Do I have rights to the vehicle?

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Having LIVED in Michigan Latigo and having EXPERIENCED exactly what is going on, I forewarned the OP. I still have the court paperwork, thank you.

 

[latigo]

Having LIVED in Michigan Latigo and having EXPERIENCED exactly what is going on, I forewarned the OP. I still have the court paperwork, thank you.

With all due respect, regardless of where you live, regardless of your understanding of the import of the “paperwork” that emanated from your “experience”, your advice to the OP remains legally flawed.

Which prompts this question. Please explain what there is about the following language from of Michigan’s vicarious liability statute that seems to confuse you. (There are 40 or more just like it.)

“The owner is NOT liable unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge.” MCL Section 257.401(1) (Emphasis added)
_______________________

At the present time sweetchick does not have physical possession or control of the vehicle, Agreed?

So how is she in position to authorize its use and be thus exposed to vicarious tort liability under Michigan law?

If your “paperwork” tells you that she can be held vicariously liable no matter who has possession and control, not matter who permits its use, with the only criteria being that she is on the title, then your paperwork is much mistaken.

_____________________________

We don’t know the market value of the car or the pay off on the loan. It could be a negative. What we do know, however, is that she owns one-half and the dealer owns the other half.

But if she is to follow your recommendation to capitulate to the dealer’s demands, she tosses away all chances of establishing what her one half is worth. And any prospects of settling with the dealer, who is stuck with a car he cannot sell!
____________________________

Also, if your advice to sign off on the title is sound from sweetchick’s end, why wouldn't it be equally wise from the standpoint of the dealer? (Say the dealer is the one perplexed and is asking what to do about the title.)

If the dealer allows a customer to take it for a trial spin and customer causes a chain of accidents, my bet is that your “paperwork” will say that the dealer is going to be held jointly liable.

But, importantly, not simply because the dealer is on the title. But because the dealer had physical control of the car, permitted its use by another and was on the title.

Best wishes

 

[TheGeekess]

With all due respect, regardless of where you live, regardless of your understanding of the import of the “paperwork” that emanated from your “experience”, your advice to the OP remains legally flawed.

Which prompts this question. Please explain what there is about the following language from of Michigan’s vicarious liability statute that seems to confuse you. (There are 40 or more just like it.)

“The owner is NOT liable unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge.” MCL Section 257.401(1) (Emphasis added)
_______________________

At the present time sweetchick does not have physical possession or control of the vehicle, Agreed?

So how is she in position to authorize its use and be thus exposed to vicarious tort liability under Michigan law?

If your “paperwork” tells you that she can be held vicariously liable no matter who has possession and control, not matter who permits its use, with the only criteria being that she is on the title, then your paperwork is much mistaken.

_____________________________

We don’t know the market value of the car or the pay off on the loan. It could be a negative. What we do know, however, is that she owns one-half and the dealer owns the other half.

But if she is to follow your recommendation to capitulate to the dealer’s demands, she tosses away all chances of establishing what her one half is worth. And any prospects of settling with the dealer, who is stuck with a car he cannot sell!
____________________________

Also, if your advice to sign off on the title is sound from sweetchick’s end, why wouldn't it be equally wise from the standpoint of the dealer? (Say the dealer is the one perplexed and is asking what to do about the title.)

If the dealer allows a customer to take it for a trial spin and customer causes a chain of accidents, my bet is that your “paperwork” will say that the dealer is going to be held jointly liable.

But, importantly, not simply because the dealer is on the title. But because the dealer had physical control of the car, permitted its use by another and was on the title.

Best wishes

They're saying if the EX had been driving the trade-in and hit the bus o' nuns/children.

 

[BL]

He traded the vehicle in which in turn paid off the loan, so I had nothing to do with that. But if you must know I did not make any of the payments on the vehicle. He does not have a drivers licenses due to drunk driving.

This may be silly , but whom drove the vehicle to the dealership to trade it in and whom is driving the newer one ?

Not that it makes a difference to you.

You made no payments on the vehicle loan , sign the title and be done with it...and move on.

 

[sweetchick]

This may be silly , but whom drove the vehicle to the dealership to trade it in and whom is driving the newer one ?

Not that it makes a difference to you.

You made no payments on the vehicle loan , sign the title and be done with it...and move on.

His girlfriend drove it to the dealership to trade it in and she is also driving the new vehicle because he does NOT have a drivers license due to drunk driving many years ago.

 

[justalayman]

I would take the amount the dealer credited for the trade-in. Subtract the payoff on the loan. Divided the balance in half and tell the dealership that you will sign off on the title once we have their certified check in that amount and payable to your order.

that would be due from the ex since he is the entity that has benefit of the payment at the OP's expense. Of course, the dealership could give OP half the equity based on fair market value and amount of debt against the title (amount credited for trade in is a fictitious number) but they would then demand that from the ex BF and if unable to pay, it would sour the deal and all would likely collapse. OP would end up still owing the same as before the transaction but to the dealership rather than the bank, unless the dealer could undo the deal with the bank.

beyond that, since OP paid nothing towards the vehicle, ex had equitable title with nothing owing to the OP.

 

[Eekamouse]

If OP was smart, she'd sign off on this and be done with it but methinks the OP is greedy and vindictive and trying to screw over her ex and his new girl.

 

[latigo]

Lat - let's say the "deal" is undone and the ex gets the car back. The ex is driving home and crashes in to a bus half filled with nuns and the other half filled with 6 year olds on their first field trip. OP could DEFINITELY be found to have liability.

Dear Zig:

In other words, we’re back to square one. Sweetums and the ex boyfriend are again co-owners of the vehicle and the ex negligently plows into the bus.

If you are posing that scenario with respect to ex’s negligence being imputed to sweetums under Michigan’s vicarious liability laws, let me ask you this.

How could it be said that ex – who, as a co-owner has equal control over the use of that vehicle * – was operating the vehicle with the “consent” of the other co-owner?

In the context of the Michigan statute the word consent means to authorize or permit someone to do something. Inherent in the definition is that without consent that person is not so unauthorized. If the authority or the right to act pre-exists, then consent from another has not meaning or purpose.

______________________


[*] Zedella vs. Giibson 50 NE2d 1000 (Ill); Neale vs. Wright 585 A2d 201 (Md)