quincy
Senior Member
Yup. Disagreements are the stuff that fuel legal actions.I disagree, which is ok.
Last edited:
Yup. Disagreements are the stuff that fuel legal actions.I disagree, which is ok.
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.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.
I am not sure Judge Judy would be up for this title nightmare.This is one for Judge Judy.
How do you prove any deal was made? There was no bill of sale. There is nothing to evidence this oral agreement.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.
Unless op lies, he would have to admit to it.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?
First, the dead guy did not have Jerry's ATV at the time of his death.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?
and...? It was delivered to him though. There is no requirement to retain possession for any period ofFirst, the dead guy did not have Jerry's ATV at the time of his death.
but there was deleivery and intent to transfer title. Not comparable to a still pen item.Second, possession is not legal ownership. If it were, thieves would be legal owners of all that they steal.
there was a transfer of title (the intangible asset) upon delivery with intent to transfer ownership. The cert ofThird, until there is a transfer of title, the original title holder retains rights.
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.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.
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.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.
. Yes, he did. The bank never owned the atv and cannot prevent transfer of constructive title.Jerry did not have any agreement with the bank and Jerry did not hold title to the dead guy's ATV.
actually we don't know if the terms of the contract were met because we don't know the actual terms ofHe 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").
you are confusing the certificate of title with actual title.Titles were never transferred on either of the ATVs.
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.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.
And jerry's explanation of how the third guy came to possess jerry's atv might be what?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.
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.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.
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.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.
not true. Simply not true. Title can be transferred at any time. Whether the lien holder has action under their contract is another matter.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.
there would be no such proof as dead guy was supposed to pay off the loan.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.
Well, jerry's testimony is some proof. If that is enough for a judge to rule there is a contract and what the termsThere MUST be some proof of the existence of the oral agreement and its terms before a court can or will enforce it.
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).Jerry has title to his own ATV.
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.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.
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 ofIt 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.
and I believe that is the only action he has available.I do not see that Jerry has a supportable legal action against the dead man's estate.
well at least we agree on something hereAgain, though, Jerry can have an attorney in Louisiana personally review the facts and advise him on what Jerry's best course of action is.
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.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.
Not much proof, if the dead guy is not around to confirm (or refute) it.Well, jerry's testimony is some proof.
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.well at least we agree on something here