ok. This is hard to admit. I purchased a car in 2004. Made payments for about a year and a half. The car got repo'd once, I got it back, and then I moved with the car to another state. The bank has since charged off the car, and according to my credit, sold it to a CA. I still have the car, and am moving with it once again overseas. As far as my knowledge goes, I have to prove ownership. I will have the registration and I have the sales contract, so there is no problem shipping the car. My question is.... have I committed some kind of crime? I have spoken to legal aid and they have informed me that the car is mine regardless if I haven't paid for it, and their inability to repo it doesn't have any effect on me. They have stopped calling or sending notices, but there is still a CA account open. Can I negotiate with them? They did offer to settle. Will I receive my Title after that? If anyone knows how this works I would greatly appreciate the advice. It keeps me awake at night.
There are often laws on the books of states that have to do with what are termed "security interests". The lender has a security interest in your car. By moving out of state with the car you have "impaired" it. Sometimes that can be a crime. The creditor would need to push that angle with a local DA in order for much to happen to you for it.
I don't know how it is in other states, but in my state, the "lienholder" is listed as the "legal owner" while the person making the payments and driving the car is listed as the "registered owner." I've seen some loan agreements that include clauses like "...will not take it out of the state, country, etc." and in some cases I've called the bank to see if I could take it to Canada (no problem), or Mexico (no way). So, as far as "did you do anything illegal," you'd have to consult your state laws. As far as "did you do you breach the contract," you'd have to read the fine print of the loan contract. Only after getting that information, will you know where you stand. What the loan company plans to do about it, however, is anyone's guess. If you do plan to negotiate what remains on the deal: a) get/put the terms of your negotiation in writing (if you have access to Legal Aid, have them review the terms in either case) b) make sure that sending you a released or transfered (i.e. "clear") title is explicitly spelled out in the deal c) be sure to ask for deletion of the CA tradeline (they might say no, but it can't hurt to ask.
I disagree with Flacorps. The lien exists on the title regardless of what state or country you live in. The lienholder's interests therefore follow the car no matter where it is. The only way you can violate a law would be to not hand over the car to the lienholder in the event the lienhiolder obtains a Replevin Order signed by a Judge. No DA would be able to fine a criminal act in moving hypothecated goods from one location to another, even if the other location is another country. You are still the owner of the car - the lienholder simply has a lien.
Repo Thanks for the advice. I have not yet been served with any type of documentation, and have spoken to the CA on many occasions. I'm sure I've breached the contract in some way, but the OC has charged off the debt already. The CA maintains that I have sold the car for parts in Mexico, which I find hilarious (car was purchased in a western pacific state, and I moved to the midwest). If they were to look at my CR, they would find my address easily, so it is a wonder to me why they haven't pursued anything. Anyways, nothing on my report indicates Repo, only a charged off debt. I guess we will see how it plays out, I have to look into the statue of limitations. The car will still be in U.S. territory, just 'overseas'. I am assuming they don't want the car back because the value owed is less than what it's worth.(although it's a great car and I have less than 70k on it). Can you tell I'm being vague due to paranoia?
Your vagueness is justified and understandable. They believe the car has been sold for parts in Mexico? Good, let them believe whatever they wish.
Absolutely wrong. In nearly (if not every) state, it's a crime to knowingly hide, move/remove, destroy, or sell/convey/assign the property with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. If you HELP someone hide property with intent to defraud, you are committing a crime as well. This is but one specific law (Nevada), but feel free to search the phrase "fraudulent concealment of property" or "property subject to security interest" and you'll find links to nearly every states's web site containing their substative law. NRS 205.355 Fraudulent sale or concealment of personal property after action commenced or judgment rendered. Any person against whom an action is pending, or against whom a judgment has been rendered for the recovery of any personal property or effects, who shall fraudulently conceal, sell or dispose of such property or effects, with intent to hinder, delay or defraud the person bringing such action or recovering such judgment, or shall, with such intent, remove such property or effects beyond the limits of the county in which it may be at the time of the commencement of such action, or the rendering of such judgment, shall, on conviction, be punished as provided in NRS 205.350. NRS 205.360 Knowingly receiving fraudulent conveyance. Every person who shall receive any property or conveyance thereof from another, knowing that the same is transferred or delivered to him in violation of, or with the intent to violate, any provision of NRS 205.345, 205.350 and 205.355, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It's not very wise to give someone some advice on how to break the law. No, he is NOT the owner of the car. The leinholder owns security interest in the vehicle until the BORROWER has paid off his debt.
John- Maybe when you quote a law it would help if you read it. This section of law only applies to actions where the creditor has commenced an action to recover the property (replevin) or has been granted a writ of replevin.
Perhaps you should read what I posted. First, I *clearly* stated that EVERY STATE'S SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS DIFFERENT. I only included a quite cite from one as an example, only included part of it (for the sake of brevity), and instructed the OP to go look up the applicable substantive law in his case. Second, and more importanly, you conveinently focused on ONE HALF of the "or" statement. Try it using the OTHER half: Finally, we're both intelligent enough to know that an order to recover the property was a given in this situation. Spin your personal opinion whichever way you want, but the bottom line is: moving, selling, or concealing property with the intent to defraud the party holding a secured interest in it is fraud (a criminal offense), and telling someone otherwise is foolish.
