Car was towed but not under my name, now being sued!

[mustangman99]

California

About six or seven months ago I began making payments on a 1980 mustang, that belonged to my friend that totaled to $2000 for the car to be mine. Months pass, I pay it off. We fill out the info to transfer title and I mail it to the DMV HQ. About a week later, the car is towed from my spot (which shouldn't have been towed from to begin with.) I was out of town so unaware of this until my friend called me a week later and told me he got a call from the tow company. He was not mad, not at all. I told him that it must be under his name still and that is why they called him, and that we can go down to the tow yard so I can pay the $200 to get it off the lot, since I can't do it without him since he was the registered owner. Before this happened, we were planning to sell the car again for more money because I bought it to fix it up, and he was aware of this. He suggested that he call and see if the tow company will just buy the mustang off of him, and I said sure go for it. He told me a couple of days later he had talked to them and was taking care of that, and I reminded him to let me know if he still needed to pick it up so I can give him the $200 to do so. I didn't want to be charged for the time it stays there if so. Anyway, 3 months pass and he calls me and says he got a letter stating he owed $3000 to collections and that the tow company sold the mustang. He still was not mad at me, more or less mad at them because they told him not to worry about paying anything and they'd try to sell the car. He then asked me to pay half, and I told him I would pay te $200 for the tow and another $200 to be fair. but I reminded him that I could not personally go down and take it off the lot. He immediately threatened to take me to court for all of it because it was my fault it got towed, regardless of the fact that it was under his name and his responsibility to take care of the car situation (his responsibility to follow up with them, I still wanted to pay the $200). Now claims court is next week, and I am just preparing to know if I will lose or not. I hope not, as I did tell him I would pay the $200 but he would have to go with me, and he still never took care of the situation. Thanks to everyone who can help share some advice.

 

[FlyingRon]

Such a tangled web we weave when first we try to deceive.

Offer him the $200. Otherwise, tell him he can sue you. It's easy to threaten to sue. It's a bit more involved to actually due so. Harder yet to prevail.

Let us know if you get served on this.

 

[adjusterjack]

Ron, he wrote:

Now claims court is next week

I think that means he's already been served.

 

[adjusterjack]

Thanks to everyone who can help share some advice.

All you can do is go to court and tell the same story you wrote here.

 

[latigo]

California

About six or seven months ago I began making payments on a 1980 mustang, that belonged to my friend that totaled to $2000 for the car to be mine. Months pass, I pay it off. We fill out the info to transfer title and I mail it to the DMV HQ. About a week later, the car is towed from my spot (which shouldn't have been towed from to begin with.)

I was out of town so unaware of this until my friend called me a week later and told me he got a call from the tow company. He was not mad, not at all. I told him that it must be under his name still and that is why they called him, and that we can go down to the tow yard so I can pay the $200 to get it off the lot, since I can't do it without him since he was the registered owner.

Before this happened, we were planning to sell the car again for more money because I bought it to fix it up, and he was aware of this. He suggested that he call and see if the tow company will just buy the mustang off of him, and I said sure go for it. He told me a couple of days later he had talked to them and was taking care of that, and I reminded him to let me know if he still needed to pick it up so I can give him the $200 to do so.

I didn't want to be charged for the time it stays there if so. Anyway, 3 months pass and he calls me and says he got a letter stating he owed $3000 to collections and that the tow company sold the mustang. He still was not mad at me, more or less mad at them because they told him not to worry about paying anything and they'd try to sell the car.

He then asked me to pay half, and I told him I would pay te $200 for the tow and another $200 to be fair. but I reminded him that I could not personally go down and take it off the lot.

He immediately threatened to take me to court for all of it because it was my fault it got towed, regardless of the fact that it was under his name and his responsibility to take care of the car situation (his responsibility to follow up with them, I still wanted to pay the $200). Now claims court is next week, and I am just preparing to know if I will lose or not.

I hope not, as I did tell him I would pay the $200 but he would have to go with me, and he still never took care of the situation. Thanks to everyone who can help share some advice.

It isn't a deceitful web, but it dang sure is a messy one. How you two managed to create a likely insoluble maze out of a simple towing bill is one for the books. But lets see if we can find some daylight.

What dollar figure is he suing you for? You write that he threatened to take you to court "for all of it". Does that mean he is seeking a judgment against you for the $3000 - the same amount he stated that he owes "collections"?

What amount if anything has he paid, or alleges to have paid the towing company?

What amount if anything has he paid, or alleges to have paid "collections"?

My guess is that he hasn't paid either the towing company or "collections" one rupee. And for that reason alone he would have no cause of action against you as he has suffered no loss - he is not out anything, yet. The court would not permit speculation on the "yet", i. e., guess what he might end up owing "collections".

To make this clearer perhaps, because it is most IMPORTANT! He cannot successfully sue you personally for something he owes a third party or what you may owe a third party. There is a universal rule of law in this country that requires that all lawsuits must be prosecuted or defended in the name of THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST!
_________________

Other than his paying off the $3k there are but two other means of having your respective responsibilities for the $3K judicially resolved.

One would be to file a suit for declaratory judgment joining you, the towing company and "collections''.

The other would be to wait until he is sued for the $3K and then bring you into the lawsuit by interpleader asking the court to award him a "judgment over", i.e., against you for any amount awarded against him.

But both have their substantive problems. If he should claim that you agreed with him to be solely responsible for the charges, then he is faced with the statute of frauds which requires that to be enforceable an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing signed by the party to be charged or their authorized agent. Which would still leave open the question of who is primarily responsible. IOW, if it is your debt and not his, then the statute of frauds doesn't apply.

And that is the big kicker! Who is responsible? From his perspective what more could he have done to transfer title into your name. You paid the agreed price of two grand, you knew the title had been endorsed and submitted for transfer, SO why should the seller have any further responsibility for the vehicle?

I think it behooves you to prove that he did have continued responsibility. Which I see as only because of the ill-conceived, crazy and confusing scheme and related dialogue to have the towing company sell the vehicle. His problem is that he became unnecessarily involved in the ridiculous idea. He is to transfer title to the tow company to the same vehicle he has sold to you and a title transfer application already in the mill? Come on now!

If I were the judge and the issues was properly before me (which they are not now) I would rule that you two are equally liable for the three grand.

 

[mustangman99]

It isn't a deceitful web, but it dang sure is a messy one. How you two managed to create a likely insoluble maze out of a simple towing bill is one for the books. But lets see if we can find some daylight.

What dollar figure is he suing you for? You write that he threatened to take you to court "for all of it". Does that mean he is seeking a judgment against you for the $3000 - the same amount he stated that he owes "collections"?

What amount if anything has he paid, or alleges to have paid the towing company?

What amount if anything has he paid, or alleges to have paid "collections"?

My guess is that he hasn't paid either the towing company or "collections" one rupee. And for that reason alone he would have no cause of action against you as he has suffered no loss - he is not out anything, yet. The court would not permit speculation on the "yet", i. e., guess what he might end up owing "collections".

To make this clearer perhaps, because it is most IMPORTANT! He cannot successfully sue you personally for something he owes a third party or what you may owe a third party. There is a universal rule of law in this country that requires that all lawsuits must be prosecuted or defended in the name of THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST!
_________________

Other than his paying off the $3k there are but two other means of having your respective responsibilities for the $3K judicially resolved.

One would be to file a suit for declaratory judgment joining you, the towing company and "collections''.

The other would be to wait until he is sued for the $3K and then bring you into the lawsuit by interpleader asking the court to award him a "judgment over", i.e., against you for any amount awarded against him.

But both have their substantive problems. If he should claim that you agreed with him to be solely responsible for the charges, then he is faced with the statute of frauds which requires that to be enforceable an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing signed by the party to be charged or their authorized agent. Which would still leave open the question of who is primarily responsible. IOW, if it is your debt and not his, then the statute of frauds doesn't apply.

And that is the big kicker! Who is responsible? From his perspective what more could he have done to transfer title into your name. You paid the agreed price of two grand, you knew the title had been endorsed and submitted for transfer, SO why should the seller have any further responsibility for the vehicle?

I think it behooves you to prove that he did have continued responsibility. Which I see as only because of the ill-conceived, crazy and confusing scheme and related dialogue to have the towing company sell the vehicle. His problem is that he became unnecessarily involved in the ridiculous idea. He is to transfer title to the tow company to the same vehicle he has sold to you and a title transfer application already in the mill? Come on now!

If I were the judge and the issues was properly before me (which they are not now) I would rule that you two are equally liable for the three grand.

He did in fact pay the collections agency for the collections in total of $3000. What I am more concerned about is the fact that he originally told me he took care of things with the tow company because he was registered owner and had to be the one to make a move, and told me they told him neither of us were going to pay anything, and then told me 3 months later he never took care of it and now wants me to pay all of it (basically wants me to pay him back for the collections.)

 

[FlyingRon]

It is deceitful. Him and his friend were trying to put one over on both the lender and the state of California by their shenanigans.

 

[mustangman99]

It is deceitful. Him and his friend were trying to put one over on both the lender and the state of California by their shenanigans.

What do you mean?

 

[latigo]

He did in fact pay the collections agency for the collections in total of $3000. What I am more concerned about is the fact that he originally told me he took care of things with the tow company because he was registered owner and had to be the one to make a move, and told me they told him neither of us were going to pay anything, and then told me 3 months later he never took care of it and now wants me to pay all of it (basically wants me to pay him back for the collections.)

Well, that makes it a different ball game. Yet I fail to appreciate how you can deny responsibility when it was your property that had been seized and sold. Irrespective of the state of the certificate of title and the records at DMV and such technicalities it was in fact your Mustang at stake, not his.

If you are going to rely on some form of promise or agreement that he was to look after your Mustang, my thoughts are that you will need to produce something that will pass as consideration supporting his promise.

You might very well argue that you were misled into believing that he would "take care of it" with the towing company. But you will need to show the court that you had the right to rely on any such representations.

And without any consideration passing from you to him or his deriving any benefit - plus the fact that you apparently never followed up with inquiries to the towing company as to the status of the account, I just don't see it. At least I won't and can't nor try to predict the outcome.

Win some, lose some and some are rained out. I guess, but you two would muddy up a playing field during a drought.

 

[FlyingRon]

What do you mean?

I can almost guarantee that your loan makes it due on sale.

I can absolutely guarantee that California requires a car being sold to be retitled/re-registered in the new owner's name and it most cases smogged. In addition, the state wants their sales tax.

I suspect there's shenanigans going on with insurance on this as well.

 

[latigo]

He did in fact pay the collections agency for the collections in total of $3000. What I am more concerned about is the fact that he originally told me he took care of things with the tow company because he was registered owner and had to be the one to make a move, and told me they told him neither of us were going to pay anything, and then told me 3 months later he never took care of it and now wants me to pay all of it (basically wants me to pay him back for the collections.)

(Sorry to bifurcate this, but I had an appointment)

On the good side (from you point of view) he is going to have some problems in proving his claim. Because he cannot sustain a cause of action against you by simply testifying that he paid the $3000.

I'm seldom right but I would will lay odds that his game plan consists primary of trying to get the judge to find some sense or legal significance in the squirrelly doings you and he become enmeshed in following the $200 tow job and then introduce his receipt for the three grand.

Which puts us right back to these crazy ill-conceived shenanigans with the towing guys. In all honesty I can't tell what to make of it or who is liable to whom. The best I can look at it is like this:

Suppose you and the same friend are equal owners of a building. It is agreed that the building needs upgrading so Joe the contractor is hired and bills you guys for $10K. You are unsatisfied with the work and tell your friend not to pay it without some evidence that there is ten grand worth of labor and material in it. You friend has deeper pockets than you and under Joe's threats of legal action he pays the ten grand and now insists that you owe him half. You refuse so he sues you.

Would it be unreasonable for the judge to require your friend to prove that Joe was truly entitled to the ten thousand, before you are required to pay half of it? By the same token here. Shouldn't your friend be require to prove not only that you were solely responsible to the towing company, but moreover that the towing company was legitimately entitled to the $3K.

How is he going to prove that the towing company was entitled to the $3K without subpoenaing their people and their records? (Not easy for a lawyer, let alone a layperson.) And if he can't prove that the $3K was legitimately owed, how can he claim you are responsible to pay it?