Jump to content



Recommended Posts

I have a freind of mine who had a question I could not answer and thought this may be the best place to ask do to the wealth of knowledge here.

He opened an account with AM and put his antique car up as collateral. Then needed some money for other things. AM had him also place his other vehicle up as collateral also. They re-wrote the loan with additional fees and put both vehicles as collateral on the note.

He had some financial hardship do to medical reasons and defaulted on the loan. The OC repoed his car in Nov. They aslo want his antique car, but it is in storage and cannot be gotten to until Spring.

They have not sold his car as of yet. (6 weeks later) Now he has received a letter from a collection Atty for some outragous amount. The very same day AM sent a statement for a smaller amount. Neither of which show how much they received for his car (if they even sold it at all yet).

My question is.... Does having 2 vehicles on one loan create a problem for the OC and if so, what would it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The loan contract is for the money lent. The collateral posted to lien is a security interest in the repayment of the note. It can be one car, or a hundred cars. To the OC it is immaterial so long as the collateral covers the value of the note.

You mention repo. Firstly, lets get one thing clear here. The lender does not own the collateral. The borrower does. Self-help repossessions are illegal if they involve a breach of the peace. The cannot force you to turn over the collateral, only a judge can do that (which means they must first successfully sue).

Common breaches of the peace in repos:

Criminal tresspass

Threat of harm (assault)

Actual harm (battery)

Breaking and entering

Impersonnating an peace officer or officer of the court

Serving false documents as if they were court documents

Self help repos can be legal if they take the car from a public street. But if they take it from a private parking lot or driveway on private property, they committed an act of tresspass in doing the repo. Also, if you tell the repo guy to leave your property and never return they must comply. They cannot come back and step onto private property once told to leave in order to take the vehicle.

In addition the police/sheriff cannot assist in a self help reposession. They may only act upon the orders of a judge (again the lender must successfully sue). If they did it would become an act of the State without a court order and violates the Constitution for unlawful seizure of property without due process. If they do help a repo man out, the police can be liable to you for the loss of the car as well as other civil damages. Tort protection does not cover when a police officer violates civil rights so they are not exempt from being sued in such a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merely entering upon someone's property is NOT "criminal tresspass".

From a legal dictionary:

TRESPASS - An unlawful act committed with violence, ti et armis, to the person, property or relative rights of another. Every felony includes a trespass, in common parlance, such acts are not in general considered as trespasses, yet they subject the offender to an action of trespass after his conviction or acquittal.

The following rules characterize the injuries which are denominated trespasses, namely: 1. To determine whether an injury is a trespass, due regard must be had to the nature of the right affected. A wrong with force can only be offered to the absolute rights of personal liberty and security, and to those of property corporeal; those of health, reputation and in property incorporeal, together with the relative rights of persons, are, strictly speaking, incapable of being injured with violence, because the subject-matter to which they relate, exists in either case only in idea, and is not to be seen or handled. An exception to this rule, however, often obtains in the very instance of injuries to the relative rights of persons; and wrongs offered to these last are frequently denominated trespasses, that is, injuries with force.

Those wrongs alone are characterized as trespasses the immediate consequences of which are injurious to the plaintiff; if the damage sustained is a remote consequence of the act, the injury falls under the denomination of trespass on the case.

No act is injurious but that which is unlawful; and therefore, where the force applied to the plaintiff's property or person is the act of the law itself, it constitutes no cause of complaint.

The action of trespass is the proper remedy for injuries to personal property, which may be committed by the several acts of unlawfully striking, chasing, if alive, and carrying away to the damage of the plaintiff, a personal chattel, Executors, of which another is the owner and in possession; but a naked possession or right to immediate possession, is a sufficient title to support this action.

From a state statute:

A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if such person knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling of another or if such person enters any motor vehicle with intent to steal anything of value or with intent to commit a crime therein. First degree criminal trespass is a class 5 felony.

And one more:

A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling or premises, or if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Laws vary by state, so local laws must be consulted to determine applicable requirements. It is a defense to the crime to show that an element of the crime, such as knowingly entering or remaining without authorization, is lacking. An attempted criminal trespass requires that a defendant act with the intent to commit criminal trespass, and his conduct must constitute a substantial step toward committing the aggravated criminal trespass.

The following is an example of a state statute defining "remain unlawfully":

A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privileges unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner."

A repo man is NOT doing anything illegal if he snatches your car from the driveway and his intention is not criminal in nature. If he enters your house, a closed garage, etc. it MAY be construed as Trespass, which is why they're not allowed to break into a garage to get a vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.