Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

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

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,184 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #63
    FirstinLastout
    Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭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:)


  • Options
    #64
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #65
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,226 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sounds like one for Judge Judy ! :D
    Judge Judy would say:
    "Did you give her the car"
    The ma: "Yes"
    "Then it's her car." ***bangs hammer down** "next case..."


  • Options
    #66
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #68
    flutered
    Registered Users Posts: 6,668 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    flutered
    Registered Users Posts: 6,668 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #70
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #71
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭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.
    :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #73
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #74
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #75
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,184 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #76
    sawdoubters
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #77
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #78
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #79
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #80
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,382 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    OP is gone since page 2 lads :)


  • Options
    #81
    H3llR4iser
    Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭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


Advertisement