I bought a car for a friend now I want my money back.

[quincy]

I am sorry but I think that you are dead wrong. You are making the assumption that any gift is automatically considered a loan in TX without evidence to the effect that it was a gift. Even under your assumption, the fact that the title was put in the name of someone else, with no lien included on said title, is evidence enough of the gift.

On top of that, the title is in the name of a THIRD party to the transaction. I cannot fathom why you are giving this OP any encouragement at all.

First, it is not "my" assumption. It is a legal presumption recognized in Texas.

Provide evidence please to support your statements. Thanks.

 

[LdiJ]

First, it is not "my" assumption. It is a legal presumption recognized in Texas.

Provide evidence please to support your statements. Thanks.

Provide evidence to support yours. I agree that in TX the legal presumption is a loan, but in this instance there is a title in someone's name with no lien. You are refusing to recognize that.

 

[quincy]

Provide evidence to support yours. I agree that in TX the legal presumption is a loan, but in this instance there is a title in someone's name with no lien. You are refusing to recognize that.

And the friend is free to argue that and anything else to show it was a gift.

But the friend has to overcome the presumption that it is a loan.

 

[LdiJ]

And the friend is free to argue that and anything else to show it was a gift.

But the friend has to overcome the presumption that it is a loan.

Again, you are dead wrong. You cannot say that the presumption is that it is a loan because title was given to someone...someone who is even a third party in this instance.

 

[quincy]

Again, you are dead wrong. You cannot say that the presumption is that it is a loan because title was given to someone...someone who is even a third party in this instance.

Explain please where in the law it says that having title to a car precludes a loan?

 

[LdiJ]

Explain please where in the law it says that having title to a car precludes a loan?[/QUOTE

The evidence of the gift is the title without a lien. To claim anything else is ridiculous.

 

[quincy]

I am only presenting the law and you aren't. That is the major difference.

 

[LdiJ]

I am only presenting the law and you aren't. That is the major difference.

No you are NOT presenting the law. The law that you are presenting is not relevant to the thread and you know that.

 

[quincy]

Why is the law not relevant?

The law presumes property or money that is given to a non-relative is a loan, absent evidence to the contrary.

It is up to the person receiving the property or money to show the property or money was a gift.

That is about as relevant as it gets for this thread.