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

[Just Blue]

You and your friend appear to be the exception rather than the rule. In other words, you were smart and handled the loan as loans should be handled.

What amazes me is how many of our posters have "friendships" so tenuous that the friendships dissolve soon after the loans are made.

Yeah..curious that. Wonder why?

 

[quincy]

I think that the "contract" was written AFTER the falling out, not when the car was purchased.

You could be right.

Either way, the burden to prove the money/car was a gift is on the friend.

 

[quincy]

Yeah..curious that. Wonder why?

No clue. Friendships might not be what they used to be.

 

[HRZ]

Taking Quincy to be correct. ( normally is) I would suggest that the presumed loan was made to the title holder and the OP might be smart to demand in writing the loan repayment from the title holder as well, then be prepared to sue them both .

 

[pac72]

have you asked mom to sign the car back over to you?

 

[Just Blue]

No clue. Friendships might not be what they used to be.

Perhaps adults aren't what they used to be? ;(

 

[LdiJ]

You could be right.

Either way, the burden to prove the money/car was a gift is on the friend.

I disagree a bit. If someone lends money to purchase a car then the standard procedure would be to place a lien on the title. I think that I could make a really good argument that if someone paid for a car, and did not list themselves as either an owner or a lienholder, that the person made a gift of that car.

 

[quincy]

I disagree a bit. If someone lends money to purchase a car then the standard procedure would be to place a lien on the title. I think that I could make a really good argument that if someone paid for a car, and did not list themselves as either an owner or a lienholder, that the person made a gift of that car.

The legal presumption is still a loan.

 

[LdiJ]

The legal presumption is still a loan.

Again, I disagree. Had the OP simply given the person some money then I would agree with you. However the OP did not do that. The OP gave the person a car...and there was a very simple method to show the loan, which was a lien on the title. The OP did not need to do anything special to do that, other than filling out the lien information on the title before turning it over to the person to register the car.

 

[quincy]

That certainly can be an argument the friend could use in court to try to overcome the presumption of loan.

 

[justalayman]

Again, I disagree. Had the OP simply given the person some money then I would agree with you. However the OP did not do that. The OP gave the person a car...and there was a very simple method to show the loan, which was a lien on the title. The OP did not need to do anything special to do that, other than filling out the lien information on the title before turning it over to the person to register the car.

Quincy is providing the issue as the Texas state law views it. Apparently the law in Texas presumes such a situation is viewed as a loan unless it can be proven to be a gift.

Also, I have purchased several vehicles for others, with me as the financier but I’ve never rcorded a lien. I’ve not felt a need to do so so I’ve never taken the time to do it.

 

[Zigner]

The problem, as I see it, is that this only became a "loan" after the falling out. Prior to that, it was a gift. Of course, if the OP is going to lie in court, then the rest of the suppositions can kick in, but the basic fact is that, at the time it occurred, the car was a gift.

 

[HRZ]

I agree it seems to be reinvented as a loan only just recently ....but TX law as addressed by Quincy may create the presumption it was a loan all along ? If there is to be credibility to the loan, it seems to me that the title holder of car needs to be included in demand to pay back the "loan."

 

[Zigner]

I agree it seems to be reinvented as a loan only just recently ....but TX law as addressed by Quincy may create the presumption it was a loan all along ? If there is to be credibility to the loan, it seems to me that the title holder of car needs to be included in demand to pay back the "loan."

What I am trying to say is that it was a GIFT until the falling out. If the OP is honest, then he has no case. If the OP is dishonest and willing to lie in court, then all bets are off.

 

[quincy]

What I am trying to say is that it was a GIFT until the falling out. If the OP is honest, then he has no case. If the OP is dishonest and willing to lie in court, then all bets are off.

I did not read the original post as clearly saying it was a gift as opposed to loan. It was not clear to me when the loan agreement was drafted.

I certainly do not recommend pursuing a legal action if there is no legitimate basis. I do not recommend telling lies in court.

If the car was purchased with money intended to be a loan, however, then the court will presume the money was a loan absent any evidence to the contrary. Without a written loan agreement with terms detailing loan payments, the court can create a reasonable payment plan.

It will be up to the friend to show the court that the money was a gift given for the purchase of a car and was not a loan.