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

[quincy]

You are so obnoxious at times, justalayman.

 

[justalayman]

Money was used to purchase the car. It is this money that may or may not have to be repaid.

Op said nothing about loaning or gifting money. Op bought the car for the friend

if anything is owed, it is the return of the car. Op did not loan or give friend money so they aren’t due money. They would be entitled to the return of what they loaned.


And if you believe transferring title does not indicate a true transfer of ownership, could I borrow one of your Bentley’s? Of course for some reason I don’t understand you would have to transfer title into my name. I’ll even come and pick it up.

 

[quincy]

We are not talking about what was purchased but rather about the money that was used for the purchase. The money was either a loan to the friend that needs to be repaid or a gift to the friend for the purchase of a car.

It will be presumed a loan due to the relationship being friend-friend rather than family member-family member.

 

[justalayman]

We are not talking about what was purchased but rather about the money that was used for the purchase. The money was either a loan to the friend that needs to be repaid or a gift to the friend for the purchase of a car.

It will be presumed a loan due to the relationship being friend-friend rather than family member-family member.

I get the presumption but a transfer of title is supportive of donative intent, or to hide financial or criminal liability.

I’m using what the op stated. Op said they bought a car for a friend. They didn’t say they loaned friend money to buy a car. That means if this all is a loan, op is entitled to whatever was loaned and since op states they purchased a car and (now claims) they loaned it to a friend, they should demand the return of their car (that’s where the name on the title can be used to support donative intent). Now a plaintiff can seek money in lieu of the vehicle if the friend refuses to return the specific item loaned but that is up to a court to rule on.

So, in short, per the op’s statement, no money was handed to the op but rather a car was caused to be delivered to them. That is what the op would be due.


This isn’t merely for the s semantics argument. It can make a difference if the car isn’t actually worth the price paid. If the op purchased a car worth much less than they paid, it is not the responsibility of the recipient of the loan to make up for that poor decision.

 

[HighwayMan]

MPB: We were BBF's.

What's a "BBF"?

 

[quincy]

Nowhere was it said the car was loaned to the friend. Money was withdrawn for the purchase of the car. It is the money not the car that was the potential loan versus gift.

 

[justalayman]

Nowhere was it said the car was loaned to the friend. Money was withdrawn for the purchase of the car. It is the money not the car that was the potential loan versus gift.

It was said the op purchased a car for the friend. It doesn’t say the money was loaned nor gifted. It was tha car that is the subject of the action.

The money is not a part of the equation, based on the op’s specific statement.

 

[justalayman]

What's a "BBF"?

per the urban dictionary, it’s boy best friend. Further into the description it speaks of friends with benefits.

 

[quincy]

Well ... whatever you want to argue, it will be up to the friend to prove gift if a suit is filed against the friend to collect on a loan.

 

[justalayman]

I don’t disagree with the requirement to prove gift or loan. It is a matter of what was gifted or loaned that I am arguing and it could make a lot of difference if this ended up in court. Op never once states he loaned or gifted s single penny but (he) purchased a car and gifted/loaned it to the friend.

I bought my friend a car in April of 2018.

My point is basically that the op needs to understand that, as I see it, he doesn’t have the right to sue for the money he paid but for the return of the car or it’s value, regardless what he paid for it. If he over paid for the car he may get s judgment for less than he paid and have to live with that.. Due to that he may want to not run off to court and file suit right now.. it would be wise to seek a contract for the amount of the purchase first even if that requires eating a little crow.

Obtaining a contract from the friend would also eliminate the need to involve the mother, which might lead to an issue invoking the clean hands doctrine.

 

[quincy]

I think in my first response I said the car sounded to me more like a gift than a loan. I have not changed my opinion.

But it is the law that will presume a loan when there is no evidence to document a gift.

For that reason, the friend will have a difficult time showing the court that Mbeamon, out of the goodness of his/her heart, withdrew money from the bank to purchase a car for her - no strings (or repayment terms) attached.

Regardless of the car's value, it is the money that was spent to purchase the car that will be the amount that can potentially be recovered if Mbeamon takes the friend to court.

 

[justalayman]

I think in my first response I said the car sounded to me more like a gift than a loan. I have not changed my opinion.

But it is the law that will presume a loan when there is no evidence to document a gift.

For that reason, the friend will have a difficult time showing the court that Mbeamon, out of the goodness of his/her heart, withdrew money from the bank to purchase a car for her - no strings (or repayment terms) attached.

Regardless of the car's value, it is the money that was spent to purchase the car that will be the amount that can potentially be recovered if Mbeamon takes the friend to court.

I agree to your take on the loan/gift issue but regarding what the op could sue for, well, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[quincy]

I agree to your take on the loan/gift issue but regarding what the op could sue for, well, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

I'm okay with that.

 

[Just Blue]

What's a "BBF"?

berybestfriends.

BBF was a typo.

 

[LdiJ]

Well ... whatever you want to argue, it will be up to the friend to prove gift if a suit is filed against the friend to collect on a loan.

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.