Gift of a car

[Chulley]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Nevada
So my husband and I are getting a divorce. He gave me his car that he purchased with his ex wife long before we met. When he and his wife divorced, he never took the title out of her name. He has told me that he will have her sign the title then sign it over to me. He has gone back and forth on this as his ex hates me and doesn't want him to give me the car. He recently sent me a letter to give to the dmv stating:

Rachael Last name is my wife and I owned my vehicle prior to our marriage. I would like to give her my Mercedes ml 320 2002 as a gift. Vin#.
Thank you, his name
Then the letter was notarized.

This evening, he called me and told me that his ex wouldn't stand for it and that he's sending a transport company to come and get the car. His ex never drove the car even while they were married and doesn't really want the car now. She just doesn't want me to have it.
My question is can he take the car? Does the notarized letter mean anything? Can I go to jail for moving to a new home without telling him where the car is? I have been paying for insurance on the car and has been the sole driver for years.

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Nevada
So my husband and I are getting a divorce. He gave me his car that he purchased with his ex wife long before we met. When he and his wife divorced, he never took the title out of her name. He has told me that he will have her sign the title then sign it over to me. He has gone back and forth on this as his ex hates me and doesn't want him to give me the car. He recently sent me a letter to give to the dmv stating:

Rachael Last name is my wife and I owned my vehicle prior to our marriage. I would like to give her my Mercedes ml 320 2002 as a gift. Vin#.
Thank you, his name
Then the letter was notarized.

This evening, he called me and told me that his ex wouldn't stand for it and that he's sending a transport company to come and get the car. His ex never drove the car even while they were married and doesn't really want the car now. She just doesn't want me to have it.
My question is can he take the car? Does the notarized letter mean anything? Can I go to jail for moving to a new home without telling him where the car is? I have been paying for insurance on the car and has been the sole driver for years.

You want to steal the car? That is what you would be doing if you took it. If his ex wife is on the title SHE owns it. Who was granted the car in their divorce? If him, then it is his separate property. He couldn't gift you the car however without it being in his name. So you have to give it back.

 

[Chulley]

Ok. I appreciate the reply but not necessarily the rudeness. I was reluctant to post anything on here as I am admittedly a little raw from my divorce and I don't take kindly to rudeness or accusations. The ex wife was on the title with my husband. They verbally agreed that he was going to keep the car as she never drove it not even once. I'm not stealing the car. It was given to me three years ago and I have been the sole driver of the car. I have offered her money for it, I have tried talking to her, but she is a very bitter woman. What was the point of the notarized letter then? I'm confused as to why he sent that to me.

 

[adjusterjack]

He sent you the letter because he is clueless. It means nothing with regard to ownership.

The bottom line is that he never "gave" you the car. He loaned it to you and now you have to give it back because you don't "own" it.

Sorry that it's working out that way for you. I went through a tough divorce, too, but you will just have to accept the reality of the car situation.

Nevada is a community property state so you are entitle to half the "value" of his half interest in the car. You can make some sort of asset or cash adjustment in the divorce decree to offset the loss of the car.

I suggest you get yourself an attorney before your husband does you any more financial damage.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Ok. I appreciate the reply but not necessarily the rudeness. I was reluctant to post anything on here as I am admittedly a little raw from my divorce and I don't take kindly to rudeness or accusations. The ex wife was on the title with my husband.

That means she's an owner.

They verbally agreed that he was going to keep the car as she never drove it not even once.

Verbal agreements aren't part of the divorce decree.

If they came to an agreement, and that agreement was written into the divorce decree, then that is a different story.

Her not driving the car is, legally, irrelevant. If her name is on the title, then her name is on the title. Someone else driving the car does not change that.

I'm not stealing the car. It was given to me three years ago and I have been the sole driver of the car.

The car, legally, was not solely your husband's to give.

Now your husband has asked that it be returned because the other owner is making demands.

When the title holders (both!) no longer grant you permission to use the car, then you have to return it. It does not matter why they don't want you to have the car anymore. If you are attempting to hide the car, then yeah, you can get yourself into a legal pickle. Why? Because you are not the legal owner of the car.

No matter how many miles you put on the car, if you are not on the title, then you do not own it. If the owner wants it back, you need to give it back.

I have offered her money for it, I have tried talking to her, but she is a very bitter woman.

I suspect that she's still "a little raw" from her divorce as well.

She is not required to accept your offer.

What was the point of the notarized letter then? I'm confused as to why he sent that to me.

The point of the notarized letter was to mollify you. It has no legal weight.

 

[LdiJ]

I am going to make a few "devil's advocate" points.

In a divorce its expected that if there are two or more cars in the family each spouse will end up with one of them. It would have been expected in the previous divorce, and its expected in this one. Therefore, if the previous divorce mentioned disposition of the cars (and I realize that OP said it was verbal, but she wasn't part of that divorce) then its possible that the first ex wife does not have the right to refuse to sign over the title...at least to her ex husband so he can title it in his name only.

Also, in the OP's divorce there is the similar expectation that if there are two vehicles that each spouse is going to get one. If OP's STBX cannot pull it off to give her the car that she has been driving, he might have to end up giving her the one that he has been driving, when all is said and done.

Also, Nevada is a community property state, therefore the OP owns half of her husband's interest in the car, even if by some reason his previous divorce did not fully dispose of the car, therefore she has just as much right to drive it as anybody else, therefore I do not think that her husband can insist on her returning it, at least until their divorce is final and there is a final property disposition.

 

[Just Blue]

Ok. I appreciate the reply but not necessarily the rudeness. I was reluctant to post anything on here as I am admittedly a little raw from my divorce and I don't take kindly to rudeness or accusations. The ex wife was on the title with my husband. They verbally agreed that he was going to keep the car as she never drove it not even once. I'm not stealing the car. It was given to me three years ago and I have been the sole driver of the car. I have offered her money for it, I have tried talking to her, but she is a very bitter woman. What was the point of the notarized letter then? I'm confused as to why he sent that to me.

There was nothing rude that OhioGal posted to you. BTW...She is an Attorney.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am going to make a few "devil's advocate" points.

In a divorce its expected that if there are two or more cars in the family each spouse will end up with one of them. It would have been expected in the previous divorce, and its expected in this one. Therefore, if the previous divorce mentioned disposition of the cars (and I realize that OP said it was verbal, but she wasn't part of that divorce) then its possible that the first ex wife does not have the right to refuse to sign over the title...at least to her ex husband so he can title it in his name only.

Also, in the OP's divorce there is the similar expectation that if there are two vehicles that each spouse is going to get one. If OP's STBX cannot pull it off to give her the car that she has been driving, he might have to end up giving her the one that he has been driving, when all is said and done.

Also, Nevada is a community property state, therefore the OP owns half of her husband's interest in the car, even if by some reason his previous divorce did not fully dispose of the car, therefore she has just as much right to drive it as anybody else, therefore I do not think that her husband can insist on her returning it, at least until their divorce is final and there is a final property disposition.

She owns at most 1/4 of the car in a marital interest and she is NOT on title. Therefore, yes it can be demanded that she return it as it is NOT her legal car. She may be entitled to money equivalent to 1/4 of the current value of the car but she is NOT entitled to the car.

 

[justalayman]

Ok. I appreciate the reply but not necessarily the rudeness. I was reluctant to post anything on here as I am admittedly a little raw from my divorce and I don't take kindly to rudeness or accusations. The ex wife was on the title with my husband. They verbally agreed that he was going to keep the car as she never drove it not even once. I'm not stealing the car. It was given to me three years ago and I have been the sole driver of the car. I have offered her money for it, I have tried talking to her, but she is a very bitter woman. What was the point of the notarized letter then? I'm confused as to why he sent that to me.

Unless he was awarded the car in his divorce and can enforce the decree, the other wife is entitled HER car. Especially since your ex has withdrawn any permission to use the car, yes, what you are proposing is grand theft auto. At least you wouldn't have to worry about a car where you'll end up.

 

[justalayman]

I am going to make a few "devil's advocate" points.

In a divorce its expected that if there are two or more cars in the family each spouse will end up with one of them. It would have been expected in the previous divorce, and its expected in this one. Therefore, if the previous divorce mentioned disposition of the cars (and I realize that OP said it was verbal, but she wasn't part of that divorce) then its possible that the first ex wife does not have the right to refuse to sign over the title...at least to her ex husband so he can title it in his name only.

Also, in the OP's divorce there is the similar expectation that if there are two vehicles that each spouse is going to get one. If OP's STBX cannot pull it off to give her the car that she has been driving, he might have to end up giving her the one that he has been driving, when all is said and done.

Also, Nevada is a community property state, therefore the OP owns half of her husband's interest in the car, even if by some reason his previous divorce did not fully dispose of the car, therefore she has just as much right to drive it as anybody else, therefore I do not think that her husband can insist on her returning it, at least until their divorce is final and there is a final property disposition.

Does community propert attach to pre-marital assets? If not, op has absolutely no financial interest in the car. If so, she can argue her share of her husbands share in court. It would result in an offset since it is co-owned by husbands previous wife.

 

[LdiJ]

Does community propert attach to pre-marital assets? If not, op has absolutely no financial interest in the car. If so, she can argue her share of her husbands share in court. It would result in an offset since it is co-owned by husbands previous wife.

The point I am making is that it may not be quite as black and white as it seems. I am still not at all sure that OP's husband can demand she stop using it until the divorce/property settlement is finalized, without switching vehicles with her. If he leaves her without transportation when there are multiple vehicles available to be used, I can see that really biting him in the butt.

I also cannot imagine that his former ex wife still has rights to the car, even if she is technically on the title. I think that this sounds more like laziness in getting paperwork switched over after a divorce was final, and the first ex being stubborn about it now.

 

[Ohiogal]

The point I am making is that it may not be quite as black and white as it seems. I am still not at all sure that OP's husband can demand she stop using it until the divorce/property settlement is finalized, without switching vehicles with her. If he leaves her without transportation when there are multiple vehicles available to be used, I can see that really biting him in the butt.

I also cannot imagine that his former ex wife still has rights to the car, even if she is technically on the title. I think that this sounds more like laziness in getting paperwork switched over after a divorce was final, and the first ex being stubborn about it now.

Then your imagination is not in tune with the law. If the ex wife is on title, she owns the car. She still has rights. That is the law. It is the way the legality of the situation works. And yes OP's husband can take the car back because it was NOT his to give. Though, would it make you feel better if ex wife sent a trailer to pick it up and then sued the OP for not allowing her her vehicle? Maybe even filing a police report for theft? OP has not paid a dime apparently. She hasn't mentioned it. Therefore, she has no claim to the vehicle currently. She may have a monetary claim to the vehicle in the divorce. You are just flat out wrong. Why can't OP get her own vehicle? It may not be a Mercedes but she can get a kia or something.

 

[LdiJ]

Then your imagination is not in tune with the law. If the ex wife is on title, she owns the car. She still has rights. That is the law. It is the way the legality of the situation works. And yes OP's husband can take the car back because it was NOT his to give. Though, would it make you feel better if ex wife sent a trailer to pick it up and then sued the OP for not allowing her her vehicle? Maybe even filing a police report for theft? OP has not paid a dime apparently. She hasn't mentioned it. Therefore, she has no claim to the vehicle currently. She may have a monetary claim to the vehicle in the divorce. You are just flat out wrong. Why can't OP get her own vehicle? It may not be a Mercedes but she can get a kia or something.

So, even if the original divorce awarded the car to the OP's husband, its still the wife's property because they never got around to changing the title?

So the police will really get involved if the original ex wife complains to the police that the new wife (but soon to be ex also) is driving a car titled in both her and her ex husband's name? Seriously?

Do you really believe that a judge is going to be pleased that the OP's husband might be leaving the OP without transportation at all?...in the midst of a divorce when it might not be possible to finance another vehicle at this time?

My concern here is transportation for both parties...but I am also concerned for the OP's husband who seems to be letting his first ex wife dictate what happens with his second divorce. He certainly can allow the OP to drive the car whether his ex wife objects or not, no matter what the scenario is.

I am bringing up valid issues that the OP's husband should not ignore.

Oh, and edit to add just because its a Mercedes doesn't mean its better than a KIA. I'd take a new KIA over a 10 year old Mercedes any day...LOL Heck, I would take a 10 year old Honda, Mazda, or any domestic US car over a 10 year old Mercedes any day.

Now, I do not know that this Mercedes is 10 years old but OP has been driving it for three years and apparently her husband drove it for a period of time during his prior marriage and during their current marriage, so its no spring chicken.

 

[justalayman]

The point I am making is that it may not be quite as black and white as it seems. I am still not at all sure that OP's husband can demand she stop using it until the divorce/property settlement is finalized, without switching vehicles with her. If he leaves her without transportation when there are multiple vehicles available to be used, I can see that really biting him in the butt.

I also cannot imagine that his former ex wife still has rights to the car, even if she is technically on the title. I think that this sounds more like laziness in getting paperwork switched over after a divorce was final, and the first ex being stubborn about it now.

Your name on the title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Op has no standing to dispute that proof as she neither purchase the vehicle nor has a marital interest in property owned prior to her marriage. It would be up to the op's ex to dispute ownership but alas, he has already rescinded permission to use the car. Now op is considering hiding the car from anybody that has proof of ownership. That's called stealing.


A gift is nearly impossible to enforce. There are a few circumstances that allow for it but outside of those very limited circumstances, a promise of a gift is not enforceable.

So, 6 ways from Sunday op has no legal claim to the car. She needs to give it up before she finds herself in jail for a piece of metal.

Wherher op's ex must provide op with a car is irrelevant of this car. The courts do not get to give away property belonging to a person not a party to an action.


You are speculating about situations that may or may not be issues for the op and the ex. You are letting your imagination take this places nobody involved has suggested are relevant.

 

[LdiJ]

Your name on the title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Op has no standing to dispute that proof as she neither purchase the vehicle nor has a marital interest in property owned prior to her marriage. It would be up to the op's ex to dispute ownership but alas, he has already rescinded permission to use the car. Now op is considering hiding the car from anybody that has proof of ownership. That's called stealing.


A gift is nearly impossible to enforce. There are a few circumstances that allow for it but outside of those very limited circumstances, a promise of a gift is not enforceable.

So, 6 ways from Sunday op has no legal claim to the car. She needs to give it up before she finds herself in jail for a piece of metal.

Wherher op's ex must provide op with a car is irrelevant of this car. The courts do not get to give away property belonging to a person not a party to an action.


You are speculating about situations that may or may not be issues for the op and the ex. You are letting your imagination take this places nobody involved has suggested are relevant.

Actually I am not. I am playing devil's advocate on issues that are clearly not as black and white as being presented on this thread.