Car as gift

[Person98]

Nebraska
I received a car as a gift from my sister when I turned 16 and it was put in my Dad's name at the time. Now I am 18 and he is refusing to let me drive and says if I leave the house to live on my own that I cannot take the car. But both my mom and sister think I should be able to take it. So do I have legal right to force the car being put in my name if my sister says it was a gift for me and not my dad?

 

[Ohiogal]

Nebraska
I received a car as a gift from my sister when I turned 16 and it was put in my Dad's name at the time. Now I am 18 and he is refusing to let me drive and says if I leave the house to live on my own that I cannot take the car. But both my mom and sister think I should be able to take it. So do I have legal right to force the car being put in my name if my sister says it was a gift for me and not my dad?

Nope. The car belongs to your father because it was put in his name. If it was a gift to you it should have been put in your name.

 

[quincy]

Your question has absolutely nothing to do with patent law.

 

[Person98]

Nope. The car belongs to your father because it was put in his name. If it was a gift to you it should have been put in your name.

I was under age at the time, I don't believe that you can have a car put in a minor's name

 

[quincy]

I was under age at the time, I don't believe that you can have a car put in a minor's name

It doesn't matter. The car belongs to your dad.

The age of majority in Nebraska is 19, by the way.

 

[quincy]

A patent is a grant by the US Patent and Trademark Office. It provides the holder of the patent with a limited time monopoly on the use of an invention.

There are three types of patents that are issued by the USPTO - a utility patent, a design patent, a plant patent.

Inventions must be new and nonobvious to be granted a patent.

 

[Ohiogal]

I was under age at the time, I don't believe that you can have a car put in a minor's name

You'd be wrong.

 

[latigo]

Nope. The car belongs to your father because it was put in his name. If it was a gift to you it should have been put in your name.

Pardon me for saying so, but you are ill-informed and have much misinformed the poster. For you continued education in the field the equitable term "CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST" is not a phrase unique to a lost language! It is alive and well in American and Ohio Jurisprudence. So please allow me to offer the following:

Constructive Trust defined:

"A relationship by which a person who has obtained title to property has an equitable duty to transfer it to another, to whom it rightfully belongs, on the basis that the acquisition or retention of it is wrongful and would unjustly enrich the person if he or she were allowed to retain it."

“A constructive trust arises by operation of law against one who through any form of unconscionable conduct holds legal title to property where equity and good conscience demands that he should not hold such title.” Dixon v. Smith, 119 Ohio App. 3rd 308

“A resulting trust as one that the court of equity declares to exist where the legal estate in property is transferred or acquired by one under circumstances indicating that the beneficial interest is not intended to be enjoyed by the holder of the legal title.” Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118, 772 N.E.2d 105, 2002-Ohio-3748, at 56, citing First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati v. Tenney, 165 Ohio St. 513, 515, 138 N.E.2d 15 (1956).

“Where property is transferred to one person but another pays the purchase price, the law presumes a resulting trust exists in favor of the person paying for the property.” Hollon v. Abner, 1st Dist. No. C960182, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3814, at *5 (Aug. 29, 1997); Perich-Varie v. Varie, 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0029, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3990, (Aug 1999).

"The creation of a constructive trust is premised upon the unjust enrichment that would result if the person holding legal title to the property were allowed to retain it . . . . . constructive trust may exist even where there is not evidence that the title to the property was obtained buy improper means. See: Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St 3rd 223, 459 N.E.2d 1293;McGrew v. Popham, 5th Dist. No. 05 CA 129, 2007-Ohio-428: Groza-Vance v. Vance, 162 Ohio App. 3rd 510 (10th Dist. 2005).

(Above are extracts take from a recently posted article by the Cincinnati offices of Finney Law Firm, LLC)

 

[quincy]

Pardon me for saying so, but you are ill-informed and have much misinformed the poster. For you continued education in the field the equitable term "CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST" is not a phrase unique to a lost language! It is alive and well in American and Ohio Jurisprudence. So please allow me to offer the following:

Constructive Trust defined:

"A relationship by which a person who has obtained title to property has an equitable duty to transfer it to another, to whom it rightfully belongs, on the basis that the acquisition or retention of it is wrongful and would unjustly enrich the person if he or she were allowed to retain it."

“A constructive trust arises by operation of law against one who through any form of unconscionable conduct holds legal title to property where equity and good conscience demands that he should not hold such title.” Dixon v. Smith, 119 Ohio App. 3rd 308

“A resulting trust as one that the court of equity declares to exist where the legal estate in property is transferred or acquired by one under circumstances indicating that the beneficial interest is not intended to be enjoyed by the holder of the legal title.” Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118, 772 N.E.2d 105, 2002-Ohio-3748, at 56, citing First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati v. Tenney, 165 Ohio St. 513, 515, 138 N.E.2d 15 (1956).

“Where property is transferred to one person but another pays the purchase price, the law presumes a resulting trust exists in favor of the person paying for the property.” Hollon v. Abner, 1st Dist. No. C960182, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3814, at *5 (Aug. 29, 1997); Perich-Varie v. Varie, 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0029, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3990, (Aug 1999).

"The creation of a constructive trust is premised upon the unjust enrichment that would result if the person holding legal title to the property were allowed to retain it . . . . . constructive trust may exist even where there is not evidence that the title to the property was obtained buy improper means. See: Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St 3rd 223, 459 N.E.2d 1293;McGrew v. Popham, 5th Dist. No. 05 CA 129, 2007-Ohio-428: Groza-Vance v. Vance, 162 Ohio App. 3rd 510 (10th Dist. 2005).

(Above are extracts take from a recently posted article by the Cincinnati offices of Finney Law Firm, LLC)

Good information but the title of the car is in dad's name and dad has probably paid the costs involved in keeping this car for 2 years and Person98 is still a minor. Plus, the terms of transfer to dad need to be known.

And this still has nothing to do with patent law.

 

[HRZ]

the short answer is that there was a complete gift to dad..dad owns it...and while under dad's roof you need to play by dads rule .untl such time as you are of age and chose to leave or are asked to leave ..or perhaps enlist.

I think the constructive trust point would be a long expensive point to address...and I'm not taking bets on any outcome you might like.

 

[Ohiogal]

Pardon me for saying so, but you are ill-informed and have much misinformed the poster. For you continued education in the field the equitable term "CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST" is not a phrase unique to a lost language! It is alive and well in American and Ohio Jurisprudence. So please allow me to offer the following:

Constructive Trust defined:

"A relationship by which a person who has obtained title to property has an equitable duty to transfer it to another, to whom it rightfully belongs, on the basis that the acquisition or retention of it is wrongful and would unjustly enrich the person if he or she were allowed to retain it."

“A constructive trust arises by operation of law against one who through any form of unconscionable conduct holds legal title to property where equity and good conscience demands that he should not hold such title.” Dixon v. Smith, 119 Ohio App. 3rd 308

“A resulting trust as one that the court of equity declares to exist where the legal estate in property is transferred or acquired by one under circumstances indicating that the beneficial interest is not intended to be enjoyed by the holder of the legal title.” Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118, 772 N.E.2d 105, 2002-Ohio-3748, at 56, citing First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati v. Tenney, 165 Ohio St. 513, 515, 138 N.E.2d 15 (1956).

“Where property is transferred to one person but another pays the purchase price, the law presumes a resulting trust exists in favor of the person paying for the property.” Hollon v. Abner, 1st Dist. No. C960182, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3814, at *5 (Aug. 29, 1997); Perich-Varie v. Varie, 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0029, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3990, (Aug 1999).

"The creation of a constructive trust is premised upon the unjust enrichment that would result if the person holding legal title to the property were allowed to retain it . . . . . constructive trust may exist even where there is not evidence that the title to the property was obtained buy improper means. See: Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St 3rd 223, 459 N.E.2d 1293;McGrew v. Popham, 5th Dist. No. 05 CA 129, 2007-Ohio-428: Groza-Vance v. Vance, 162 Ohio App. 3rd 510 (10th Dist. 2005).

(Above are extracts take from a recently posted article by the Cincinnati offices of Finney Law Firm, LLC)

Yeah and you are still an unpracticing idiot. The poster is in Nebraska. But what else is new in the rest of it?

 

[quincy]

the short answer is that there was a complete gift to dad..dad owns it...and while under dad's roof you need to play by dads rule .untl such time as you are of age and chose to leave or are asked to leave ..or perhaps enlist.

I think the constructive trust point would be a long expensive point to address...and I'm not taking bets on any outcome you might like.

With Person98 being 18 and not 19, s/he is not in a great position to argue ownership, especially with dad holding title to the vehicle.

latigo cited all Ohio cases, didn't he?

 

[Ohiogal]

Good information but the title of the car is in dad's name and dad has probably paid the costs involved in keeping this car for 2 years and Person98 is still a minor. Plus, the terms of transfer to dad need to be known.

And this still has nothing to do with patent law.

Nor does it have to do with OHIO law but rather Nebraska law. But Latigo (He or she, I still don't know?) is just proving how much it is an idiot.

 

[Just Blue]

lol...

And none of this has a thing to do with Patent Law.

 

[quincy]

Nor does it have to do with OHIO law but rather Nebraska law. But Latigo (He or she, I still don't know?) is just proving how much it is an idiot.

Yes. I think latigo was so focused on your name, Ohiogal, that he totally missed that the poster is from Nebraska.

Although he cited inapplicable Ohio cases, I am impressed by the time he invested in research.

That said, I think both latigo and Person98 need to read more carefully. I still can't figure out how anyone could think a question about car ownership should be posted in the Patent section of the forum. It's not even close to a patent issue.