threats to take me to small claims court

[starblitz]

I bought a car in Missouri from an individual. I had a very hard time getting the title from her. I signed a bill of sale where I agreed to pay half down and the rest in monthly payments. I paid all but $150.00 of it due to the fees I incured from DMV while waiting for the title so I could properly liscence and tag my car and for the down time I had to park the car. I had to end up parking the car for almost two months because the temp tags expired before I received the title from the previous owner. I submitted the fees I incurred to her (previous owner) and she became very angry, called me all kinds of names, called my answering machine, left nasty, vulgar messages, she even called my daughter and went crazy cursing at my daughter over the phone. I finally told her to give me my money back I paid for the car or give me the title. I went to her home and she signed the title over to me with no lien, she said the car was mine and I owed no more money. The tilte is clear with no lien on it. Now it is a year later and I get a call from her stating she is broke and needs money and threatened to take to me to small claims court or give her the car back (after I spent a bundle on repairs). Is this legal? Can she do this? She says she has the copy of the bill of sale and I still have my copy also. What are my options here? Please help.

 

[ninalou]

if she provided you the title with no liens, then I don't think she has a leg to stand on. the car is yours NOT hers anymore. i hope you saved the tapes of her vulgarity et al . . . as well as documentation on the final sale of the car (from her to you.) that will help you build your case. if she does indeed file, i'd file a counter claim on harassment bc she is! in the meantime, I'd make sure you keep any messages she leaves on your answering machine as well as copies of letters she sends. . . btw, i'm not an atty, but the one thing I do know is you must cya with everything! good luck and keep us posted. . .

 

[starblitz]

I have saved the tapes from her vulgarity and yes, I have all my papers from the sale just in case. I will counter sue if it comes down to going to court. I can't believe this person is this crazy. LOL. There are some real wierd people in the world, I just happen to cross paths with one while car hunting.

 

[ninalou]

People ARE weird! Good for you for keeping those tapes! That will come to your advantage. Hopefully you will never need to use them in court. But considering how weird this bird sounds, I would hold onto them for some time to come . . . you may build a good harrassment suit . . . and I hate to say this, but keep tapes on hand in case she leaves any more threatening messages.

 

[JETX]

Sorry, Ninalou, the issue of the tapes is totally irrelevant to the issue and will very probably NEVER be heard in court (even if this case did get there).

The only issue of relevance is the ownership of the purchased vehicle. If you have a clear title in your name, the seller has no further claim against you.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Sorry, Ninalou, the issue of the tapes is totally irrelevant to the issue and will very probably NEVER be heard in court (even if this case did get there).

The only issue of relevance is the ownership of the purchased vehicle. If you have a clear title in your name, the seller has no further claim against you.

My response:

Hellooooo Steve ! Where've you been ? Nice to see you.

Anyway, just a slight, perhaps, extremely small, correction. You'll notice that our writer said, in her second post, that she is considering a Cross-Complaint. While she didn't tell us her grounds, I can only presume that she'll choose some theory based upon "harassment." In that event, her tapes will be relevant. Since we haven't heard the tapes, I will make no comment upon our writer's chances of prevailing on the cross-claim.

But, I do agree with you that in the main action by plaintiff, the tapes will have no relevance.

IAAL

 

[starblitz]

I must say your responses are appreciated and very enlightening. My cross-complaint would be on the grounds of slander and harrassment, for all the nasty things she said to my daughter and to a few of my close friends. It would also be for the expenses I incurred from the DMV for late title fees while waiting for her to turn over the title. I never mentioned this to her because I knew she could not afford to have the car repaired but when I bought the car it would not pass safety inspection and in the state of MO it is the law that a seller of a vehicle must have the vehicle pass safety inspection no more then 60 days prior to date of sale of vehicle. So I would also include the expenses for the repairs I incurred to get the vehicle to pass safety inspection. Although... it may not hold since I bought the car as-is?

 

[Rosie65]

Is that really a law? I certainly don't agree with that! I mean, that's fine if you're buying a car for immediate road use, but that's not always the situation. What about if you buy a fixer upper that you plan to work on and restore? What if you're buying a wreck to part out for fixing another vehicle? Does the law make an exception for these kinds of things? Just wondering.

 

[starblitz]

Rosie65, It is the law, I think, unless I am misunderstanding this. I am not a lawyer, but I have done some research and this is what I found, this should answer all your questions.

Missouri revised statutes, chapter 307.380
At the seller's expense every vehicle of the type required to be inspected by section 307.350, whether new or used, shall immediately prior to sale be fully inspected regardless of any current certificate of inspection and approval, and an appropiate new certificate of inspection and approval, sticker, seal or other device shall be obtained.
(2).Nothing in the provisions of this section shall be construed to prohibit a dealer or any other person from selling a vehicle without a certificate of inspection and approval if the vehicle is sold for junk, salvage, or for rebuilding, or for vehicles sold at public auction or from dealer to dealer. The purchaser of any vehicle which is purchased for junk, salvage or for rebuilding, shall give the seller an affidavit, or a form prescribed by the superintendent of the Missouri state highway patrol, stating that the vehicle is being purchased for one of the reasons stated herein. No vehicle of the type required to be inspected by section 307.350 which is purchased as junk , salvage or for rebuilding shall again be registered in this state until the owner has submitted the vehicle for inspection and obtained an official certificate of inspection and approval, sticker, seal or other device for such vehicle.
Missouri safety inspection cannot be disclaimed unless vehicle is sold for junk, salvage or rebuilding. Selling a vehicle "as is" does not alleviate the seller's need to comply with the safety inspection statutes.

 

[Rosie65]

Thanks starblitz for answering my question. Yes, I am glad to see the law does have exceptions for the situations I described--they would come under "rebuilding" and "salvage".

 

[starblitz]

Your welcome Rosie65