should i be worried?

[skins_11]

i live in wisconsin. about 2 years ago i took out a loan on a new computer, scanner, and printer for a total of about 4000 dollars. the loan was in my name with my boyfriend as the cosigner. after figuring out the interest that i would be paying he offered to pay it off for me and i declined the offer. about a week later he showed up at my doorstep with the loan agreement reading "paid in full". when i asked him why he did it he said he was trying to save me money. well, since then we have broken up. the other day i received a notice from the small claims court saying that i am in posession of his property and he is suing me for the computer and accessories. my question is: since the loan was in my name and he was just the cosigner, doesn't the computer belong to me regardless of who paid the loan off? maybe i'm completely wrong about this whole thing but my thought is that the whole thing warranty and all is in my name so it is my property and he doesn't have any right to it. please let me know if my theory is correct or not. after all, since i told him not to pay it off, couldn't the money be considered a gift since there was no agreement between us about repaying the money?

 

[Chili]

I would consider it a gift. Let him TRY to explain how these items in your name are in any way his. When someone gives you something for no reason, and without your asking, that is called a 'gift'. If he hauls you into court, he will only look like the spurned lover that he is. Forget it.

 

[JETX]

Give him the equipment and get a receipt for its return.

Here is what I predict will happen...
He is the co-signer on the note. He will claim that you were in breach of the agreement (or about to be) and he paid the debt to protect his credit. If he can convince the court of that, he WILL get a judgment against you in the amount that he paid "in your behalf" (or an order for the equipment). So, your choice... give him the computer equipment that isn't worth the full amount.... or owe him the full amount.

 

[willshunt]

Halket is essentially correct in that you'll not reap the windfall you're seeking. But, I believe it will be very difficult to prove you were in breach of an agreement, if in fact, your payments were made in a timely manner. Since the co-signer has, in effect, stepped into the lenders shoes, I believe the judge may well assign a "payment schedule" between you and the co-signor.

 

[JETX]

Willshunt:

You said, "I believe it will be very difficult to prove you were in breach of an agreement, if in fact, your payments were made in a timely manner."
Why do you believe that??
Why do you think the issue of 'breach' will even come up??
Why do you think that a co-signer even has to wait for breach??
Why do you think that the co-signer doesn't have the right to step in at ANY time to correct what might be a problem???

Further, you said, "I believe the judge may well assign a "payment schedule" between you and the co-signor."
Why do you believe that???
Do you mean it is possible??
Do you mean it is likely??
Or is this just a hope??

Please provide ANY legal basis for your response.

 

[fadvic]

Halket:

Willshunt's reply appears to be right on point. You mentioned in your first reply that (you predict) the ex-boyfriend will claim Skin_11 was in "breach". It would be very difficult to prove breach as there isn't one. The ex-boyfriend/co-signer paid off the loan and showed up at her doorstep one week after the equipment was purchased. Co-signers don't usually pay off someone else's loans hoping to recover through the court system. Unless the ex-boyfriend can show evidence of inevitable breach and that his credit would consequently suffer, his argument will not hold water.

Being a judge pro tem, I have seen this type of case. If the case were before me, I would certainly not allow Ms. Skin_11 to profit. A judgment for the loan amount with scheduled payments and reasonable interest would certainly be appropriate.

 

[JETX]

As a judge "pro tem", you should realize that a co-signed agreement doesn't require proof of breach. This is NOT a contractual issue, but a fiduciary one. Both parties have equal rights and equal responsibilities. All that is needed is for the co-signer (who stepped in and made payment) to make a demand for 'damages' from the primary.

As I pointed out.... 'skin' has a choice to make.....
1) Let the court award a judgment (or even payments), to the 'ex' thereby costing her the full current retail value for a used computer system, or
2) Let the 'ex' have the used equipment for full retail value and go purchase a less expensive, newer, faster system.

Pretty much a 'no brainer' to me..... let him have the equipment and get a reciept for delivery with liability release.

BTW 'fadvic', where are you a judge??

 

[fadvic]

Halket:

You are apparantly unclear. Yes, of course, there is a contractual relationship, between "skin"/co-signer and the loan company. And, yes, of course, there is a fiduciary relationship between "skin" and the co-signer. Perhaps you should go back and read my last reply in conjunction with your previous reply. You said in your post: "He (the co-signer) will claim that you ("skin") were in BREACH." This is the "BREACH" I refered to. It seems you selectively interpret the replies of others in order to be "right"...which is wrong.


P.S. I'm in Ca.