Quincy/Zigner in re Chrisiti12's "car trouble" in Nevada 11-27-17

[latigo]

Yesterday the two of you responded negatively to Christi12's post regarding his undocumented rights of ownership in a motor vehicle that was purchased and financed solely in the name of his godmother.

The thread closed before I could reply to your responses, which I would like to do so now by asking this:

Why do you believe that it would be easier for the godmother to prove there was a verbal agreement that Christi was leasing the car from her and that the payments Christi made to the finance company and the insurance premiums (all of them) were charged to lease payments -

THAN it would be for Christi to prove a verbal agreement that her participation was only as an accommodation and that he is the equitable owner of the vehicle?

 

[Zigner]

Yesterday the two of you responded negatively to Christi12's post regarding his undocumented rights of ownership in a motor vehicle that was purchased and financed solely in the name of his godmother.

The thread closed before I could reply to your responses, which I would like to do so now by asking this:

Why do you believe that it would be easier for the godmother to prove there was a verbal agreement that Christi was leasing the car from her and that the payments Christi made to the finance company and the insurance premiums (all of them) were charged to lease payments -

THAN it would be for Christi to prove a verbal agreement that her participation was only as an accommodation and that he is the equitable owner of the vehicle?

Because the OP's position would require her to be a party to a fraud against the lienholder.

 

[quincy]

Yesterday the two of you responded negatively to Christi12's post regarding his undocumented rights of ownership in a motor vehicle that was purchased and financed solely in the name of his godmother.

The thread closed before I could reply to your responses, which I would like to do so now by asking this:

Why do you believe that it would be easier for the godmother to prove there was a verbal agreement that Christi was leasing the car from her and that the payments Christi made to the finance company and the insurance premiums (all of them) were charged to lease payments -

THAN it would be for Christi to prove a verbal agreement that her participation was only as an accommodation and that he is the equitable owner of the vehicle?

Here is a link to the thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/car-trouble-639851.html

My contribution to that thread was a single line in a single post: "You do not appear to have a case to pursue."

I saw the agreement between Christi12 and the grandmother much as Zigner did. There was no written purchase agreement or anything else in writing to indicate the car was Christi12's property. Christi12 was given use of a vehicle belonging to the grandmother in exchange for payments.

What are you seeing, latigo?