Ex's mother signed the car over to me, now she want it back!?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

ironclaw wrote: »

Just my two cents, but if she gave you the car 'for nothing' i.e. No money changed hands and you put €1000 into it. Thats basically the cost of the car if you were to have bought it off her. So you got a free car. Its a neutral asset as if you were to sell it, your going to get what you put into it (As its worth probably a shade under €1000) You'll lose a decent bit of money.

If it was me, I wouldn't want the hassle. You got a free car for 6 months, hand it back (Perhaps asking for a 'token amount' for the hassle of getting the work done) and walk away. These things can have a habit of turning nasty and its bad karma anyway, in my opinion. There is nothing to gain by you keeping it as you'll still be at a loss. So its kinda whether you want the money (Asset or physical cash) in their pocket or yours. No luck will come of it, at least that would be my line.

Bottom line? If the car was free and you spent €1000, if you sell it, your probably going to get anywhere between €800 and €1000. If you keep it, it ain't going to appreciate. So basically the hassle and stress is worth about €200. Not worth it in my opinion.

How in the name of good jaysus will she be at a loss if she keeps it?

deandean

The OP keeping the car reminds me of women who break it off, then keep the engagement ring. There's something very mean about it.

mathepac

EmilieStiletto wrote: »

Yes I have the certificate with all the info that says I'm the owner.

That only proves you are the 'registered owner', it does not prove you have beneficial ownership of the car.

mathepac

EmilieStiletto wrote: »

She did give it to me and I have the certificate of ownership of the car.

You have the certificate of registered ownership. To establish transfer of beneficial ownership you need a bill of sale, invoice, etc

ironclaw

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

How in the name of good jaysus will she be at a loss if she keeps it?

Well, depends on the definition of loss.

By keeping it, she has a €1000 investment that upon sale will net her probably €800. So she will have lost €200 on the 'investment' (Assuming the car was given to her and no money paid)

Thats as opposed to handing the car back and losing the full €1000 of an investment.

Either way, your talking about a range of about €1000 to €200 of a loss which to me, personally, wouldn't be worth fighting / debating about in what is already probably a bad situation. Car won't do you any favours in the long run and you'd literally be sinking money into it by any addition work / service. Even putting €1000 into a 1999 Ka was a bad move in the first place.

So its just costing money no matter what way you look at it. Cut your losses at (most) €1000 and walk away. Thats just my view on it. Really, its down to how someone views the financial aspect of the whole thing. And when money and emotions get mixed, its a bad recipe.

djimi

deandean wrote: »

The OP keeping the car reminds me of women who break it off, then keep the engagement ring. There's something very mean about it.

You dont generally spend in excess of €500 keeping an engagement ring on the road though...

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

Well, depends on the definition of loss.

By keeping it, she has a €1000 investment that upon sale will net her probably €800. So she will have lost €200 on the 'investment' (Assuming the car was given to her and no money paid)

Thats as opposed to handing the car back and losing the full €1000 of an investment.

Either way, your talking about a range of about €1000 to €200 of a loss which to me, personally, wouldn't be worth fighting / debating about in what is already probably a bad situation. Car won't do you any favours in the long run and you'd literally be sinking money into it by any addition work / service. Even putting €1000 into a 1999 Ka was a bad move in the first place.

So its just costing money no matter what way you look at it. Cut your losses at (most) €1000 and walk away. Thats just my view on it.

€1000 is a lot of money to walk away from; a lot more than most people would be prepared to do.

Now, if the mother was prepared to pay the OP the money back that they put into the car then that would be a different thing, but if its just a case handing back the keys then I can completely understand why the OP would object. This doesnt sound like a loan; the OP was given the car and spent time and money doing it up, something they probably would not have done had they been given the car on the understanding that they would have to give it back at some point.

corktina

yep that's not the same at all (just very unjust)

I have a feeling that the €1000 she put into it incudes the NCT, tax and Insurance, all of which she had the benefit of, so the only cost she really paid was the repairs to get it on the road, which also benefited her, so her loss would be very small if she gave it back.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

With no other agreements in place, I would have thought that it would be up to the mother to prove that it was only a temporary arrangement. ...

No, it doesn't work that way.

As the beneficial owner of the car (as defined by OP when she posted that ex's Mammy paid for the car from a dealer) all Mammy needs to prove ownership of the car is her receipt / cheque-stub / bank-statement. If it were to go to court Mr. Car Dealer and Mammy's financial documents would make for compelling evidence of ownership. The 'log book' is inadmissible as they are all endorsed as stated in a previous post "this document is not proof of ownership". Simplez - Mammy wins

Sounds like one for Judge Judy !

Marcusm

mathepac wrote: »

You have the certificate of registered ownership. To establish transfer of beneficial ownership you need a bill of sale, invoice, etc

I think your post would be better if it said "to document the transfer of beneficial ownership....", the OP's actions post the purported acquisition would weigh heavily towards establishing her having acquired ownership, i.e. incurring significant expenditure and transferring title. Neither would be undertaken if the car was simply lent.

FirstinLastout

Personally, and depending on the nature of the breakup & who initiated it, I'd let her swivel.
However you could agree to sell the car giving any cash to the mother that's left over after your costs are taken out of it assuming that it'll cover your costs which I doubt.

Its a 15yr old Ka which has had some structural & body work carried out to get it roadworthy. If sold with a decent amount of NCT & Tax I'd reckon you'd be lucky to see €500+/_

Again personally I'd be looking at it as a physical reminder of old times everytime I'd sit in the thing and would get shot of it soon as possible.... a little MX5 convertible is quite affordable you know:)

mathepac

Marcusm wrote: »

... the OP's actions post the purported acquisition would weigh heavily towards establishing her having acquired ownership, i.e. incurring significant expenditure and transferring title. Neither would be undertaken if the car was simply lent.

On the other hand, getting the car into a roadworthy and legal state and keeping it that way could have formed part of the conditions for the loan of the car. The term of the loan might also have been the duration of the relationship between OP and car owner's son.

I funded the purchase of a horse transporter by way of loaning a friend the capital for the truck. Our contract said that he had the use of the truck as long as it was registered and insured in his name, it had its DOE cert, current tax, that it was serviced on schedule by the appropriate professionals, was only driven by properly licensed drivers, and that all fines etc were the responsibility of the registered owner. (Heavily paraphrasing our contract).

The due date for loan repayment rolled around, I got money, he got a bill of sale. In the absence of repayment on the agreed date, I was to take possession of the truck, sell it and my friend was to become liable for any losses or expenses incurred by me. (Heavily paraphrasing our contract).

Mammy of ex could argue that her 'loan' to OP was analogous.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like one for Judge Judy !

Judge Judy would say:
"Did you give her the car"
The ma: "Yes"
"Then it's her car." ***bangs hammer down** "next case..."

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

On the other hand, getting the car into a roadworthy and legal state and keeping it that way could have formed part of the conditions for the loan of the car. The term of the loan might also have been the duration of the relationship between OP and car owner's son.

I funded the purchase of a horse transporter by way of loaning a friend the capital for the truck. Our contract said that he had the use of the truck as long as it was registered and insured in his name, it had its DOE cert, current tax, that it was serviced on schedule by the appropriate professionals, was only driven by properly licensed drivers, and that all fines etc were the responsibility of the registered owner. (Heavily paraphrasing our contract).

The due date for loan repayment rolled around, I got money, he got a bill of sale. In the absence of repayment on the agreed date, I was to take possession of the truck, sell it and my friend was to become liable for any losses or expenses incurred by me. (Heavily paraphrasing our contract).

Mammy of ex could argue that her 'loan' to OP was analogous.

She could argue anything she wants; without having it in writing it wouldnt mean a whole lot!

Anan1

Cienciano wrote: »

Judge Judy would say:
"Did you give her the car"
The ma: "Yes"
"Then it's her car." ***bangs hammer down** "next case..."

What if the mother said she didn't give the OP the car, but allowed her to use it?

flutered

mathepac wrote: »

No, it doesn't work that way.

As the beneficial owner of the car (as defined by OP when she posted that ex's Mammy paid for the car from a dealer) all Mammy needs to prove ownership of the car is her receipt / cheque-stub / bank-statement. If it were to go to court Mr. Car Dealer and Mammy's financial documents would make for compelling evidence of ownership. The 'log book' is inadmissible as they are all endorsed as stated in a previous post "this document is not proof of ownership". Simplez - Mammy wins

if mammys sig is on the change of ownership, then mammys goose is cooked, your arguement is not valid, if your statment was correct then anyone who sold a car to someone that they knew could claim it back, the only way that the name on the log book was not the owner is usually when one has an agreement with a financial institution.

flutered

Anan1 wrote: »

What if the mother said she didn't give the OP the car, but allowed her to use it?

why did she sign it over to the op, if you were to give a loan of your car to someone, would you sign it over to them, then there is also the lenght of time to take into consideration, here it is quite a considerable lenght of time, the usual amount of time when one can change their mind is either 14 or 21 days, that does not apply to car sales, buy a car from a dealer, then go back even a short time later and tell them you have changed your mind and ask for a refund, i guess the reply would be short, just two words, with the second one off.

the_syco

djimi wrote: »

With no other agreements in place, I would have thought that it would be up to the mother to prove that it was only a temporary arrangement. For all the court knows, the OP gave the mother €100 in cash for the car, and the mother is now just trying to pull a fast one.

Agreed. €100 for the bucket, which the OP since had to fix up for NCT.

As for invoice, etc, if this was the case I could sell my car, send the log book, and then claim back the car as I had only "lent" them the car :rolleyes:

=-=

Maybe tell the MIL that you'll give the car back if the MIL pays €600 to you for the work you put in.

The easy part; tell her that the suspension needs to get fixed very shortly, as it's on the way out.

The hard part; finding a road with a couple of speed ramps which you fcuk up the suspension on the way to the MIL after she hands over the €600...

mathepac

flutered wrote: »

if mammys sig is on the change of ownership, then mammys goose is cooked, your arguement is not valid, if your statment was correct then anyone who sold a car to someone that they knew could claim it back, the only way that the name on the log book was not the owner is usually when one has an agreement with a financial institution.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

She could argue anything she wants; without having it in writing it wouldnt mean a whole lot!

Mammy may have a receipt and a dealer with whom she conducted the original purchase. OP has nothing and no-one as evidence of ownership. It says on the log-book "this is not proof of ownership" so OP has zilch.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

Mammy may have a receipt and a dealer with whom she conducted the original purchase. OP has nothing and no-one as evidence of ownership. It says on the log-book "this is not proof of ownership" so OP has zilch.

I have a receipt from my previous car also; doesnt mean I have any claim over it now.

Anan1

flutered wrote: »

why did she sign it over to the op, if you were to give a loan of your car to someone, would you sign it over to them,

She would have had to for the OP to be able to insure it.

flutered wrote: »

then there is also the lenght of time to take into consideration, here it is quite a considerable lenght of time, the usual amount of time when one can change their mind is either 14 or 21 days, that does not apply to car sales, buy a car from a dealer, then go back even a short time later and tell them you have changed your mind and ask for a refund,

What does the length of time have to do with anything? The mother could have lent the car for a day, a month, a year - what difference would it make?

Marcusm

Anan1 wrote: »

She would have had to for the OP to be able to insure it.

Not quite correct, she does not need to have the car registered in her name to insure it but rather to have an insurable interest in the car. It's very easy to satisfy the insurance requirements without transferring the registration.

What does the length of time have to do with anything? The mother could have lent the car for a day, a month, a year - what difference would it make?

In the real world, once she has transferred the registration, it would, in the absence of any documentary evidence or conduct to the contrary, be the factor given the greatest weight in determining the position. Anyone transferring the legal ownership of an asset while retaining a beneficial interest therein (trusts, custody arrangements etc) will generally document that fact in order to prevent the onselling of the asset contrary to their interests.

Earlier, someone cited the position of an engagement ring. There is decided case law that such a ring is given in contemplation of a marriage contract and is returnable should the engagement end and the donor wants its return.

sawdoubters

legally the car is yours,morally the car is yours you cant take gifts back,

let her sue you for it

which would cost her 1000 euro

Cee-Jay-Cee

corktina wrote: »

Not the case. A car with HP on it belongs to the finance house so I doubt that changing the details on the logbook transfers ownership absolutely.

Yes but this isnt a HP case, there is no contract, no one signed anything and so its not the same thing.

corktina

CJC999 wrote: »

Yes but this isnt a HP case, there is no contract, no one signed anything and so its not the same thing.

I beg to differ, if the logbook changed names, presumably that got signed.

I didn't say it was an HP case, just that the name on the logbook isn't necessarily that of the Owner.

godtabh

mathepac wrote: »

You have the certificate of registered ownership. To establish transfer of beneficial ownership you need a bill of sale, invoice, etc

she has invoices for the works carried out.

colm_mcm

OP is gone since page 2 lads

H3llR4iser

mathepac wrote: »

No, it doesn't work that way.

As the beneficial owner of the car (as defined by OP when she posted that ex's Mammy paid for the car from a dealer) all Mammy needs to prove ownership of the car is her receipt / cheque-stub / bank-statement. If it were to go to court Mr. Car Dealer and Mammy's financial documents would make for compelling evidence of ownership. The 'log book' is inadmissible as they are all endorsed as stated in a previous post "this document is not proof of ownership". Simplez - Mammy wins

I don't see how this is even remotely possible; If it was, then the vast majority of private car sales in Ireland are just people "lending use" of their car to somebody else. It would open the road to the easiest scam of them all: sell your vehicle in a Tesco car park, sign the logbook, go to court, claim car back saying it was just "lent" and you have the dealer's receipt, rinse and repeat.

What a line such as "this document is not proof of ownership" usually means is that the document itself, meant as the piece of paper, has no value on its own and needs to be corroborated by checking the registry data; Registry that, in this case, will have the OP's name as the owner.

keithclancy

mathepac wrote: »

Mammy may have a receipt and a dealer with whom she conducted the original purchase. OP has nothing and no-one as evidence of ownership. It says on the log-book "this is not proof of ownership" so OP has zilch.

Arguing for the sake of arguing ... typical motors forum :P