 'sham transfer' is 'scamming' the insurance company out of their 'due premium'.
***No, it was not scammng. We were a couple, and though our insurance was seperate intially, it was told to us through the insurance that if it were in her name, she could get the multiple car discount. She couldn't get it if the car was registered in myname, as same sex couples do not get the same legal benefits as others. Although we had had a holy union. States do not recognize them as marriages. Only as relationships. It was our decision to do so, as a family joint decision.
"We were of one household, combined income and that goes with sharing and looking out for one another in a relationship."
*** If that was the case, the insurance company would not have offered a discount for your ownership 'transfer'.
***Again, one household, combined incomes within our relationship and commitment as such. See above as for discount.
***I really do not mean to step on any toes here, I came across this site while looking through legal resources online, and thought it couldn't hurt to ask.
***May I ask where your expertise professionally lies? Are you a lawyer or of legal counsel? And if not, where are you getting you facts from? Thanks for the feedback. Any and all is appreciated. In consideration, and will follow up in fact, based through legal recourse. I am just trying different ways of trying to understand thelegal sysyem before my battle. Thanks
