My dad and his wife want to sue my sister for car payments and unpaid tolls.

[quincy]

I think that is probably true everywhere. That is the purpose of a lien, to prevent collateral from being dissapated. (and I think I may have spelled that wrong too...LOL)

Dissipated.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

The problem with seize/sieze is that one who misspells words is not likely to find anything wrong with sieze. That is where autocorrect can be helpful.

Yep, spellcheck and autocorrect are very helpful features to seive/sieve out misspelled words.

 

[cbg]

Although the writer (and the English major) in me is intrigued by this spelling lesson, I am at a loss to understand how it is helpful to the OP and his question.

 

[Ohiogal]

It appears the father who co-signed the loan for the daughter was covering his butt by keeping title to the car in case the daughter defaulted on the loan and he was stuck with the payments. The daughter did not default on the loan and owes $1300 (that the father demands she pay) and the father keeps the car?? It also appears the intent that once the loan was paid the car would belong to the daughter, and, morally (although maybe not legally) so.

It would interesting to see how “The People’s Court” ruled on this family feud.

Statute of frauds. If it took more than a year to pay off, it needed to be in writing. If not, she gets nothing.

 

[Litigator22]

Well, this is a personal thing and not a legal thing here, but my siblings really hate my dad's wife. She has been nice to me, but she sees me as no threat as I'm in Texas away from everyone else. My dad's wife won't let him have a civil relationship with my mom where they can talk about their kids together and be friends or at least get along. My mom is remarried to someone else and is happy, but my dad's wife is insecure and thinks if she lets him talk to my mom, they will fall in love again and he'll cheat on her. My dad has never been the type to allow someone to control him before now, so I don't get the issue.

The father-daughter relationship has been broken forever for a long time. They haven't spoken in years until my dad's wife told him to go after her and take her car away that she was making payments on and to try to sell it to someone else for money.

Now, my sister can't get to work at her hourly job and she can't drive DoorDash for her supplemental income. She was on my dad's insurance, but he took her off without signing the car over to her or taking it back when he took the car off the insurance, so he got fined because it was being driven without being insured, and since the plates are registered to him, the tolls she accumulated in the northern states were billed to him and he didn't pay them, so his license was suspended.

I was just hoping maybe my sister would have a legal case where she could say she was paying for their car and she wants her money back because they took it when she wasn't in default on the loan. They were both on the loan, but the car was registered to my dad.

In theory her father has no more right to deny your sister's use of the vehicle than to arbitrarily seize any of her other worldly possessions!

PROVIDED, that is, if she were to mount a cause of action challenging his actions by asserting her equitable remedy. That remedy would be to have the appropriate court impose upon him a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

In essence a constructive trust is a legal fiction often used as a remedy to counteract unjust enrichment. And the needed element of unjust enrichment is evident here with the father assuming dominance over a vehicle for which has yet to pay a red cent towards its purchase.

Of course, the issues concerning insurance and toll charges are significant with the father likely having some means of legal recourse. HOWEVER, they are strictly collateral with their resolution being entirely separate from and without consequence to the core question. And that core issue has to do with the comparative equitable rights as between father and daughter to the use and possession and ultimate right to hold title to the vehicle.

Admittedly on face the documentary record would show the father as being the sole purchaser of the vehicle thus seemingly entitled to assert exclusive ownership and control. However, it is but an ostensible ownership as in truth his participation in the transaction was purely as an accommodation with the intent and understanding that the purchase was made for the exclusive benefit of is daughter. Subject of course to the loan indebtedness to be principally owed by his daughter.

It would be one thing if she were in default on her obligation to the lender compelling her joint obligor father to assume those payments and seek subrogation rights, but that is not the case here.

Again, let me emphasize that unless he is acting pursuant to some undisclosed agreement, he has not right to interject the above-mentioned collateral issues as grounds to assert dominance over the subject vehicle.

Lastly, please do not place any credence in the notion that the payments she made to the lender as joint obligor on the purchase money are to be credited toward her leasing or renting of the vehicle? If she was simply reimbursing father for his payments on the loan, such a thought might have some merit. But here she is fulfilling an original contractual obligation covering the purchase price for the vehicle.

 

[Litigator22]

In theory her father has no more right to deny your sister's use of the vehicle than to arbitrarily seize any of her other worldly possessions!

PROVIDED, that is, if she were to mount a cause of action challenging his actions by asserting her equitable remedy. That remedy would be to have the appropriate court impose upon him a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

In essence a constructive trust is a legal fiction often used as a remedy to counteract unjust enrichment. And the needed element of unjust enrichment is evident here with the father assuming dominance over a vehicle for which has yet to pay a red cent towards its purchase.

Of course, the issues concerning insurance and toll charges are significant with the father likely having some means of legal recourse. HOWEVER, they are strictly collateral with their resolution being entirely separate from and without consequence to the core question. And that core issue has to do with the comparative equitable rights as between father and daughter to the use and possession and ultimate right to hold title to the vehicle.

Admittedly on face the documentary record would show the father as being the sole purchaser of the vehicle thus seemingly entitled to assert exclusive ownership and control. However, it is but an ostensible ownership as in truth his participation in the transaction was purely as an accommodation with the intent and understanding that the purchase was made for the exclusive benefit of is daughter. Subject of course to the loan indebtedness to be principally owed by his daughter.

It would be one thing if she were in default on her obligation to the lender compelling her joint obligor father to assume those payments and seek subrogation rights, but that is not the case here.

Again, let me emphasize that unless he is acting pursuant to some undisclosed agreement, he has not right to interject the above-mentioned collateral issues as grounds to assert dominance over the subject vehicle.

Lastly, please do not place any credence in the notion that the payments she made to the lender as joint obligor on the purchase money are to be credited toward her leasing or renting of the vehicle? If she was simply reimbursing father for his payments on the loan, such a thought might have some merit. But here she is fulfilling an original contractual obligation covering the purchase price for the vehicle.

 

[quincy]

In theory her father has no more right to deny your sister's use of the vehicle than to arbitrarily seize any of her other worldly possessions!

PROVIDED, that is, if she were to mount a cause of action challenging his actions by asserting her equitable remedy. That remedy would be to have the appropriate court impose upon him a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

In essence a constructive trust is a legal fiction often used as a remedy to counteract unjust enrichment. And the needed element of unjust enrichment is evident here with the father assuming dominance over a vehicle for which has yet to pay a red cent towards its purchase.

Of course, the issues concerning insurance and toll charges are significant with the father likely having some means of legal recourse. HOWEVER, they are strictly collateral with their resolution being entirely separate from and without consequence to the core question. And that core issue has to do with the comparative equitable rights as between father and daughter to the use and possession and ultimate right to hold title to the vehicle.

Admittedly on face the documentary record would show the father as being the sole purchaser of the vehicle thus seemingly entitled to assert exclusive ownership and control. However, it is but an ostensible ownership as in truth his participation in the transaction was purely as an accommodation with the intent and understanding that the purchase was made for the exclusive benefit of is daughter. Subject of course to the loan indebtedness to be principally owed by his daughter.

It would be one thing if she were in default on her obligation to the lender compelling her joint obligor father to assume those payments and seek subrogation rights, but that is not the case here.

Again, let me emphasize that unless he is acting pursuant to some undisclosed agreement, he has not right to interject the above-mentioned collateral issues as grounds to assert dominance over the subject vehicle.

Lastly, please do not place any credence in the notion that the payments she made to the lender as joint obligor on the purchase money are to be credited toward her leasing or renting of the vehicle? If she was simply reimbursing father for his payments on the loan, such a thought might have some merit. But here she is fulfilling an original contractual obligation covering the purchase price for the vehicle.

I wonder if there was a down payment made on the vehicle at the time of purchase or if there was a trade-in involved ...

 

[JackM678]

Okay, so from what I heard yesterday more details of this story, the unpaid tolls only make up about 13 dollars.

They took the car from my sister, and they want her to pay for the rest of it anyway.

In addition, my dad had my sister taken off of his insurance, and wants her to pay the penalties of the car not being insured, and he also didn't renew the plates, so he got fined since it was his car, and my dad and his wife want her to pay those fines too. My older sister in Ohio and my brother in law had also been hearing about this too. My dad and them bought YouTube TV together and they were gonna split the 67 dollars per month, and told my sister they can't pay her half anymore because my younger sister didn't pay them the fines and for the rest of the car they took away from her, so my dad's wife is claiming they are at risk of going bankrupt (over less than 2000 dollars).

My younger sister stopped responding to their messages ordering her to pay them, so not only are they threatening to take her to court, but they are also calling my sister's friends in North Carolina telling them to give her the message that they're gonna sue her.

 

[Zigner]

It might be wise to simply stay out of this...

 

[LdiJ]

Okay, so from what I heard yesterday more details of this story, the unpaid tolls only make up about 13 dollars.

They took the car from my sister, and they want her to pay for the rest of it anyway.

In addition, my dad had my sister taken off of his insurance, and wants her to pay the penalties of the car not being insured, and he also didn't renew the plates, so he got fined since it was his car, and my dad and his wife want her to pay those fines too. My older sister in Ohio and my brother in law had also been hearing about this too. My dad and them bought YouTube TV together and they were gonna split the 67 dollars per month, and told my sister they can't pay her half anymore because my younger sister didn't pay them the fines and for the rest of the car they took away from her, so my dad's wife is claiming they are at risk of going bankrupt (over less than 2000 dollars).

My younger sister stopped responding to their messages ordering her to pay them, so not only are they threatening to take her to court, but they are also calling my sister's friends in North Carolina telling them to give her the message that they're gonna sue her.

If your parents sue her, they are going to quickly find that a judge will likely laugh at them. Again, Litigator's advice about constructive trust is spot on, but even if that were not the case for them to claim that they had the right to take the car away from her AND still require her to pay the loan off is absurd. It is also absurd for him to make the choice to remove her from the insurance and to not renew the plates and try to hold her responsible.

The only place where she is in the wrong is the tolls.

 

[LdiJ]

If your parents sue her, they are going to quickly find that a judge will likely laugh at them. Again, Litigator's advice about constructive trust is spot on, but even if that were not the case for them to claim that they had the right to take the car away from her AND still require her to pay the loan off is absurd. It is also absurd for him to make the choice to remove her from the insurance and to not renew the plates and try to hold her responsible.

The only place where she is in the wrong is the tolls.

Your dad could have avoided all of these problems by signing the car over to her when he wanted to drop her from the insurance and not renew the plates. He could have also asked her to refinance the remaining balance into her own name as well.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

It might be wise to simply stay out of this...

And have the sister/daughter login and provide “the rest of the story”.

 

[stealth2]

It might be wise to simply stay out of this...

Pretty much what I've been thinking. Time to tell sister/Dad to leave you out of the middle.

 

[JackM678]

I've only been hearing about it from my mom mostly. My sister just wanted to know if my dad and his wife can actually get anything from her. She was gonna tell them she'll pay 1300 dollars if they agree to bring the car back to her, but my mom advised her not to do that and just look for another car, as they are seeming like they might end up taking the money and not giving her the car back. They want her to pay them the money and still sell it for more anyway.


My dad has kind of a history of doing stuff like this. He was trying to face both a wrongful termination suit for being too sick to work and his company's refusal to pay for his worker's compensation claim from a workplace injury. While awaiting the case to be heard, there were a few times he went up to the building with a baseball bat that he was gonna use to break the windows and we had to talk him out of it. He told me to go outside once when I was 16 over an argument and he'd be out to face me in a fight, and I put a shovel behind my back that I was gonna beat him over the head with, but my mom told him they were through if he went out there and assaulted me, so he didn't come out.

History of anger management in our family. I'm in therapy still at the age of almost 36. Just a fun story I wanted to share with all of you.

 

[stealth2]

It's even less Mom's place to put you in the middle.