Hi all, Got a call from the dealer where I got my 06 GT almost two years ago today. They told me they had made a mistake when selling me the car. Instead of sending the title to the bank/creditunion, they made it out to and sent it to me. I thought it was a bit weird at the time, but didn't think more of it. So today we get a call from the dealer saying they need to send us some paperwork to sign, because of their mistake, so that thet title can be transferred to the creditunion. I'm a little reluctant in doing this tho. Am I just being paranoid and should sign the papers, or should I tell them I won't sign anything? I don't want to be difficult, but at the same time I don't want to just sign over the title to my beloved car... Anyone have any advice? Thanks! Tom
If the lien is not satisfied then the title belongs to lien holder. you should contact them first and discuss it with them. If it is paid for then screw um.
Humm... Your title shows no lien on it? ie; the name of the lender? There has GOT to be supporting paper work to prove they lent the money on the car, not to mention that you've made payments (shows you agree to the terms of the deal); their biggest concern is that you could sell the car and they not get their dollars, if it looks like a clear title... Of course, VERY illegal, go directly to jail, do not pass go. As mentioned, call the credit union and see what they know about it before signing anything.
Thanks guys! I will contact the lender tomorrow, just to make sure they're behind this. I just didn't want to sign anything I didn't quite understand and I thought it was a bit weird it took them this long to discover this. Tom
I agree with the advice you have been given to this point. There are a couple of things you could keep in mind if the discussion with the lender does not satisfy you. You could ask, "Exactly what happens if I refuse to sign the papers?" If you are still not satisfied, you could call the Department of Motor Vehicles. I don't know what the chances are that you will get good advice from them. I have found that, in California, you usually need to move up the ladder to get to someone who is knowledgeable. Once, I was getting nowhere, and wrote to the governor. I got a call back from a person at DMV who got everything straightened out real fast! It's probably just a clerical problem, but you are right not to sign something you do not understand that surfaces after two years!
As it stands it's an unsecured loan, if you didn't pay for the car, they couldn't repo it, instead it would just hurt your credit but would still be your car. You would not have to sign the papers, the credit union would have no choice but to keep it as an unsecured loan and hope that you pay. Unless there is some action they can take against the dealer to get the loan secured as it was the dealers fault. Either way your in the catbird seat, you can have a blot on your credit and a free car, or you can keep the loan unsecured on your end has it has been, or you can sign the papers and secure the loan for them. The noble thing to do would be to sign the papers as you might want to buy another car sometime, however, I'm sure a free stang sounds tempting, good credit is highly over rated anyway ha ha!!!
Gotta disagree with all of that ... there IS a paper trail that will clearly show a clerical error. THE CONTRACT(s) he signed on delivery is the binding document, NOT the title.
If it were to go to court, the judgement would go against you. As Okiewan stated, you signed a contract. Human errors cannot override the intent and language of a contract. I'd be very careful if you choose to ignore the dealer.
Since they are asking you to do something because they screwed up, I'd ask them for a little quid pro quo. Maybe they'll give you a free oil change for your trouble.
Talk to the office that handles titles. In Kentucky it is the county clerk. Get his or her advice. Don't believe the dealer.
He signed a contract to buy the car, the title is calatral. As it stands they don't have any clatral, that doesn't mean the contract isn't any good. It's like a personal loan. The dealer wants him to give the loan company some caltral that they require. I don't know which part I said that you aren't getting. I'm not saying he isn't obligated to pay for it by contract, I'm saying they don't have a lien since he has the title made out to him. Like I said, at this point it's like a personal loan since there is no lien.
I disagree with the thought that there some kind of legal standing on the buyers part due to a clerical error. There are plenty of docs signed on the deal that show who the lien holder is. In NO WAY are the loan documents void due to the dealer's error on the title. It's a simple omission. In no way can it construed as a "personal" loan, the collateral is identified clearly on the contracts he signed.
The title is the legal document showing ownership of the car no matter what else. They can't repo your car if you have the clear title, thats stealing. They can sue you for breach on contract or whatever, but they can't take your car if thier not the lien holder. Thats why they want him to change it, other wise it would be no big deal. The courts don't reward you for stupidity, thier not going to side with a loan company that has no lien on the title. The title is the legal document showing ownership of the vehicle. The cotract just states that Joe Blow agree's to pay said amount over said time for the vehicle. The lien on the title ensures Joe will do it if he wants to keep the car. With no lien on the title then it's Joe's car, contract or not. Thats why they put liens on titles and thats why they want him to get the lien on this one. If it makes no difference, then why bother putting a lien on titles in the first place.
O yeah, you also state that it says in the contract who the lien holder is, but you have to have a lien to be a lien holder. The title doesn't have a lien, so there fore no lien holder. Thats why they want it corected, to make the loan company the lien holder, which at this time thier not. Dealers mistake, they are the ones that would have to make good on it if he would take the car and bolt. The loan company would sue the dealership a long with the car ownwer, but they can't take his car without the lien.
Right, they can't legally repo the car, but they can sue you for the loan amount plus attorney's fees. You have two choices: Pay for the car or pay for the car plus an attorney. You pick.
I am big on KNOWING what I sign and one of those 32 times you sign when purchasing a new car states that if there is a problem with paper work or financing you must return the vehicle to them. It's called a "Rescission Agreement". Let me say it again It's called a "Rescission Agreement" and yes you will pay for the cost for them to recover the car and 100 dollars a day and wait let me qoute from it, "Dealer has the right to immediate return of the vehicle and to reposses the same, with or without legal action, and to peacefully enter onto any property in which the consumer has an interest in order to effectuate such repossession". I hope this clears it up for those of you who dissagree.
No matter what else, the title is the legal document showing ownership of the car, he has it, he owns it. The rest would be for lawyers to fight it out. Or they wouldn't be worried about redoing the paper work. I talked this over with my brother in law who is a lawyer. They need to get that titled liened or it could be a big hassle. If the owner does nothing to lien the title, you can watch the legal wrangling begine, cause the loan company needs a liened title. If not, let him just keep making his payments and do nothing about the title and watch the crying begin.
