He sold my car???
September 17, 2007 12:28 PM Subscribe
You are not my lawyer. You may not even BE a lawyer. But my friend needs, if not actual legal advice, some general suggestions about how to proceed. The short story: her ex-boyfriend sold her car without telling her, without her consent, and appears to have fled the state with his ill-gotten gains. This question is probably California-specific.
My friend moved from St. Louis, MO to Palm Springs, CA, with her boyfriend in August, 2005. She brought her car with her, and he used it to get to work every day during that time. They broke up in September of 2006, and the car had broken down (wasn't running at all) a few weeks before. Since he had been the primary user of it, her ex promised to pay to get it fixed. She, meanwhile, moved to San Francisco. The plan was that she would come back for the car when it was drivable again.
Since then, she's gotten a steady string of excuses from the ex about the status of things. Most of it has revolved around his employment and financial situations; he supposedly was doing tech consulting but was having problems getting paid. They went back and forth about it for this whole time. In the last two weeks she's had no contact with him, though, and she started to get suspicious. She ran a Carfax on the VIN yesterday and discovered that he had sold the car on July 31 of this year. She then found out through a mutual friend that, as of yesterday, the ex has packed up and left to move back to St. Louis.
The first problem is, my friend is still in posession of the title for the car. Thus, I don't understand how he could have sold it. The new owner wouldn't be able to register it in CA, as far as I know, without a valid title. My friend never transferred ownership of the car to her ex, she just left it with him. My first thought was that the Carfax report must be wrong, but the police in Palm Springs confirmed that the car was sold, and gave my friend the name of the new owner. The police further state that, since she left the car in his possession, the fact that he sold it without her consent is not criminal, but would be a civil/small claims matter. I don't understand how he could have sold the car, without a title, and not have that act be some sort of fraud.
At this point my friend doesn't know what action she should take, other than, "Get a lawyer." It sounds like she would have to sue him in St. Louis, since that's going to be his new place of residence. Naturally my friend has fairly limited financial resources, so while she probably could afford a lawyer for this little project, it wouldn't be worth it if she wasn't likely to get a decent settlement out of it. Any thoughts, facts, or advice would be greatly appreciated!
My friend moved from St. Louis, MO to Palm Springs, CA, with her boyfriend in August, 2005. She brought her car with her, and he used it to get to work every day during that time. They broke up in September of 2006, and the car had broken down (wasn't running at all) a few weeks before. Since he had been the primary user of it, her ex promised to pay to get it fixed. She, meanwhile, moved to San Francisco. The plan was that she would come back for the car when it was drivable again.
Since then, she's gotten a steady string of excuses from the ex about the status of things. Most of it has revolved around his employment and financial situations; he supposedly was doing tech consulting but was having problems getting paid. They went back and forth about it for this whole time. In the last two weeks she's had no contact with him, though, and she started to get suspicious. She ran a Carfax on the VIN yesterday and discovered that he had sold the car on July 31 of this year. She then found out through a mutual friend that, as of yesterday, the ex has packed up and left to move back to St. Louis.
The first problem is, my friend is still in posession of the title for the car. Thus, I don't understand how he could have sold it. The new owner wouldn't be able to register it in CA, as far as I know, without a valid title. My friend never transferred ownership of the car to her ex, she just left it with him. My first thought was that the Carfax report must be wrong, but the police in Palm Springs confirmed that the car was sold, and gave my friend the name of the new owner. The police further state that, since she left the car in his possession, the fact that he sold it without her consent is not criminal, but would be a civil/small claims matter. I don't understand how he could have sold the car, without a title, and not have that act be some sort of fraud.
At this point my friend doesn't know what action she should take, other than, "Get a lawyer." It sounds like she would have to sue him in St. Louis, since that's going to be his new place of residence. Naturally my friend has fairly limited financial resources, so while she probably could afford a lawyer for this little project, it wouldn't be worth it if she wasn't likely to get a decent settlement out of it. Any thoughts, facts, or advice would be greatly appreciated!
It's still her car. Like OJ she should just go take it back. Leave the guns at home. Just take it out of the driveway of the current possessor at night like a repo man.
posted by caddis at 12:38 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by caddis at 12:38 PM on September 17, 2007
About the only people I can imagine who would buy a car without title are chop-shops or "exporters"...guys who ship stolen cars to other countries.
I'd be real surprised if the name of the new owner is legit.
But, yeah, she needs to lawyer-up, seriously.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:46 PM on September 17, 2007
I'd be real surprised if the name of the new owner is legit.
But, yeah, she needs to lawyer-up, seriously.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:46 PM on September 17, 2007
It's still her car. Like OJ she should just go take it back. Leave the guns at home. Just take it out of the driveway of the current possessor at night like a repo man.
Don't do this. It may actually not be her car anymore, and even if it is, self help isn't the solution. Your friend may only be entitled to the value of the car from the ex, not the car from the buyer.
Only a lawyer can tell you who is entitled to what and how they should get it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:47 PM on September 17, 2007
Don't do this. It may actually not be her car anymore, and even if it is, self help isn't the solution. Your friend may only be entitled to the value of the car from the ex, not the car from the buyer.
Only a lawyer can tell you who is entitled to what and how they should get it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:47 PM on September 17, 2007
Typically for small claims court, the plaintiff has a choice between using the court in the municipality of the defendant's residence or in the municipality where the disputed transaction took place. I'd be pretty sure that this is the case in California too.
posted by winston at 12:47 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by winston at 12:47 PM on September 17, 2007
The police further state that, since she left the car in his possession, the fact that he sold it without her consent is not criminal, but would be a civil/small claims matter.
Cops aren't lawyers and they don't always understand what they're doing. In this case, maybe the cop was told "He sold my car, I want it back" and the cop heard "A valid sale took place, I want to undo it."
But if his name was never on the title of this car, he can't have made a valid sale. The recipient is thus in possession of stolen property. What your friend wants to do is report the car stolen, not complain to the police about the terms of a sale that in fact never took place.
Getting the car back is harder. If it was bought by someone who repaired it and is driving it, they're in possession of stolen property, and they'll have to give it back. But that's probably not what happened. It was probably bought by a shady dude, stripped and parted out. In that case, the title your friend has is now likely attached to a stripped car chassis that has been left abandoned on a state highway somewhere, and she will eventually get hit with a bill for its disposal. In a lot of cases this bill will far exceed the value of the car.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:48 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]
Cops aren't lawyers and they don't always understand what they're doing. In this case, maybe the cop was told "He sold my car, I want it back" and the cop heard "A valid sale took place, I want to undo it."
But if his name was never on the title of this car, he can't have made a valid sale. The recipient is thus in possession of stolen property. What your friend wants to do is report the car stolen, not complain to the police about the terms of a sale that in fact never took place.
Getting the car back is harder. If it was bought by someone who repaired it and is driving it, they're in possession of stolen property, and they'll have to give it back. But that's probably not what happened. It was probably bought by a shady dude, stripped and parted out. In that case, the title your friend has is now likely attached to a stripped car chassis that has been left abandoned on a state highway somewhere, and she will eventually get hit with a bill for its disposal. In a lot of cases this bill will far exceed the value of the car.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:48 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]
Many lawyers give a free initial consultation. This may be all it takes for your friend to get enough information to do the small claims court thing. Also, the court clerk for small claims court is usually pretty helpful in sorting out some of these technical issues (e.g. can I file this suit in this court?).
The hardest part will be collecting -- even if she wins the case it probably doesn't make him any more likely to voluntarily fork over the dough. She'll probably have to hire a collection service.
posted by winston at 12:50 PM on September 17, 2007
The hardest part will be collecting -- even if she wins the case it probably doesn't make him any more likely to voluntarily fork over the dough. She'll probably have to hire a collection service.
posted by winston at 12:50 PM on September 17, 2007
Seconding ikkyu2. She should report the car stolen. The cops are not concerned about disputes over whether a transaction is valid, but if she asked for the car back and he didn't return it, it's stolen.
posted by winston at 12:52 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by winston at 12:52 PM on September 17, 2007
I sort of agree with caddis . Let the buyer (beware) sue the "seller" or have him arrested for fraud. You have title, it's your car, whatever went on between them is not your problem.
posted by thilmony at 12:56 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by thilmony at 12:56 PM on September 17, 2007
Oh... for how he did it... He may have requested a duplicate title, claiming the original was lost, and sold it that way.
posted by thilmony at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by thilmony at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2007
Thirding ikkyu2. This might not actually get your friend the car back, but I'm pretty sure it's the right process. It will also put the paperwork in place should your friend want to take the next step, which would be to sue her ex-boyfriend for damages. It doesn't seem like she has much chance of getting anything from him (blood from a stone and all that), but she could still try.
posted by alms at 1:00 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by alms at 1:00 PM on September 17, 2007
He may have requested a duplicate title, claiming the original was lost, and sold it that way.
Or he may have sold it completely under the table. I used to work for a law firm dealing with a lot of car accidents, and we had multiple cases where someone thought they had sold a car legally, but hadn't transferred the title, and thus they got sucked into legal shenanigans when the car was in an accident. Many people don't realize they need a title when buying a car.
posted by leesh at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Or he may have sold it completely under the table. I used to work for a law firm dealing with a lot of car accidents, and we had multiple cases where someone thought they had sold a car legally, but hadn't transferred the title, and thus they got sucked into legal shenanigans when the car was in an accident. Many people don't realize they need a title when buying a car.
posted by leesh at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's a good point, leesh. The titleholder of this car is responsible for whatever happens with it. This is actually a liability problem for her if she holds valid title but has no idea where the car is or what is being done with it. For example, if it is driven into a crowd of pre-schoolers, slaying 30 of them, she may be held responsible for criminal and civil liability.
Reporting it stolen may help to defray some of this liability.
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:15 PM on September 17, 2007
Reporting it stolen may help to defray some of this liability.
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:15 PM on September 17, 2007
I was only being half serious with the repo suggestion, although it is a valid option. There are lots of possible downsides, like them reporting the car as stolen, or reporting some item of value within the car as being stolen, or even lying about such items. You know every stolen car has a set of Pings in the trunk, just ask any insurance adjuster. ikkyu2 has the best suggestion. Report the car stolen. Lawsuits are messy, if the police can just get it back for you then that is the easiest and cheapest way to go. If the police continue with the line about this being a civil matter, persist, go up the chain if necessary, perhaps seek advice from the DA's office.
posted by caddis at 1:19 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by caddis at 1:19 PM on September 17, 2007
No, it's really not a valid option at all, under any circumstances, at any time.
The buyer (arguably) thinks they have honestly bought a car. When that car disappears, they will report it stolen, and the real owner of the car will be in for a world of hurt before everything gets ironed out. "But officer, it really is my car! See, my jerk ex sold it so I took it back.. why are you telling me to put my hands on the hood of the car?"
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2007
The buyer (arguably) thinks they have honestly bought a car. When that car disappears, they will report it stolen, and the real owner of the car will be in for a world of hurt before everything gets ironed out. "But officer, it really is my car! See, my jerk ex sold it so I took it back.. why are you telling me to put my hands on the hood of the car?"
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2007
he may have been able to get a title claiming it was an abandoned vehicle.
posted by noloveforned at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by noloveforned at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2007
Nthing ikkyu2. Report the car stolen. That's basically what he did. Everything from there is the Police's problem.
posted by anastasiav at 1:40 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by anastasiav at 1:40 PM on September 17, 2007
Hire a repo firm in St. Louis to get the car. IAAL, but IANAL. consult with Missou counsel to be sure, but ask if this is an option. Its cheap and puts the burden of fighting for the car on the other party who is probably in receipt of stolen goods because there's no way that they can buy without good title.
as for the comment above that the poster "may not even own the car anymore" um, no.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:50 PM on September 17, 2007
as for the comment above that the poster "may not even own the car anymore" um, no.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:50 PM on September 17, 2007
also contact your local state's attorney and explain the situation. that way you can get a police report. Gotta get that before the repo option should be utelized. As always, check with Missouri counsel.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by Ironmouth at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2007
Report the vehicle stolen with so and so as the holder, give the address of so and so. Also let the insurance company know it was stolen.
posted by iamabot at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by iamabot at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2007
I think she needs to talk to the police again. This doesn't sound right. Has she tried to report the car as stolen?
Another thing to try is talking to the insurance company. If this sort of loss is something that's covered by her policy, (i.e. someone taking your stuff and selling it seems like pretty cut-and-dry theft to me) then the insurance company has an interest in helping her out.
posted by cotterpin at 2:40 PM on September 17, 2007
Another thing to try is talking to the insurance company. If this sort of loss is something that's covered by her policy, (i.e. someone taking your stuff and selling it seems like pretty cut-and-dry theft to me) then the insurance company has an interest in helping her out.
posted by cotterpin at 2:40 PM on September 17, 2007
If it shows up on Carfax, then the new owner has a valid title. If the deal took place off the books without a valid title, the buyer would not be listed as the current owner on Carfax. California would not have issued a title to the new owner without the boyfriend getting some kind of title and signing it over. The most likely explanation is that they claimed it was abandoned. You could probably confirm what was done with the California DMV.
posted by Lame_username at 3:04 PM on September 17, 2007
posted by Lame_username at 3:04 PM on September 17, 2007
Listen to Cotterpin. The car was stolen, and you're insured against theft. You can't unravel a transaction between two third parties.
Let the police and insurance company take a whack at it. Anything else is too much hassle for an individual unless the car is very valuable; and how could it be so valuable if it was completely broken down when the owner left town. If the owner didn't insure it against theft then it can't be much of a car.
posted by JimN2TAW at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2007
Let the police and insurance company take a whack at it. Anything else is too much hassle for an individual unless the car is very valuable; and how could it be so valuable if it was completely broken down when the owner left town. If the owner didn't insure it against theft then it can't be much of a car.
posted by JimN2TAW at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2007
I think it should be reported to the police. And as to the following advice:
Many lawyers give a free initial consultation.
No, don't go looking for a free initial consultation. Few lawyers worth talking to would give you a free initial consultation about a case like this. The only way to get advice worth anything, in a case like this one, is to pay a lawyer for his or her time.
Free initial consultations are primarily given in personal injury contexts, where the case has been pre-screened by an assistant and it has passed the initial bullshit detector. Free initial consultations might be given, but are more rare, in fairly routine, hourly-fee contexts, such as divorce law. But in a case like this, which has virtually no chance of being particularly lucrative for a lawyer, any lawyer who would give you a free consultation probably shouldn't be listened to. My experience is that anyone who is serious about hiring an attorney is willing and able to pay a consultation fee --- they understand that skilled professionals expect to be paid for their time. The people looking for a free consultation are probably will, nine times out of ten, never pay you anything, so it's a losing proposition to give free consultations. When you meet a lawyer who gives free consultations about cases that are not lucrative, you've met a lawyer with suspiciously too much time on his or her hands.
posted by jayder at 4:53 PM on September 17, 2007
Many lawyers give a free initial consultation.
No, don't go looking for a free initial consultation. Few lawyers worth talking to would give you a free initial consultation about a case like this. The only way to get advice worth anything, in a case like this one, is to pay a lawyer for his or her time.
Free initial consultations are primarily given in personal injury contexts, where the case has been pre-screened by an assistant and it has passed the initial bullshit detector. Free initial consultations might be given, but are more rare, in fairly routine, hourly-fee contexts, such as divorce law. But in a case like this, which has virtually no chance of being particularly lucrative for a lawyer, any lawyer who would give you a free consultation probably shouldn't be listened to. My experience is that anyone who is serious about hiring an attorney is willing and able to pay a consultation fee --- they understand that skilled professionals expect to be paid for their time. The people looking for a free consultation are probably will, nine times out of ten, never pay you anything, so it's a losing proposition to give free consultations. When you meet a lawyer who gives free consultations about cases that are not lucrative, you've met a lawyer with suspiciously too much time on his or her hands.
posted by jayder at 4:53 PM on September 17, 2007
FWIW, I just did a few lookups to try to determine whether free initial consultations might be available in OP's locale for civil property recovery type actions, and found quite a few hits. Yeah, of course, all pre-screened by a lackey, but honestly what do you expect? With limited resources, what's available is what's available - sometimes people SERIOUS about wanting legal help SERIOUSLY can't afford it, and from where I sit those are not the people that should be told not to bother.
posted by bunnycup at 1:50 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by bunnycup at 1:50 PM on September 19, 2007
Lame_username makes a very good point. Call the California DMV ask what you need to do to dispute the issuance of the new title.
posted by IndigoSkye at 11:13 AM on September 23, 2007
posted by IndigoSkye at 11:13 AM on September 23, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by bunnycup at 12:37 PM on September 17, 2007