Repossessing a car?

[Wade Lippman]

I financed a new car 6 months ago.

The finance company just noticed they failed to get their name on the title. (In NYS the owner gets the title, but the finance company's lien is noted on the title). They demanded that I mail them the title or they would consider me to be in default and repossess the car.
The contract says I am in default if I don't have only their lien on the title. I suppose that could mean I am required to have them on the title, but to me it means I can't have anyone else on it.

If they didn't get the lien on the title, could they even repossess?
Since I had nothing to do with preparing the title, how could I be negligent for not including their lien? Mailing them the title just seems crazy.

First time I have financed anything, and likely to be the last. A real learning experience.

[George Bokros]

Seems to me the blame lies on the seller of the car particularly if the seller was a car dealer. At least in Ohio the dealer handles the title work, applies for and obtains the title and mails to the owner or finance company. If financed, a memorandum of title sent to the owner for obtaining plates.

[John Coloccia]

Mail them the title. They will mail the title, and a notice of lein, to the DMV. The DMV will mail you a new title with them noted as a lien holder. The dealer screwed up, but this is easily fixed by a quick trip to the post office. The lending company is right. Without them noted a lien holder, you could sell the car tomorrow, and then default on the loan and the company is out all of the money.

There's nothing funny going on here. Just mail the title. It's legitimate. When you sign a contract, there's an assumption of good faith. All y'alls are required to act reasonably in a way that holds to the terms and spirit of the contract, even if minor clerical errors are made, and even if it's not your fault. If you want to make an issue of it, I guess you could ask the lending company to mail you a notice of lien, and then you could mail that and the title to the DMV, but you might actually be obligated to mail the legitimate lien holder the title in NY if they request it to correct errors like this. I guess you could spend all sorts of energy trying to figure that out if you want to.

[Wade Lippman]

Seems to me the blame lies on the seller of the car particularly if the seller was a car dealer. At least in Ohio the dealer handles the title work, applies for and obtains the title and mails to the owner or finance company. If financed, a memorandum of title sent to the owner for obtaining plates.

I transferred plates, so I didn't do anything at all. Dealer moved them over and the next thing I know the finance company is threatening me.

[Frederick Skelly]

Mail them the title. They will mail the title, and a notice of lein, to the DMV. The DMV will mail you a new title with them noted as a lien holder. The dealer screwed up, but this is easily fixed by a quick trip to the post office. The lending company is right. Without them noted a lien holder, you could sell the car tomorrow, and then default on the loan and the company is out all of the money.

There's nothing funny going on here. Just mail the title. It's legitimate. When you sign a contract, there's an assumption of good faith. All y'alls are required to act reasonably in a way that holds to the terms and spirit of the contract, even if minor clerical errors are made, and even if it's not your fault. If you want to make an issue of it, I guess you could ask the lending company to mail you a notice of lien, and then you could mail that and the title to the DMV, but you might actually be obligated to mail the legitimate lien holder the title in NY if they request it to correct errors like this. I guess you could spend all sorts of energy trying to figure that out if you want to.

I think John has it right. A friend of mine once had something very similar happen, he complied, and it worked out fine. The only thing I would add, is that you should call the "loan servicing" phone number on your contract just to confirm. Dont use a number or link in anything you received in the mail - just a quick independent check for peace of mind. Tell them thats why you called and that you intend to satisfy the contract and their request.

Fred

[Raymond Fries]

I agree with John as well. I would a delivery receipt for that important piece of paper. Post office has been known to lose things.

Good Luck getting it sorted out.

[Rick Christopherson]

If a lender threatened me that way, there is no way I would do anything to comply with their demands. If they had asked nicely, that might be different, but not under a false threat. As a matter of fact, what they did is possibly illegal under the Fair Dept Collection Practices Act. It is illegal to threaten actions that they can't legally take, and without their name on the title, they cannot legally repossess the vehicle.

That's the reason why they threatened you in the first place. They are in a panic and hope that they can scare you into taking actions you are not technically required to do. Sure, there is nothing really wrong with doing it, but there is also nothing to gain from it either. When the loan is paid off, you'll have to make sure that they are removed from the title, which isn't always automatic. It also prevents you from selling the vehicle before the loan is paid off. Oh, and it also gives them controlling rights if you ever have an insurance claim too (which can actually be good if the insurance company jerks you around).

[Jim Matthews]

Out of an abundance of caution, contact the Better Business Bureau and DMV to make certain all above board in this transaction.

Likely, this is just as represented. It is, however, worthwhile to have all your facts arrayed before taking action.
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607/+whitsongordon

[glenn bradley]

Its just a boo-boo and I would make a big deal out of it. Humans make mistakes now and again, even me ;-) I would at least have a conversation with them and clarify that you are uncomfortable sending the document without some sort of tracking and could they send you a pre-labeled FedEx envelope or whatever. If they say that is not necessary I would jot down who told me that and the date/time so they could trace back if required and just send it. relative to the cost of the car buying transaction you have already spent more than time on it than I would ( I mean this in a good way).

[David Weaver]

Out of an abundance of caution, contact the Better Business Bureau and DMV to make certain all above board in this transaction.

Likely, this is just as represented. It is, however, worthwhile to have all your facts arrayed before taking action.
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607/+whitsongordon

That's not uncommon, and what really sucks is when you hear someone with a similar story who wants to get their trade in back and it's long gone by the time they repo the new car.

If this lender violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I'd extract something out of them for that before I signed the new title, and I'd put it to them just like that. A tax on their inability to play above board.

I'd pay my loan off because I agreed to it, regardless of whether I had a legal out not to, but blowing past the law just because you think someone else is too dumb to know what you're doing is not cool.

[Phil Thien]

If a lender threatened me that way, there is no way I would do anything to comply with their demands. If they had asked nicely, that might be different, but not under a false threat. As a matter of fact, what they did is possibly illegal under the Fair Dept Collection Practices Act. It is illegal to threaten actions that they can't legally take, and without their name on the title, they cannot legally repossess the vehicle.

That's the reason why they threatened you in the first place. They are in a panic and hope that they can scare you into taking actions you are not technically required to do. Sure, there is nothing really wrong with doing it, but there is also nothing to gain from it either. When the loan is paid off, you'll have to make sure that they are removed from the title, which isn't always automatic. It also prevents you from selling the vehicle before the loan is paid off. Oh, and it also gives them controlling rights if you ever have an insurance claim too (which can actually be good if the insurance company jerks you around).

I'm 99% certain the lender does not need to be on the title to repossess.

The repo man isn't going to ask any questions, that is for sure. That is because he does hundreds of cars for this lender a year (I'll bet), and he isn't going to rock that boat.

Even if you try to make some legal argument that the lender shouldn't have taken the car, the courts are going to point to the notification that you (the borrower) were not in compliance.

The advice provided to send the title is good (and the right thing to do, we should all honor our words).

Failure to follow that advice will probably result in a front-row seat for a lot of stuff happening automatically, including a hit to your credit score.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm 99% certain the lender does not need to be on the title to repossess.

The repo man isn't going to ask any questions, that is for sure. That is because he does hundreds of cars for this lender a year (I'll bet), and he isn't going to rock that boat.

Even if you try to make some legal argument that the lender shouldn't have taken the car, the courts are going to point to the notification that you (the borrower) were not in compliance.

The advice provided to send the title is good (and the right thing to do, we should all honor our words).

Failure to follow that advice will probably result in a front-row seat for a lot of stuff happening automatically, including a hit to your credit score.
I agree with Phil. This is probably a common mistake and it's been litigated and handled before. I would bet there's standard procedures for handling it.

You had an agreement with the loan company and you need to keep your word. If they made an honest mistake, you need to help them correct it. You would expect the same from them if the shoe was on the other foot.

But, from an abundance of caution, make sure the company who contacted you is the actual company who gave you, or has rights to, your loan. You don't want to allow someone to get on the title unless they are entitled to it.

Mike

[Jerome Stanek]

I'm 99% certain the lender does not need to be on the title to repossess.

The repo man isn't going to ask any questions, that is for sure. That is because he does hundreds of cars for this lender a year (I'll bet), and he isn't going to rock that boat.

Even if you try to make some legal argument that the lender shouldn't have taken the car, the courts are going to point to the notification that you (the borrower) were not in compliance.

The advice provided to send the title is good (and the right thing to do, we should all honor our words).

Failure to follow that advice will probably result in a front-row seat for a lot of stuff happening automatically, including a hit to your credit score.

If you have the title then when they come to repo it and you call the cops who are they going to believe the repo guy that has no title or the person that has it. I had a situation where I was parked in a loading work zone that I had already checked with the city if it was ok as I was working in the building and the bank that didn't want the drug store to go in called to have my truck hauled away. The tow truck driver was almost hooked up to it and I stopped him. He gave me a hard time so I said that I would call the police that patrolled and were right across the street at the time. The driver laughed at me and said that he was his buddy so I called them over. and explained what was going on. The officer told the driver that he could not tow without my permission as it was on the street and not on the banks property. He told the drive that if he took it I could file a stolen vehicle report and he would have to arrest the driver.

[Phil Thien]

If you have the title then when they come to repo it and you call the cops who are they going to believe the repo guy that has no title or the person that has it. I had a situation where I was parked in a loading work zone that I had already checked with the city if it was ok as I was working in the building and the bank that didn't want the drug store to go in called to have my truck hauled away. The tow truck driver was almost hooked up to it and I stopped him. He gave me a hard time so I said that I would call the police that patrolled and were right across the street at the time. The driver laughed at me and said that he was his buddy so I called them over. and explained what was going on. The officer told the driver that he could not tow without my permission as it was on the street and not on the banks property. He told the drive that if he took it I could file a stolen vehicle report and he would have to arrest the driver.

Oh the repo guy will have the title, and a copy of the signed contract (with the VIN on it), with the section indicating that the lender be added to the title (highlighted), and a copy of the notice they sent.

And don't get me wrong, I sympathize with Wade, who needs the aggravation? But if you think this is aggravating, then ignore the notice and see what happens. Or tell them "no," and see what goes down.

[Pat Barry]

OK - comply with their request. If not, here's whats going to happen. They will assign the case to a repo man. He will do his due diligence to identify an opportune time and place to perform the transaction, probably while you are at the mall shopping with your car in the big lot. He won't be asking for your title if you know what I mean. He willl have the car long gone before you know what happened and good luck getting home.

[Rick Christopherson]

I'm 99% certain the lender does not need to be on the title to repossess. If that was true, then why are they so worried about NOT having their name on the title in the first place. The only reason they need their name on the title is in the event that they need to repossess. Without it, they have a huge uphill battle if the loan is defaulted. They can't touch the vehicle without the title or without a court judgement against the debtor. That is why they are so panicked that they made an illegal threat.


The repo man isn't going to ask any questions, that is for sure. That is because he does hundreds of cars for this lender a year (I'll bet), and he isn't going to rock that boat.Bull. This doesn't work like that TV show "Operation Repo". You do know it's a fake TV show, right? Even if they do have a lien title they can't simply repossess on a whim.


Even if you try to make some legal argument that the lender shouldn't have taken the car, the courts are going to point to the notification that you (the borrower) were not in compliance.It isn't his mistake. It is theirs. It also isn't grounds for repossession. They have no claim on the vehicle without that title. The only thing they could do, is if the loan went into default, then they would have to file suit in court. Only after receiving a judgement against the debtor would they be able to repossess. However, they can't go to court without notifying him.

[Rick Christopherson]

Oh the repo guy will have the title, and a copy of the signed contract (with the VIN on it), with the section indicating that the lender be added to the title (highlighted), and a copy of the notice they sent.Are you just making this up as you go along? If they could simply add themselves to the title, then why do they need him to send in the title? If it was that simple, then anyone could claim they have a loan against a vehicle, get their name on the title, and then legally STEAL that vehicle. Thankfully it doesn't work that way.

[Phil Thien]

Are you just making this up as you go along? If they could simply add themselves to the title, then why do they need him to send in the title? If it was that simple, then anyone could claim they have a loan against a vehicle, get their name on the title, and then legally STEAL that vehicle. Thankfully it doesn't work that way.

No need to get personal, and I never said they would already be on the title.

They would send a copy of the existing title (or whatever they've got showing they aren't listed on the title). They would include a copy of the contract indicating they should be on the title. They would also include a copy of the notice they sent Mr. Lippman indicating he was in default. And then they could take the car. Because in NY:

What the Law Says
New York law states that a lender or seller may take possession of the secured goods, on default, without going to court. The secured creditor also may, without removing the goods, render such goods unusable.Consumers should be aware of the following provisions of the law:


The creditor does not have to give you any notice before coming to take away the goods.
Default is defined in the contract signed by you and the seller. Typical events which will trigger default that creditors often insert in such arrangement include the following:

failure to pay debts as they become due;
failure to insure the goods;
bankruptcy of the debtor;
death of the debtor;
refusal to allow examination of the goods.

The Bureau recommends that you read your agreement carefully and understand all of its terms and conditions before you sign it.
It is up to the creditor to decide how and when repossession will be accomplished. The only limitations upon the creditor are that he/she not breach the peace and that he/she proceed in a reasonable manner.

[Source: http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/get-consumer-help/articles/repossession-of-goods-new-york-state/]



I'm betting that failure to list the lender on the title is a trigger for default, seeing as Wade so much as said that in his original post.

You guys need to remember that while you buy a car every few years, they're closing hundreds if not thousands of loans per month. They don't have time to treat defaults as "special." It will simply get lumped in with all the other repos.

I assume (I shouldn't) that the letter Mr. Lippman received was a rather automatic form letter. So if something positive doesn't come of it, the computer is going to kick out maybe a 2nd notice, and then it may escalate to a phone call (maybe not), but eventually, down the path, it may get repo'd.

[Rick Christopherson]

I'm betting that failure to list the lender on the title is a trigger for default.You just listed the reasons for default, and this is not one of them. He is not in default and they have no grounds for repossession. It's their mistake, and they are trying to use bully tactics to get him to fix it.



Default is defined in the contract signed by you and the seller. Typical events which will trigger default that creditors often insert in such arrangement include the following:

failure to pay debts as they become due;
failure to insure the goods;
bankruptcy of the debtor;
death of the debtor;
refusal to allow examination of the goods.

[Rick Christopherson]

By the way, you didn't cite the law. You cited a summary of the law. No, they don't have to give you notice when they have all of the proper paperwork. The title is one of those pieces.

[Phil Thien]

You just listed the reasons for default, and this is not one of them. He is not in default and they have no grounds for repossession. It's their mistake, and they are trying to use bully tactics to get him to fix it.

As stated, "default is defined in the contract signed by you and the seller. Typical events..." That means the list isn't exhaustive, and default can be anything agreed to by both parties. The OP said "They demanded that I mail them the title or they would consider me to be in default and repossess the car." So that seems pretty clear.

[Phil Thien]

By the way, you didn't cite the law. You cited a summary of the law. No, they don't have to give you notice when they have all of the proper paperwork. The title is one of those pieces.

They have a lien on the car, whether the title indicates so or not.

Just not sure you're right. You may be. But I think the lien created by the contract trumps everything else.

But you may be right.

[Wade Lippman]

Interesting discussion.
One reason they need their name on the title is so I can't sell the car without paying off the loan, which I can now.

[Jerome Stanek]

They don't have the title and they have to prove that he defaulted on the loan. How would the repo get the title. A friend of mine had his car repoed and the bank was at fault for this as he did not default on the loan he took them to court and won a large settlement as it was listed as a stolen car and the bank and repo company were in possession of stolen property

[John Coloccia]

Whether or not they can repossess in New York (and I believe it will vary by state) without a recorded lien is beside the point. You can still be in default and that will make your life miserable for a very...very...long time.

[John Coloccia]

Interesting discussion.
One reason they need their name on the title is so I can't sell the car without paying off the loan, which I can now.

In NYS (I used to live there, so I'm going from memory), I believe you actually CAN sell the car, even with a recorded lien. That doesn't remove the lien, however, and anyone would be dumb to purchase such a car. You're still responsible for the balance of the loan, and if you default (selling the car without satisfying the loan may constitute a default...don't know), they can still repossess the car from the new owner.

Recording the lien also means that they get first dibs on the car. You could conceivably go out and get more loans against that vehicle. As many as you want, actually. The 1st lien holder's interest will be satisfied before anyone else.

If you DID sell the car, you might well also get yourself in trouble other ways. It will vary by state just exactly what the lender can do, but just because the lien isn't recorded doesn't necessarily mean that the lender's security interest in the vehicle just disappears.

Do what you want, but the right thing to do, and the thing that will keep you from misery and all sorts of trouble, is to act in good faith and allow the terms of the contract to be satisfied.

[Stephen Tashiro]

There are an interesting variety of opinions here. To add to the confusion, is the purchaser legally obligated to continue making payments on the loan if the car is repossessed ? Is a repo'd car still the property of the purchaser? - just held in "custody"?

[John Coloccia]

There are an interesting variety of opinions here. To add to the confusion, is the purchaser legally obligated to continue making payments on the loan if the car is repossessed ? Is a repo'd car still the property of the purchaser? - just held in "custody"?

Again, just going from memory, I believe in NYS you have until the lender liquidates the vehicle to satisfy the loan, and then the property is yours. Maybe there's some fees, penalties or interest attached to that you may have to pay. Once it's liquidated, they take what's owed and you get the rest. If it still doesn't satisfy the loan, you STILL owe them the rest.

Again that's just from memory.

[Rick Christopherson]

You can still be in default and that will make your life miserable for a very...very...long time.But therein lies the crux of the problem. He is not in default. The bank can neither repossess nor make his life miserable when he is not in default, nor to correct their original mistake.

You can't just walk up a take someone's property without the legal process. To do otherwise is theft. The bank hasn't lost all legal rights, but without the proper title, they have lost a significant chunk.

The bank screwed up and they are hoping to scare him into fixing their mistake. And from what I have read by many posters here, their scare tactic would work on most uninformed people.

If he were so inclined, that letter may give him the ability to even turn the tables on the bank and punish them for the false threat. As I alluded to before, Paragraph 807 of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from threatening any action they are not legally entitled to take or have no intention of taking. The only aspect of this that is unclear is whether this applies to the original creditor versus a separate entity that is a debt collector.

[Larry Browning]

For me, it really has more to do with what is the "right and proper thing to do". It really doesn't matter whose mistake it was, what matters is that there was a mistake, and all parties should do all they can to correct it. No need for anyone to get all pissey and point fingers trying to blame everyone else but themselves, just fix it. No one should profit or suffer from a simple clerical error.

[Mike Cutler]

Wade

State to state, it will vary.
Can they "legally reposess ? Probably, in the end they will prevail.

If I'm understanding the jist of what you're stating; You are not in default on the loan itself, but you may be in default of terms of the loan agreement.
The finance company should have a copy of your purchase agreement, and your loan agreement. Both documents should have identified the vehicle by VIN and stipulated the terms of the agreement, which I'm willing to bet if you peruse your copies will stipulate that they be listed as the sole lien holder on the vehicle. Loan, not the car.
These documents, as well as whatever document constituted a "Bill of Sale" would have been turned over to the DMV in NY. Once all of the paperwork was processed the registration and title would have been completed and sent to the respected parties. In CT if you finance a vehicle, you the purchaser and the payee don't get the title until the loan is satisfied. Different state though.

Yes they are being heavy handed. The threat of repossesion seems a bit extreme for their first communication you. Having been in this position myself, my bank just sent me a letter stating that I was in default of the terms of the loan, and that if the situation weren't corrected they too would consider the loan in default. Yes they did legally state their position, but is was a bit more professional that the way you have been treated thus far.

In the end the car is thiers, and ultimately they could legally seek to recover their investment if you are in default of the terms of the loan agreement.
You can mess around with them if you so choose, but you better be sure that you're on firm legal ground. It's your credit rating that may need to get straightend out a few years down the line.

[Jason Beam]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. Wade made a deal, someone messed up, okay sure. What does Wade stand to gain by not complying? What does he lose by complying?

They're supposed to be on the title. They aren't. There's two options: Do the right thing, or stand on some pointless principle that gains you nothing.

I should point out - what some of you are calling threats are assuming Wade's point of view and how he chose to describe the letter. We haven't seen the letter nor do we know how it's worded. It's a serious matter and nobody gains anything by being anything but accommodating to the agreement.

[Chris Padilla]

I can certainly understand wanting to "stick it to The Man" but just be prepared and know what you are getting yourself into should one head that direction. I agree fully with Jason. Just call them to verify and then do what the spirit of the initial contract dictated regardless of the error or any perceptions of tact or lack thereof.

[Paul McGaha]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. Wade made a deal, someone messed up, okay sure. What does Wade stand to gain by not complying? What does he lose by complying?

They're supposed to be on the title. They aren't. There's two options: Do the right thing, or stand on some pointless principle that gains you nothing.

I should point out - what some of you are calling threats are assuming Wade's point of view and how he chose to describe the letter. We haven't seen the letter nor do we know how it's worded. It's a serious matter and nobody gains anything by being anything but accommodating to the agreement.

I agree with you Jason.

Just a guess but the mistake was probably made by either the dealer (when applying for the title) or the DMV (when making the title). Not that it's really relevant who made the mistake.

If it were me I'd cooperate in getting the title fixed. The lendor's name should be on the title. It's only fair.

PHM

[Frederick Skelly]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. Wade made a deal, someone messed up, okay sure. What does Wade stand to gain by not complying? What does he lose by complying?

They're supposed to be on the title. They aren't. There's two options: Do the right thing, or stand on some pointless principle that gains you nothing.

I should point out - what some of you are calling threats are assuming Wade's point of view and how he chose to describe the letter. We haven't seen the letter nor do we know how it's worded. It's a serious matter and nobody gains anything by being anything but accommodating to the agreement.

Well said Jason. +2.

[Wade Lippman]

I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.

[Phil Thien]

I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.

I think that was a very wise move.

The one thing I'll say in the finance company's defense (I can't believe I'm defending a finance company) is that, a certain percentage of their loans go south when borrowers spend their paychecks in casinos, or decide to try crystal meth. And if those borrowers notice no lien holders on their title, they will probably sell the car to fuel their habit.

But that doesn't excuse their rude letter. They could have just as easily written something cordial and included (as you said) the prepaid envelope. Even better, include a small gift card for Starbucks or something "for bothering you."

[Mike Cutler]

I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.


Now that's a sure fire fix. Well done!!;)

[Larry Browning]

I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.
That's the very best way to handle this! Hit them where it hurts them most, take away all that interest they were gonna get from you. Well played!

[Chris Padilla]

I FULLY understand the tone of the letter and I would have had the same exact knee-jerk reaction but as someone said earlier, it was likely a form letter and they made sure to cover all bases to blanket as many personalities of people as possible. However, I agree that honey is better than vinegar but maybe their experience is different.

In a way, you sort of stuck it to them by stripping them of future interest payments by paying it all off early! BRAVO!! :) I hope the unexpected cash outlay doesn't cause you any issues although I'm certain you wouldn't have done it if it had.

[Larry Edgerton]

I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.

You got even in the best possible way, they are missing all of that interest....:p

Larry

[Art Mann]

I would have done exactly the same thing you did. However, the finance company is only guilty of rudeness and attempted intimidation. They did not screw up the title. It was probably someone at the dealership who did the title request or perhaps the DMV. Lending institutions don't generate titles. That is the state government's responsibility. It is conceivable that the lending institution actually thought you were trying to swindle them, though I doubt it.


I can post the letter if you want, but it just says they will pursue all remedies including repossession if I don't comply.

If they had sent a prepaid Fedex envelop I probably would have sent it to them; it was just the imperial arrogance of 'we did it wrong and you will be screwed if you don't pay to fix it' that got me. I just can't do it. Instead I paid off the loan 3 weeks before their deadline to return the title, 4 years early.

[Mel Fulks]

In some states the title is held by a third party. I would not comply without more info in writing. The whole thing sounds
strange , I suspect it has something to do with the dealer finance office.

[paul cottingham]

Just for poops and giggles, I would submit the letter to your local consumer protection office (if you have such a thing.) see what they say, maybe get them to send a firmly worded letter telling them that is no,way to do business when they clearly screwed up.

[Jason Roehl]

This is just bizarre to me, considering how the process is done in Indiana. When we buy a car with a loan, we take the purchase agreement and title to the BMV (yes, BMV, not DMV, here). At the BMV, we fill out, and pay for, a title application (and annual registration, of course), on which we have to attest that all the information is true and accurate, including the presence of a lienholder and their address. That BMV branch then submits the application, and when the title is approved, the new title is sent to the lienholder who is then supposed to send the title with the lien release section signed to the purchaser once the loan is satisfied. If there is no lienholder (due to no loan at purchase), the new title is sent directly to the purchaser.

I did have a hiccup in the process once. I had a car with a lien on it that I was selling. I sold the car for cash (really would have preferred a certified check), with which I paid off the loan in full. After waiting and waiting for the title from the bank, I finally called. When I inquired as to the title's whereabouts, the reply by the, ahem, "gentleman" on the other end retorted, "Well, what do you need the title for?" Rather than school him on the legalities, I simply replied, "Because I sold the car!" It finally showed up a couple days later so I could sign it and send it off to the new owner.

[Mel Fulks]

Years ago after I sent in the last payment on a car loan, I soon got several letters and phone calls saying I had to pay a fee
of aprox 70$ or they would repossess the car I HAD JUST PAID OFF. All the demands came from another state and were hostile and threatening in tone. Went to a
local branch of the bank and was frankly told that the loans that were made through the dealership finance offices had a
contract provision that at loan end charged a fee for any late payments....even though the several late payments had been
been augmented by the required late fee. They told me such fees were not legal in this state and that they were required
to send out title within a certain number of days after getting final payment. So the demands were nothing more (or less)
than a crooked shakedown. Lavish spiffs and commissions for their employees figure into these things and explain why all
the calls and letters said the payment needed to be sent to their particular attention.

[Curt Harms]

For me, it really has more to do with what is the "right and proper thing to do". It really doesn't matter whose mistake it was, what matters is that there was a mistake, and all parties should do all they can to correct it. No need for anyone to get all pissey and point fingers trying to blame everyone else but themselves, just fix it. No one should profit or suffer from a simple clerical error.

That is what this seems to be and it's unlikely Wade would gain anything from not complying with the request. The loan still exists and even though the lender may have to jump through additional hoops I'm sure they could protect their interest whether their name was on the title or not. On the other hand, if the lender had simply said "Sir, we screwed up. Here's an post-paid envelope with tracking data. Would you be kind enough to send the title for your encumbered vehicle to use so we can rectify this oversight, please?" there may be fewer ruffled feathers.

[Wade Lippman]

I hope the unexpected cash outlay doesn't cause you any issues although I'm certain you wouldn't have done it if it had.

I only financed it because the dealer offered me another $500 off if I did (apparently he got some sort of kickback); and I thought it might improve my credit rating if I actually financed something. I hate to think what it will do to my rating now, but I guess if I don't ever finance anything, it doesn't much matter.

On the plus side; the stock market went up 12% between when I financed and when I paid it off. So with 1.6% interest, I made 10%! I benefited, the auto dealer benefited; only the finance company came out poorly. Justice!
Of course, that assumes they don't still repossess, which would make about as much sense as the rest of what they did.

[Wade Lippman]

Okay, paid off three weeks before the deadline.
Do I need to get anything from them? They are not on the title and I have a print out of their website saying "paid off", but do I need any document from them commemorating the event?

Actually I overpaid $1.85; can't wait to see if they refund it.

[David Weaver]

They will refund the $1.85. i can't imagine you have to do anything to get them on the title, because you've paid, but they may request you do it retroactively so that they can prove what you paid for.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I can't imagine that they'd have any legal right to repossess the car now that you've paid in full.

[John Coloccia]

I suggest you get a lien release.

[Phil Thien]

I suggest you get a lien release.

Maybe write them a snotty letter demanding one.