Car repo question

Pale Rider · 05-03-2007, 08:01 PM

At what point can they claim that the car is stolen and try to issue warrants?

Ever? After a certain time frame?

This would be for Texas.
Couple who filed BK, but was dismissed.
Not making payments and hiding car.

Enigma · 05-03-2007, 08:17 PM

Unless there was a court order to turn the car over, there is no claim for a stolen car.

Was it a 7 or 13 BK?

Pale Rider · 05-03-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Unless there was a court order to turn the car over, there is no claim for a stolen car.

Was it a 7 or 13 BK?

Not sure about which BK. I don't have all the details yet. I had a message on my machine for my friend from someone looking for her sister and BIL. They claimed to be an investigator trying to locate the couple about a stolen vehicle and pending warrants.

hannah · 05-03-2007, 08:36 PM

PR, if the bk was dismissed, sooner or later someone is going to want the car. It is auto theft pure and simple if they are hiding it and not giving it back when requested to do so.

JayinGR · 05-03-2007, 10:30 PM

I thought it was like Enigma said and they needed a court order then the car was stolen...In MI when the car is titled in the persons name its theirs unless there is a court order...or so I thought...

Enigma · 05-03-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

PR, if the bk was dismissed, sooner or later someone is going to want the car. It is auto theft pure and simple if they are hiding it and not giving it back when requested to do so.

It is civil not a criminal matter. There must be a bailment clause in the financing contract enforceable in TX.

Now if the "investigator" was not a TX law enforcement officer, then both civil and criminal laws may have been broached.

Look to the TX statutes for the requirements for repos.

Are they upside down in the payments? Was the money loaned for the car in excess of the cars worth?

Is there any equity?

Eventually they will have to give up the vehicle. If they force the creditor to court then they could face comtempt charges if they fail to turn it over.

They could also be held for payment of attorneys fees, court costs, etc.

What is the point in keeping it if you can't use it!?

Pale Rider · 05-03-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Eventually they will have to give up the vehicle. If they force the creditor to court then they could face comtempt charges if they fail to turn it over.

They could also be held for payment of attorneys fees, court costs, etc.

What is the point in keeping it if you can't use it!?

My friend and I agree on that, but the couple hasn't listened to her. I doubt there is any equity, and not sure of the contract. I don't plan to try and offer any advice but to give up the car and start over.

Hedwig · 05-04-2007, 12:46 AM

That sounds like good advice. What do you want to bet they won't follow it?

neil5623 · 05-04-2007, 12:57 AM

Do they live between the rivers?

Enigma · 05-04-2007, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Do they live between the rivers?

Now you are talking possible criminal actions.

Pale Rider · 05-04-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Do they live between the rivers?

Yeah, they live in my town.

Enigma, Neil knows where I live. I don't think he was suggesting anything.

centex · 05-04-2007, 08:24 AM

If a demand has been made to return the vehicle, then there is the potential for a charge related to hindering a secured creditor.

Depending on the value of the vehicle, it would likely be a State Jail felony or a third degree vehicle.

§ 32.33. HINDERING SECURED CREDITORS. (a) For purposes
of this section:
(1) "Remove" means transport, without the effective
consent of the secured party, from the state in which the property
was located when the security interest or lien attached.
(2) "Security interest" means an interest in personal
property or fixtures that secures payment or performance of an
obligation.
(b) A person who has signed a security agreement creating a
security interest in property or a mortgage or deed of trust
creating a lien on property commits an offense if, with intent to
hinder enforcement of that interest or lien, he destroys, removes,
conceals, encumbers, or otherwise harms or reduces the value of the
property.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to
have intended to hinder enforcement of the security interest or
lien if, when any part of the debt secured by the security interest
or lien was due, he failed:
(1) to pay the part then due; and
(2) if the secured party had made demand, to deliver
possession of the secured property to the secured party.
(d) An offense under Subsection (b) is a:
(1) Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property
destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise harmed or
reduced in value is less than $20;
(2) Class B misdemeanor if the value of the property
destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise harmed or
reduced in value is $20 or more but less than $500;
(3) Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property
destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise harmed or
reduced in value is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) state jail felony if the value of the property
destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise harmed or
reduced in value is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) felony of the third degree if the value of the
property destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise
harmed or reduced in value is $20,000 or more but less than
$100,000;
(6) felony of the second degree if the value of the
property destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise
harmed or reduced in value is $100,000 or more but less than
$200,000; or
(7) felony of the first degree if the value of the
property destroyed, removed, concealed, encumbered, or otherwise
harmed or reduced in value is $200,000 or more.
(e) A person who is a debtor under a security agreement, and
who does not have a right to sell or dispose of the secured property
or is required to account to the secured party for the proceeds of a
permitted sale or disposition, commits an offense if the person
sells or otherwise disposes of the secured property, or does not
account to the secured party for the proceeds of a sale or other
disposition as required, with intent to appropriate (as defined in
Chapter 31) the proceeds or value of the secured property. A person
is presumed to have intended to appropriate proceeds if the person
does not deliver the proceeds to the secured party or account to the
secured party for the proceeds before the 11th day after the day
that the secured party makes a lawful demand for the proceeds or
account. An offense under this subsection is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the proceeds obtained
from the sale or other disposition are money or goods having a value
of less than $20;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the proceeds obtained
from the sale or other disposition are money or goods having a value
of $20 or more but less than $500;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the proceeds obtained
from the sale or other disposition are money or goods having a value
of $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the proceeds obtained from
the sale or other disposition are money or goods having a value of
$1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the proceeds
obtained from the sale or other disposition are money or goods
having a value of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the proceeds
obtained from the sale or other disposition are money or goods
having a value of $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the proceeds
obtained from the sale or other disposition are money or goods
having a value of $200,000 or more.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 501, ch. 232, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1979; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 914, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1985;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Enigma · 05-04-2007, 01:08 PM

Texans have weired laws.

Enigma · 05-04-2007, 01:16 PM

Hannah was correct.

It serves to remind us that each state has a differing set of laws.

jlynn · 05-04-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Texans have weired laws.

Hmmm, never heard of this one. To think, all these years I was under the impression that in Texas, hiding from the repo man was a team sport.

Quote:

(2) if the secured party had made demand, to deliver possession of the secured property to the secured party

The statute doesn't define what is the secured party. I wonder if that could be or has been stretched to include the demand for return made by a 3rd party skip-tracer?

I'm a firm believer in not testing criminal law, when it is so easy to hand over the keys, walk away, and play with civil debt collectors later.

Pale Rider · 05-04-2007, 08:06 PM

Apparently there was an agreement in court to give up the car. They called and told them to come get the vehicle.

jlynn · 05-04-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Apparently there was an agreement in court to give up the car.

That sounds like they relinquished during the bankruptcy. But if that's been dismissed, they are on the hook for the car and all the back payments.

centex · 05-05-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Apparently there was an agreement in court to give up the car. They called and told them to come get the vehicle.

That makes the situation worse if they have been hiding it from the repo man...and in smaller counties, that is sometimes the sort of case that *WILL* get filed simply so the DA has something to do.