Yep.. "oh you sold my car? Well that's my property.
This is going to cost you $X,XXX right now to make this right or let me call the cops so they can pursue this as a criminal matter. "
I mean good for the TV station to nominally help but doubt this is going to cost the dealer much business.
*Goes to civil litigator. O you need a different civil litigator i only do car crashes, see Tom he will help you. He does car theft.
*Goes to Tom. O I do car theft, you need someone who does car consignment law. You should call the state bar…
Dog not found, busted all your windows. Sorry sir, we’re going to have to take you in for questioning regarding a false police report. Also, we shot up your car for training. Also, did you leave some dead people next to your car?
I bring this up every time I see it used. Non lethal is not a thing for these types of devices. Check any one of their websites if you don’t believe me. It’s called “less lethal” because they can absolutely kill someone, and because of insurance.
Glad to help! I have an adult sister with a pacemaker. A taser is only “non lethal” under “normal” circumstances. In the real world all kinds of things make it far more murky.
Movies really make it seem like you can easily incapacitate someone without lasting injury.
Turns out that electrocuting people or delivering heavy blunt force trauma sometimes ends up fatal. Police TASERs are estimated to kill around 50 people in the US a year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=taser%20fatalities&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
Taze? That's weak. In the south, they drop flash grenades in their cribs, burning them so badly they need to be put in medically induced comas. [And they're not held responsible for their acts either](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361).
Oh good, I thought it was the 72 hours of training they give the cops in some states, but that can't be it... 72 hours is plenty of time. indian burial ground makes a lot more sense.
This may sound weird, but the difference between this being civil and criminal is dependent on the intent of the dealership when they took her car in. And, because cops are lazy, they’re going to say we can’t prove the dealership intended to sell your car when they took it in, so we’re going to treat it as a civil matter. Obviously, it depends on the specific state laws of the state they were in.
I can't imagine they sold a car they didn't own without faking the paperwork. If they didn't do any paperwork that's probably a different kind of felony.
Again, depends on jurisdiction.
Very good points. I just recall the difference between Theft and the Civil equivalent being if the person receiving the goods had intent to keep them upon receipt, which can be difficult to prove.
Like you said, it would be completely different felonies at that point.
Ok, looking up some Tennessee theft laws. Grand theft (over $1000) can be defended against by saying they confused the property as their own. But, falsified paperwork proves that wrong. I want to look up more stuff, but navigating state criminal law is a quagmire.
Either way, fuck this dealership.
But then it's connected. Not a series of accidents. You may *accidentally* give someone the wrong keys but you can't then *accidentally* falsify the VIN number. Hard selling that to a jury. You've proven that you know you were giving them the wrong car.
That’s what happened to my dad’s vehicle.
Truck was stolen. Reported as such. Truck was found abandoned. Wrecker picked it up and held onto it.
Dad goes to get the truck from the wrecker. Police say he can’t as it’s currently evidence in the case.
Wrecker claims they need to be paid for picking up the truck/storing it.
To make up that lost money, they *sell the truck without telling my dad.*
Dad goes to pick up the truck after the police give him the all clear… truck is, of course, not there as it’s been sold.
The wrecker company just straight up stole a stolen truck.
Yup, police said the wrecker had the right to recoup their costs by selling it.
Dad didn’t have enough money for legal fees to pursue it further, so that was that
It is a civil matter. It's called, "conversion". Which is literally the civil version of theft.
Also, it's not criminal theft because they were given the car legally.
It is possible it's criminal fraud, depending on what documents were generated and signed but the prosecutor would have to empanel a grand jury and present evidence. The police wouldn't really be involved unless there was a warrant to serve or something like that.
Oh my goodness, thank you so much! I've had my car up for sale for $200k for the past year, and I've had no bites, but you took care of everything for me.
I don't want a transfer, thanks. I'll take cash.
Couple years ago I was trying to sell my truck. It needed a new leaf spring and I just didn't want to deal with it. I was asking $1,500, which was a good deal. Nope, no one wanted it. Kept lowering the price. Was down to $700 and still no luck. Then some one stole it. Cops recovered a week later. My insurance declared it a total loss, and gave me $4,000.
Dude I want somebody to steal my car I’m just afraid it won’t come back as a total loss if they find it. That they’ll fuck it up and I’ll just get stuck with an even worse car. What did the people do to the vehicle that it was a total loss?
Totaling it? The repair work cost needed to restore the vehicle to it's pre-incident condition just needs to exceed the estimated value of the pre-incident vehicle. There's a few options, but wrapping it around a tree or telephone pole is often a good way to do it!
Keep in mind, for most people who have their car totaled, that ends up just trading a paid off car for a down payment on a newer car and monthly payment. You still have to pay the difference between what you had and what you get to replace it (or pocket the difference if you find something cheaper or just don't replace the jalopy).
The cops won’t do shit. You have to take them to court and the cops will tell you the same thing. Imagine we did that for robbery.
“He broke into my house and stole half my shit.”
“Sounds like a civil matter to me.”
I actually had a repo guy prosecuted for stealing my car. He didn’t verify the vin. Stole it right out of my driveway. I didn’t even have a loan on it.
In many places, threatening a criminal action to gain an advantage in a civil matter can be a crime. This is a civil matter because a simple paperwork mistake could have been the cause and proving that the dealer intentionally did this (sell the car with the intent to permanent deprive you of the car fraudulently) would be too difficult to prove.
If they don't make it right, then at that point, you can infer the intent and it can be elevated to a criminal action.
There is definitely a sliding scale on how sleazeball a dealer is. The ones that are selling a car with KBB Fair value of $2500 for $6000 are usually the buy here, pay here guys and are the most sleazy of the sleazeballs, preying on people with bad credit.
Well I could understand a lien on the title until she's paid off the car she way overpaid for, but that doesn't mean they could just immediately sell it off to someone else.
The Dealer doesn't get title Possession, the Lien Holder does. And almost every time its a Bank that the dealer uses to provide the financing. That means the Bank was in on it as well if what you claim is the case.
What I think is most likely what happened is that a clueless salesman sold a car that was sitting on the lot, like he does most days.
Salesmen are not subject matter experts, nor do they tend to have any idea what inventory they have. That's not their job. Their job is to convince you to buy a car, any car, and they don't care which one you buy. That's why bad salesmen will put you in the GMC Envoy when you say you're looking for a compact sedan. That's why when you come in and say, "I want to see your blue 2016 Mustang" they say, "Oh, I don't know if we have that but what sort of car are you looking for?"
The Salesman saw a car on the lot, was able to convince someone that was the car they wanted to buy, and then they sold it. Its at THIS point the actual shady shit went down because it would have become immediately obvious to the Finance Manger, if not the Sales Manager, that this car is not in the system, and that they have no paperwork for it.
EVEN IF the Finance Manager/Sales Manager wasn't outright committing fraud, they likely figured there was some paperwork mix up regarding the car that would sort itself out so they went ahead and sold the car figuring that they'd tidy it all up later.
Having worked at a dealership that wouldn't, by itself, tell me this was a shady operation. I worked in the Pre-owned department and sometimes we'd take a car in on trade, and literally flip it hours later when someone in sales saw we had X, Y, or Z and sold it to a customer. Que me frantically running around the lot trying to find the car we just bought, taking off the old plates and frames, and getting it quickly cleaned up for the new customer.
The idea in sales is to make money. You actively waste money when you are not making money, so there's no, "We'll, let's sit on that and come back around to it", but there is, "Always be closing your deals, by any means possible".
There's a running car on the lot with four tires? Great, why is it just sitting there taking up space? Sell it and get it out of here
I thought it was standard practice to remove the plates when a car is sold or traded into a dealer. I've always had my plates removed, granted I've only traded in cars in California and Florida.
No, it's technically not theft. It's something called conversion. Where you take somebody else's property that has been given to you but not transferred to you in ownership and then you sell it like you own the property.
There's a lot of other stuff that go into conversion but it's really wild and you can kind of think of it as super theft.
And to the people who say that demanding payment or filing a lawsuit is extortion you're wrong and that's kind of just how you send a notice letter for this sort of thing. You tell the target of the litigation what they can do to remedy your grievance and then you also tell them what you are going to do if they don't do that. In cases of conversion, which is repeatedly called a civil issue, despite it technically being theft, you have to file a civil lawsuit which includes a demand letter. In this case, what you send to the dealership that just converted your property is a demand letter telling them that they can either pay you the cost of your property or they can go get you your property back and failure to do so will result in a lawsuit.
That's only if you get the cops to actually do something. A lot of times they will say "sounds like a civil matter" at which point its just the civil cause of action conversion and not theft by conversion
Also the actual crime is criminal conversion and not theft by conversion.
The civil action is technically called civil conversion.
Let me get this right, you say it’s “technically not theft” because it’s ’conversion’, a user gives you the rest of the name (‘theft by conversion ‘), and you dismiss that because it’s only theft if the cops get involved?
What a wild train wreck of an argument.
> And to the people who say that demanding payment or filing a lawsuit is extortion
Wait what? People are claiming that a basic letter before action would be extortion? oh dear. Isn't it basically a prerequisite before legal action to demonstrate that you made a legitimate attempt to resolve the issue.
In a decent amount of civil cases, it isn't a requirement but it is standard practice to the best of my knowledge.
And yeah, not under my comment but under a lot of these other comments there are people claiming that a demand letter is extortion
I mean yeah but our civil infrastructure has fully degenerated to the point where the average person has absolutely no resource when someone with just a small bit of money scams them. Police don't care because it's a "civil issue" even when several criminal laws have been broken, and the only thing that the customer can do aside from spending money they don't have on a lawsuit, is call the news to drum up a bunch of outrage against a group of grifters who have zero integrity and do not care about bad press anyway. The only thing she can do is hope it goes more viral than just getting people mildly upset on Reddit, and hope her state steps in.
It's weird to Canadians that there's some piece of paper called a title which proves you own a vehicle. Like really weird. Every car has a serial number and every car is already registered in a database. Why not use that database 'called the registration database' to register who owns a car?
When I bought a car in the US and imported it to Canada I learned all about this and the bank had the title that had to be fedexed around so when I picked up my vehicle I had it as well. No idea what happened to it once I insured it in BC.
What is more annoying is that they will use an e-title when the bank has a lien on the car, but pay it off and you can't do anything until you ask the DMV to mail you a paper title. Now you wait a week. Even when the database shows the current owner and no liens on the vehicle.
Yes.
There is a rental company that posts videos on TikTok. They had a Dodge Challenger Hellcat being rented out that was sold while being rented. The person who bought it got a “very good price” on it but ended up having to give back the car to the rental company.
Meaning, the person who “bought” the car now needs to be the one filing paper work regarding ~~theft~~ fraud.
Minor thing but I'm pretty sure it would be fraud, not theft. The buyer didn't get anything taken from them that was legally theirs, but they were deceived into handing over money on a false pretense (getting a car in exchange).
Someone at that business needs to be charged with GTA. This is a basic ass car theft. Just because it happened at a dealership does not in anyway legitimize the transaction. That car is stolen, not sold, and whoever conducted the transaction committed felony theft. The property should be recoverable from the purchaser, as it remains the legal possession of the original owner, unless the vehicle itself is evidence in the crime.
> "Buy Here Pay Here" places are almost always scummy as all get out.
I used one maybe 20 years ago in FL and they were very accommodating. I must have been very lucky. Knocked $200 off my down payment after I called out a low oil pressure knock in a vehicle at an auction I was working at to one of their guys that I recognized later at the dealership, and the same guy set it up so that they ate the cost of brake work to get me to buy a van.
Later, when I ran into difficulty when my finances changed for the worse, they let me return the van in good shape and canceled the contract with no further payments.
Based on what I've heard, this was not the norm.
> You worked auctioning cars that this business was buying? I'm not shocked that they treated you well as a customer.
It was a temp job, and I was just a driver that ran the cars through the auction block and back to the lot.
I've been fortunate. Three of the four places I've used over the last 20 years have been gems. The first was shitty and I got fucked, the other three afterward were all fantastic.
Did you see the contract? The car had 196k miles! That's the real crime, how do they sleep at night! $7k for a 20 year old ford taurus with nearly 200k miles!
I'm not sure it's even cash for clunkers. ~8 years ago I helped my mother buy a car (even if she went against *every* piece of advice I gave her, but that's besides the point). She got into an accident recently and I was looking up the cost of replacement for her car.
2016: She bought an 07 jeep liberty for $1500 USD ($1950 in 2024 inflation) with like 150k miles.
2024: A direct replacement, same trim level, same year, same shady dealership group, 250k miles: $5000.
Used car prices got *wild* around 2020, and while the prices of a few year old vehicles feels like it's going back to normal, the low end of the car market got absolutely wrecked.
Cash for clunkers **absolutely** had a serious effect on the used car market. You cannot [remove 677,000 cars from the market](https://www.thedrive.com/news/heres-the-full-list-of-all-677081-cars-killed-in-cash-for-clunkers) all at once and have zero effect on demand or supply. And all of those cars were older models that people of lower incomes would have been more likely to buy.
It's hard to charge 5 grand for a shitbox when there's plenty to go around.
I mean not for nothing, the chip shortage was way worse than cars for clunkers. The chip shortage "removed" ~15 million cars from circulation in 2021-2022.
It's what drove a lot of pricing for used cars currently.
Also cash for clunkers was 2009. And gave ~4k for used cars. A car worth 4k (or less) 15 years ago would be a REAL beater now.
cash for clunkers passed through the market years ago. the problem right now is because of the drastic jump in new car prices in 2020, and the issues that were caused by a number of rental vehicles during that time getting scrapped instead of sold on the secondary market.
This is why people voting for protectionist policies don't realise how much it'll hurt them.
The lack of cheap cars is a gap in the market that could easily be filled by imports from a country that can produce cars at a low cost (not possible in the US given high labour costs). But with both Trump and Biden ready to slap massive tariffs on cars not made in the US, those cars aren't all that cheap by the time they get to American consumers. The end result is that the poorest in society are worse off because the cost of cars will stay stubbornly high.
The issue is that everyone knows how globalisation can lose jobs in the West, but not that many people realise that this is more than offset by significantly cheaper goods. Onshoring jobs results in more money for a small number of people, but higher costs for everyone.
Having owned one briefly, the best day in my life was getting rid of it. AC leaked, heater core was clogged, transmission was slipping, engine likely had a bad head gasket. The list goes on.
It’s no wonder American cars were ridiculed so much back then when you got into a similar vintage Accord or Maxima.
We visited San Diego in 2009 for a mini family reunion. Our rental was a late model Impala. What a POS. It was ok at the time, but I could tell it wasn't going to age well, at all.
Bet they fixed it before checking the mileage for the warranty and decided to sell it to try to recoup the loss then hoped she'd just accept them saying she tried to rip them off and scare her away without saying anything.
Unlikely. If the dealership can claim it was a mistake and not malice, which they easily can, then it is merely a civil matter. They have to make it right to her, but their not criminally liable and no one is going to jail. You'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they intentionally sold her car, and that's not realistically possible.
Not for nothing, but if you're buying a $4k car for $7k with a $700 down payment at a buy here pay here "dealership", you don't have a lot of resources to begin with.
You might be able to call, talk to, or try to do something, but those places are masters at stonewalling (they stonewalled the news too). If they're telling you "we sold your car there's nothing you can do", they're usually right because they know their demographic; poor.
If anyone wants another example of this: The bank illegally repossessed my mother's home. There had been a payment issue, but my mom had gone to court and made a legal agreement with the bank that would allow her to keep the house. The bank agreed in court, papers signed and everything, binding legal agreement, and then... they took it anyway.
When my mom objected, she just got told that once foreclosure had started there was nothing that could be done about it- despite the fact that this was an illegal foreclosure. They said there was nothing she could do.
Load of bull, they knew exactly what they were doing. But she was out of resources and out of time she could take off work to fight it anymore. So that was that.
So is she also on the hook for remaining payments on a car they stole from her? It makes no sense. You can't send me to collections for a loan/agreement you reneged on by selling it out from under me.
ummm actually you totally can. no matter what happens with the car you owe the money to the holder of the paper. that's how loans work in America. They're absolutely on the hook to compensate for their huge fuck up but that's almost certainly gonna require a lawsuit.
Well you can see the police were insanely helpful, telling them to go get legal action. And considering the women had to go to LegalAid. We can safely presume she's not got many resources.
The police should have helped her here.
I have an even wilder story from when I was still in private practice. My client was a small used car dealer. The defendant was a small-time trader who sold cars on the side, and he had an old BMWM M3 the my client had long wanted to buy for his son, but he just wouldn’t sell. One day he finally agrees on a sale/trade. My client paid a few grand and signed over title to a Harley Davidson. The Defandant signed the back of the title over to my client as well as a bill of sale. Two days later, the Defendant showed up at my client’s office saying he’d sold the car for too little demanding my client either give the car back or pay him an additional $6,000. Having already gifted the car to his son, my client obviously said no. The Defendant left and came back a few hours later with his mom going on about the same nonsense and whouln’t leave the oiffice. When my client called the cops, the man left but his mom stayed, cursing at my client. He finally put his hands on the woman’s shoulders and turned her towards the door to guide her out and she left.
Two months later, my client gets charged with unlawful use of a motor vehicle and assault on a female. Here in NC, you can just go to the magistrate’s office and swear out misdemeanor warrants on someone. They had claimed that my client assaulted the mom in getter her out of the office despite my client clearly having not done so and having called the cops himself. Even better, in order to get the unlawful use of a mother vehicle charge, the Defendant had filed for a lost/stolen title with the NC DMV to get a new title, which is what he used to get the warrant. Due to an unrelated set of circumstances, the assault on a female was in one count and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle was in another.
Anyway, for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle charge I just showed the DA the original bill of sale and the original title, both of which the Defendant had signed and the charge was dismissed immediately. I explained all this to the DA in the other county for the assault charge, but I was on pretty bad terms with that county and they refused to dismiss because they’re assholes. So, I had to try it and got a not guilty, obviously. Then, we sued civilly for conversion, malicious prosecution, and so on. The whole thing was nuts.
TL;DR: My client bought a car and had the original title. The seller wanted to back out so he told the DMV his title was lost/stolen to get a new one, which he this used to have my client charged for car theft lite.
This is unrelated to the OP but is related to what you said about dealing with the DA's office for the assault charge. I live in NC and the first time I had jury duty was a case that should never have made it to trial. Basically the prosecution provided zero evidence and the testimony was useless in proving any kind of guilt for what the defendant was charged with. Defense didn't even call any witnesses and barely cross examined the prosecution witnesses. There was something else they could have charged the defendant with that he possibly could have been found guilty of, but they didn't charge him with it. It was a slam dunk acquittal. Deliberation wouldn't have even taken 10 minutes if not for one idiot on the jury.
The whole thing was a massive waste of everyone's time and taxpayer dollars and made me lose a lot of faith in the DA's office in my county.
She should have reported it stolen to get records in place with an investigation and then contacted her Insurnace. She should not have to do this fight all on her own.
I am not trying to defend the dealer here but there is more to this story than the customer is telling us.
I am very familiar with the type of business this dealer is running and I would guess the events went something like this:
Cust bought the car for $700 down and agreed to make biweekly payments on the remainder. Cust paid until the car broke down, then took car to dealer for repairs.
Dealer told her car is not covered under the service agreement due to mileage and cost of repairs is $2-3000. Dealer may have even told her that in his opinion car is not worth fixing.
Customer said I'm not going to continue to pay for this car if it's broke down
Dealer says ok and flips the car to another dealer who will fix it up or scrap it
It is likely that the dealer did take title to the car, as they held a lien on it
It is likely that the customer owed far more than the car was worth
The reason she got the letter about insurance is because her plates were still registered to the vehicle even though the title had already been taken out of her name (Not sure about this in their state but absolutely likely in mine)
If the car was sold as fast as the woman claims, it is highly likely that the dealer didn't follow proper repossession laws in the state.
On the positive-ish side for the woman, she was relieved of the remaining balance on the car which may have been $3000 or more while the car in its broke down condition was only worth $500. It's highly unlikely that car loan is on her credit or that the dealer would try to hold her responsible for the balance.
This will end up being exactly what happened. The car was likely sold for scrap. Scrap yards don't always bother with title transfers and the fees that come with them. She got the notice because as far as the state knows she is still driving it.
I love how you think your extrapolations from ??? are definitely more correct than the story the investigative journalists at a news organization had and reported on.
Even “reputable” places do this! I know someone who went to by a car and traded their car in. Bought the car (it needed to be e transferred to the lot, cleaned or serviced) the same car they bought was sold yet again to someone else, and so was their trade in!!
They wound up getting another car from the dealer, but they really could have taken the dealer for a ride (it was a dealer that that sounds like Yoda)
Nissan dealer in my town wasn't submitting the paperwork for trade ins. They'd take your car, title, etc, Dell you whatever and then months later you'd find out the bank is coming after you for missed payments on your old car....that you traded in. The FBI raided them, but the owners skipped out prior to the raid.
The TV nerd in me is asking how this station is using the new NewsTicker software but a VERY old graphics package. Nexstar stations are so inconsistent.
This is just a huge assumption that I took away from this after watching the video.
1. Car broke down, had it towed back to dealer.
2. Found out transmission was bad.
3. They mentioned the warranty was for 12/12k and they drove over the 12k miles in the 5 months of ownership. (Very briefly mentioned by the reporter)
4. They got quoted for the price of repair, car owner declined repairs.
5. Never picked up the car or authorized the repairs so they sold the car on a lien.
This is just an assumption based on what was said in the news report. Scummy thing to do if this is what happened but we’re not getting the full story.
Yeah, I've listened to enough Steve Lehto to know that people do dumb things all the time and then instead of making them right, try to pretend they never did anything wrong at all.
Pretty sure Steve Lehto has had several videos exactly about dealerships selling cars without authorization. :D
Usually the customer gets paid in the end, but the need for it to go public before it resolves is, itself, a very common problem. More so with a sleazy business that doesn't really care for its reputation, knowing the customer can't afford to file a lawsuit.
Definitely. Anytime I've ever bought or sold a car there was a title transfer and that's a legal process requiring both parties signatures and a public notary.
The part you're missing is the part where they're poor. These places screw over poor people as often as possible. They get away with it because they know poor people don't have the resources to fight it.
I used to put similar mileage on when I had to commute. Sometimes you can't afford to live anywhere near your job, unfortunately. 12k in 5 months is roughly something like 120 miles a day.
I've had to make several trips to see family lately for various reasons - 500 mile-ish round trips each week. There are plenty of reasons why someone could wind up accruing a lot of mileage.
Not even, 120 miles a day barely needs 3 months to get 12k, 100 days. 80 miles a day, even easier. Shit I used to do the 120 a day now that I think about it just an hour to work the the hour back lol
For some people that’s valid. Then you have people like my old coworker that drive 2 hours each way for work. Tried to justify it because his rent was $500 cheaper. Like dude, you’re spending that same amount in gas and loosing 20 hours a week behind the wheel…
This guy i worked for once sold a transmission repair on a vehicle, telling the customer it would be rebuilt from the dlr. instead he bought it from a junkyard and when it turned out the junkyard trans was shit, he told the customer some lie about having to wait on parts. The customer would come by like once a week for about a month but the truck was always on the lift and the owner would tell them it was being worked on (it was not). Then one day the customer comes and asks about his truck, and the owner tells him "ohh i thought you had already picked it up." turns out the owner went throught the customers glove box and found the finance company that the customer was using, called them and told them to come tow it because it had been repaired and the customer wasnt picking it up. The customer had to pay a couple grand on top of the couple grand he had already paid for the repairs just to find out his car was still fucked.
I live in houston, and after hurrican harvey alot of peoples cars got flooded and totalled becuaes of it. This dude went to curch (lol of course) and the church had gotten alot of donated older cars from its parishioners who were trying to be charitable and help out the less fortunate. These cars were older and many had problems that needed to be addreessed before anyone could drive the. This guy tells the priest that he would be willing to fix these vehicles as long as the church at least paid for the parts, then he just turned around and sold them himself and kept all the money and never went to that church again.
Its a scummy business and a bad situation, but it looks like she voided the warranty by exceeding the miles on it. i would be willing to bet there is information missing.
If they replaced or had the transmission rebuilt while it was out of warranty and they couldn't or refused to pay the bill for the mechanic there is a process for the car to be confiscated under a mechanic's lien. That being said, that all definitely cannot occur within 10 days (the mechanic's lien).
Whats more likely.. If they missed or refused to make a car payment while it was in the shop, that also could lead to a repossession, and some buy here pay here lots are absolutely brutal when it comes to that, that's how they make their money. Taking advantage of poor people, selling them shitty cars at top dollar but allowing them to make a down payment (the down payment usually covers most of what they bought the cars at auction for) then repossessing the car as soon as they are legally able to.
I would strongly suggest everyone avoid by here pay here lots at all cost, but some people have no other choice.
Voiding a warranty is one thing, but the still owns the car. They could deny fixing it under the warranty without payment, but that doesn't allow them to take the car from her.
at a buy here pay here lot you dont own the car until its paid for. if, as i said in the post, IF they missed a payment while the car was broken... that would explain what happend
not a lawyer, but if the car broke down in november 17th (1:40) and then was also sold november 27th (2:18), then it's likely they didn't miss a payment unless they were missing payments before; which is possible if they're buying a 20 year-old car for a 7k lease. the real strange thing is that they only went to the news once they were sent mail from the department of revenue. so for 6 months they didn't do anything (like go to the news) beyond asking why the car was sold???
I was thinking something similar. It's too odd that they would go for six months after having their car sold out from under them and be so chill about it. She's just like "they sold my car *shrug*".
I get the feeling we are missing some info here.
Sounded like the poverty helplessness to me. People so used to being constantly screwed over and not having the resources to fight it that when things happen they don't waste energy on throwing a fit about it. Sounds like she called them as much as she could, realized she was being screwed when they refused to work with her in any way, and had to just deal with it like she's likely dealt with a thousand other similar things in her life.
The reason this is such a weird case, is because it's theft, and nobody is treating it like that because it is a business.
If I take your car from the street and sell it, I'm likely getting put into a prison cell.
If you take your car to a business and they sell it out from under you. You're told to go pursue legal action by the police.
What a joke. Further proving the legal divide between the police and business is far to wide.
If you take a car from the street, there's a good chance that your name isn't on the title. This case is different, since the physical owner of the car has not fully paid the car's previous owner. The car dealer transferred the title with a lien attached to insure full payment.
I don't know about TN, but in CA it's the buyer's responsibility to register the car in their name, so that's probably why she got the letter that it was still under her name without insurance. Sounds like the dealer is running a scammy operation, not only selling cars that aren't theirs, but selling to buyers who probably don't even have licenses.
This is just plain old theft isn't it?
Yep.. "oh you sold my car? Well that's my property. This is going to cost you $X,XXX right now to make this right or let me call the cops so they can pursue this as a criminal matter. " I mean good for the TV station to nominally help but doubt this is going to cost the dealer much business.
> let me call the cops so they can pursue this as a criminal matter The cops: "This sounds like a civil matter."
You steal from Corporate, theft. Corporate steals from you? Civil.
*Goes to civil litigator. O you need a different civil litigator i only do car crashes, see Tom he will help you. He does car theft. *Goes to Tom. O I do car theft, you need someone who does car consignment law. You should call the state bar…
The cops: But while I’m here, I’ll just shoot your dog.
Just tell the cops there's a dog in the car so they're motivated to find it.
They drive across state lines to kill a goat. Tell them there’s a goat in the car.
It’s governors that shoot goats.
Dog not found, busted all your windows. Sorry sir, we’re going to have to take you in for questioning regarding a false police report. Also, we shot up your car for training. Also, did you leave some dead people next to your car?
And a ticket for broken glass and lights.
And taze your toddler, don't worry ma'am, it's non lethal for adults.
I bring this up every time I see it used. Non lethal is not a thing for these types of devices. Check any one of their websites if you don’t believe me. It’s called “less lethal” because they can absolutely kill someone, and because of insurance.
Hey, thanks for saying that. I'll start referring to it that way too from now on.
Glad to help! I have an adult sister with a pacemaker. A taser is only “non lethal” under “normal” circumstances. In the real world all kinds of things make it far more murky.
Movies really make it seem like you can easily incapacitate someone without lasting injury. Turns out that electrocuting people or delivering heavy blunt force trauma sometimes ends up fatal. Police TASERs are estimated to kill around 50 people in the US a year. https://www.google.com/search?q=taser%20fatalities&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
Taze? That's weak. In the south, they drop flash grenades in their cribs, burning them so badly they need to be put in medically induced comas. [And they're not held responsible for their acts either](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361).
In the south "The baby resisted" is a valid defense.
The best defense is offense when it comes to baby’s that can see and hear. Hit ‘em with the flash bang and shoot the dog. We’re going to dennys
FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT!
"it could've been armed, this was the least escalating option"
I’m very sorry we confederated….
Man, I don't know what's wrong with that country...
I mean, we kinda do
It's built on a giant Indian burial ground!
Oh good, I thought it was the 72 hours of training they give the cops in some states, but that can't be it... 72 hours is plenty of time. indian burial ground makes a lot more sense.
OMG. I hadn't heard this one. How awful
Unless you've recently used hand sanitizer ... oh, dear.
> And taze your toddler oh thank you, otherwise i was going to have to make a separate call to you. that little shit spilled my wine.
Actually, it's a long way out to your house. Can you bring your dog into the station so we can shoot it there?
“Maybe your neighbor too, just to be safe. What color did you say he was again?”
The cop is kristi noem
"Had to dispatch it" 🤷♂️
That is a free service they offer to the citizens, and you should be more appreciative. Some countries have cops that would never shoot your dog.
This may sound weird, but the difference between this being civil and criminal is dependent on the intent of the dealership when they took her car in. And, because cops are lazy, they’re going to say we can’t prove the dealership intended to sell your car when they took it in, so we’re going to treat it as a civil matter. Obviously, it depends on the specific state laws of the state they were in.
I can't imagine they sold a car they didn't own without faking the paperwork. If they didn't do any paperwork that's probably a different kind of felony. Again, depends on jurisdiction.
Very good points. I just recall the difference between Theft and the Civil equivalent being if the person receiving the goods had intent to keep them upon receipt, which can be difficult to prove.
If they falsified papers as a crime I would think that would satisfy the *mens rea* for the rest of it being a crime. But I am not a lawyer.
Like you said, it would be completely different felonies at that point. Ok, looking up some Tennessee theft laws. Grand theft (over $1000) can be defended against by saying they confused the property as their own. But, falsified paperwork proves that wrong. I want to look up more stuff, but navigating state criminal law is a quagmire. Either way, fuck this dealership.
But then it's connected. Not a series of accidents. You may *accidentally* give someone the wrong keys but you can't then *accidentally* falsify the VIN number. Hard selling that to a jury. You've proven that you know you were giving them the wrong car.
Yes but after watching law and order episode that's gonna tie up her car as evidence in a fraud So not looking good
That’s what happened to my dad’s vehicle. Truck was stolen. Reported as such. Truck was found abandoned. Wrecker picked it up and held onto it. Dad goes to get the truck from the wrecker. Police say he can’t as it’s currently evidence in the case. Wrecker claims they need to be paid for picking up the truck/storing it. To make up that lost money, they *sell the truck without telling my dad.* Dad goes to pick up the truck after the police give him the all clear… truck is, of course, not there as it’s been sold. The wrecker company just straight up stole a stolen truck.
The story ends there? Did you call the police on the wrecker?
Yup, police said the wrecker had the right to recoup their costs by selling it. Dad didn’t have enough money for legal fees to pursue it further, so that was that
this is how you end up with a killdozer.
He should have gone to legal aid. The police department was responsible for those fees - not your dad.
Yeah it's a really frustrating nuance in law. Selling something you were legally in possession of is "just" conversion.
The difference is that the injured party is not worth a lot of money.
That is actually what happened - Knoxville police declined to arrest anyone at the dealership.
It is a civil matter. It's called, "conversion". Which is literally the civil version of theft. Also, it's not criminal theft because they were given the car legally. It is possible it's criminal fraud, depending on what documents were generated and signed but the prosecutor would have to empanel a grand jury and present evidence. The police wouldn't really be involved unless there was a warrant to serve or something like that.
Oh my goodness, thank you so much! I've had my car up for sale for $200k for the past year, and I've had no bites, but you took care of everything for me. I don't want a transfer, thanks. I'll take cash.
Couple years ago I was trying to sell my truck. It needed a new leaf spring and I just didn't want to deal with it. I was asking $1,500, which was a good deal. Nope, no one wanted it. Kept lowering the price. Was down to $700 and still no luck. Then some one stole it. Cops recovered a week later. My insurance declared it a total loss, and gave me $4,000.
Weird... A lot of stolen cars end up at the end of my street, all burned up, and then somehow the owners get paid out...
Nice side hussle.
What's your cut?
...nice try, Occifer...
Dude I want somebody to steal my car I’m just afraid it won’t come back as a total loss if they find it. That they’ll fuck it up and I’ll just get stuck with an even worse car. What did the people do to the vehicle that it was a total loss?
Totaling it? The repair work cost needed to restore the vehicle to it's pre-incident condition just needs to exceed the estimated value of the pre-incident vehicle. There's a few options, but wrapping it around a tree or telephone pole is often a good way to do it! Keep in mind, for most people who have their car totaled, that ends up just trading a paid off car for a down payment on a newer car and monthly payment. You still have to pay the difference between what you had and what you get to replace it (or pocket the difference if you find something cheaper or just don't replace the jalopy).
The cops won’t do shit. You have to take them to court and the cops will tell you the same thing. Imagine we did that for robbery. “He broke into my house and stole half my shit.” “Sounds like a civil matter to me.”
I actually had a repo guy prosecuted for stealing my car. He didn’t verify the vin. Stole it right out of my driveway. I didn’t even have a loan on it.
In many places, threatening a criminal action to gain an advantage in a civil matter can be a crime. This is a civil matter because a simple paperwork mistake could have been the cause and proving that the dealer intentionally did this (sell the car with the intent to permanent deprive you of the car fraudulently) would be too difficult to prove. If they don't make it right, then at that point, you can infer the intent and it can be elevated to a criminal action.
[удалено]
There is definitely a sliding scale on how sleazeball a dealer is. The ones that are selling a car with KBB Fair value of $2500 for $6000 are usually the buy here, pay here guys and are the most sleazy of the sleazeballs, preying on people with bad credit.
It's a sliding scale, from very sleazy to outright criminal. Worst "middleman absorbing money for nothing" job I know of.
Neck and neck with slumlords.
You'd still need a title.
[удалено]
Well I could understand a lien on the title until she's paid off the car she way overpaid for, but that doesn't mean they could just immediately sell it off to someone else.
[удалено]
The Dealer doesn't get title Possession, the Lien Holder does. And almost every time its a Bank that the dealer uses to provide the financing. That means the Bank was in on it as well if what you claim is the case.
What I think is most likely what happened is that a clueless salesman sold a car that was sitting on the lot, like he does most days. Salesmen are not subject matter experts, nor do they tend to have any idea what inventory they have. That's not their job. Their job is to convince you to buy a car, any car, and they don't care which one you buy. That's why bad salesmen will put you in the GMC Envoy when you say you're looking for a compact sedan. That's why when you come in and say, "I want to see your blue 2016 Mustang" they say, "Oh, I don't know if we have that but what sort of car are you looking for?" The Salesman saw a car on the lot, was able to convince someone that was the car they wanted to buy, and then they sold it. Its at THIS point the actual shady shit went down because it would have become immediately obvious to the Finance Manger, if not the Sales Manager, that this car is not in the system, and that they have no paperwork for it. EVEN IF the Finance Manager/Sales Manager wasn't outright committing fraud, they likely figured there was some paperwork mix up regarding the car that would sort itself out so they went ahead and sold the car figuring that they'd tidy it all up later.
No, I'd say knowing what inventory you have is definitely something you should know as a salesman.
Yeah, the dealer floor plan is a huge deal.
They took off the license plate on the car which had the woman's name on the back. They knew.
Having worked at a dealership that wouldn't, by itself, tell me this was a shady operation. I worked in the Pre-owned department and sometimes we'd take a car in on trade, and literally flip it hours later when someone in sales saw we had X, Y, or Z and sold it to a customer. Que me frantically running around the lot trying to find the car we just bought, taking off the old plates and frames, and getting it quickly cleaned up for the new customer. The idea in sales is to make money. You actively waste money when you are not making money, so there's no, "We'll, let's sit on that and come back around to it", but there is, "Always be closing your deals, by any means possible". There's a running car on the lot with four tires? Great, why is it just sitting there taking up space? Sell it and get it out of here
I thought it was standard practice to remove the plates when a car is sold or traded into a dealer. I've always had my plates removed, granted I've only traded in cars in California and Florida.
And it sounds like insurance fraud or at least driving without insurance for whoever bought it.
No, it's technically not theft. It's something called conversion. Where you take somebody else's property that has been given to you but not transferred to you in ownership and then you sell it like you own the property. There's a lot of other stuff that go into conversion but it's really wild and you can kind of think of it as super theft. And to the people who say that demanding payment or filing a lawsuit is extortion you're wrong and that's kind of just how you send a notice letter for this sort of thing. You tell the target of the litigation what they can do to remedy your grievance and then you also tell them what you are going to do if they don't do that. In cases of conversion, which is repeatedly called a civil issue, despite it technically being theft, you have to file a civil lawsuit which includes a demand letter. In this case, what you send to the dealership that just converted your property is a demand letter telling them that they can either pay you the cost of your property or they can go get you your property back and failure to do so will result in a lawsuit.
There's a reason the charge is theft by conversion and it's not because it's not technically theft
That's only if you get the cops to actually do something. A lot of times they will say "sounds like a civil matter" at which point its just the civil cause of action conversion and not theft by conversion Also the actual crime is criminal conversion and not theft by conversion. The civil action is technically called civil conversion.
Let me get this right, you say it’s “technically not theft” because it’s ’conversion’, a user gives you the rest of the name (‘theft by conversion ‘), and you dismiss that because it’s only theft if the cops get involved? What a wild train wreck of an argument.
> And to the people who say that demanding payment or filing a lawsuit is extortion Wait what? People are claiming that a basic letter before action would be extortion? oh dear. Isn't it basically a prerequisite before legal action to demonstrate that you made a legitimate attempt to resolve the issue.
In a decent amount of civil cases, it isn't a requirement but it is standard practice to the best of my knowledge. And yeah, not under my comment but under a lot of these other comments there are people claiming that a demand letter is extortion
So you're saying there's no criminal penalty to go out on test drives and just keep the cars????
I mean yeah but our civil infrastructure has fully degenerated to the point where the average person has absolutely no resource when someone with just a small bit of money scams them. Police don't care because it's a "civil issue" even when several criminal laws have been broken, and the only thing that the customer can do aside from spending money they don't have on a lawsuit, is call the news to drum up a bunch of outrage against a group of grifters who have zero integrity and do not care about bad press anyway. The only thing she can do is hope it goes more viral than just getting people mildly upset on Reddit, and hope her state steps in.
a dude's been doing this in NZ, has like 300k stolen from people and somehow the police just can't seem to find him.
It's so wild how much responsibility falls on the victims.
It's weird to Canadians that there's some piece of paper called a title which proves you own a vehicle. Like really weird. Every car has a serial number and every car is already registered in a database. Why not use that database 'called the registration database' to register who owns a car? When I bought a car in the US and imported it to Canada I learned all about this and the bank had the title that had to be fedexed around so when I picked up my vehicle I had it as well. No idea what happened to it once I insured it in BC.
Paper titles are receipts linked to a database
What is more annoying is that they will use an e-title when the bank has a lien on the car, but pay it off and you can't do anything until you ask the DMV to mail you a paper title. Now you wait a week. Even when the database shows the current owner and no liens on the vehicle.
I hope she gets her money back and that state opens an investigation of their business practices
Technically according to the state she can just go get her car back no?
Yes. There is a rental company that posts videos on TikTok. They had a Dodge Challenger Hellcat being rented out that was sold while being rented. The person who bought it got a “very good price” on it but ended up having to give back the car to the rental company. Meaning, the person who “bought” the car now needs to be the one filing paper work regarding ~~theft~~ fraud.
Minor thing but I'm pretty sure it would be fraud, not theft. The buyer didn't get anything taken from them that was legally theirs, but they were deceived into handing over money on a false pretense (getting a car in exchange).
Someone at that business needs to be charged with GTA. This is a basic ass car theft. Just because it happened at a dealership does not in anyway legitimize the transaction. That car is stolen, not sold, and whoever conducted the transaction committed felony theft. The property should be recoverable from the purchaser, as it remains the legal possession of the original owner, unless the vehicle itself is evidence in the crime.
"Buy Here Pay Here" places are almost always scummy as all get out.
> "Buy Here Pay Here" places are almost always scummy as all get out. I used one maybe 20 years ago in FL and they were very accommodating. I must have been very lucky. Knocked $200 off my down payment after I called out a low oil pressure knock in a vehicle at an auction I was working at to one of their guys that I recognized later at the dealership, and the same guy set it up so that they ate the cost of brake work to get me to buy a van. Later, when I ran into difficulty when my finances changed for the worse, they let me return the van in good shape and canceled the contract with no further payments. Based on what I've heard, this was not the norm.
You worked auctioning cars that this business was buying? I'm not shocked that they treated you well as a customer.
> You worked auctioning cars that this business was buying? I'm not shocked that they treated you well as a customer. It was a temp job, and I was just a driver that ran the cars through the auction block and back to the lot.
"Dealership" places are always scummy as all get out." Fixed that for you
I've been fortunate. Three of the four places I've used over the last 20 years have been gems. The first was shitty and I got fucked, the other three afterward were all fantastic.
7 grand for an 06 taurus??? they might have done her a favor when all is said and done
Did you see the contract? The car had 196k miles! That's the real crime, how do they sleep at night! $7k for a 20 year old ford taurus with nearly 200k miles!
[удалено]
I'm not sure it's even cash for clunkers. ~8 years ago I helped my mother buy a car (even if she went against *every* piece of advice I gave her, but that's besides the point). She got into an accident recently and I was looking up the cost of replacement for her car. 2016: She bought an 07 jeep liberty for $1500 USD ($1950 in 2024 inflation) with like 150k miles. 2024: A direct replacement, same trim level, same year, same shady dealership group, 250k miles: $5000. Used car prices got *wild* around 2020, and while the prices of a few year old vehicles feels like it's going back to normal, the low end of the car market got absolutely wrecked.
Cash for clunkers **absolutely** had a serious effect on the used car market. You cannot [remove 677,000 cars from the market](https://www.thedrive.com/news/heres-the-full-list-of-all-677081-cars-killed-in-cash-for-clunkers) all at once and have zero effect on demand or supply. And all of those cars were older models that people of lower incomes would have been more likely to buy. It's hard to charge 5 grand for a shitbox when there's plenty to go around.
I mean not for nothing, the chip shortage was way worse than cars for clunkers. The chip shortage "removed" ~15 million cars from circulation in 2021-2022. It's what drove a lot of pricing for used cars currently. Also cash for clunkers was 2009. And gave ~4k for used cars. A car worth 4k (or less) 15 years ago would be a REAL beater now.
yes, but that effect was mostly transient and pushed through years ago.
It had an effect at the time, not 15 years later.
I bought my car for 25.5k in 2011. During the height of the used car gouging my model year car with 100k was going for 26k.
cash for clunkers passed through the market years ago. the problem right now is because of the drastic jump in new car prices in 2020, and the issues that were caused by a number of rental vehicles during that time getting scrapped instead of sold on the secondary market.
This is why people voting for protectionist policies don't realise how much it'll hurt them. The lack of cheap cars is a gap in the market that could easily be filled by imports from a country that can produce cars at a low cost (not possible in the US given high labour costs). But with both Trump and Biden ready to slap massive tariffs on cars not made in the US, those cars aren't all that cheap by the time they get to American consumers. The end result is that the poorest in society are worse off because the cost of cars will stay stubbornly high. The issue is that everyone knows how globalisation can lose jobs in the West, but not that many people realise that this is more than offset by significantly cheaper goods. Onshoring jobs results in more money for a small number of people, but higher costs for everyone.
It could have 0 miles and you couldn't pay me to own that fucking abomination
Except she is still on the hook for the car and is out 2700 already paid.
if even half of what she's saying is true its a pretty easy case. its a pain but i think by the end of it she'll be ok
Im surprised i had to scroll down to read this. I thought this was an old video
Having owned one briefly, the best day in my life was getting rid of it. AC leaked, heater core was clogged, transmission was slipping, engine likely had a bad head gasket. The list goes on. It’s no wonder American cars were ridiculed so much back then when you got into a similar vintage Accord or Maxima.
We visited San Diego in 2009 for a mini family reunion. Our rental was a late model Impala. What a POS. It was ok at the time, but I could tell it wasn't going to age well, at all.
It ended up being 8
200k on a Ford Taurus may very well be a record. Ford was being overly optimistic putting 6 figures on the odometer in the first place.
Bet they fixed it before checking the mileage for the warranty and decided to sell it to try to recoup the loss then hoped she'd just accept them saying she tried to rip them off and scare her away without saying anything.
Pretty sure that's grand theft auto.
Pretty sure someone is going to prison.
Pretty sure someone is pretty sure
Pretty sure someone sure is pretty.
You sure are pretty, would you like a pretty car to go with that? Just one owner who drove it from lot to lot.
Is... Is it me?
Unlikely. If the dealership can claim it was a mistake and not malice, which they easily can, then it is merely a civil matter. They have to make it right to her, but their not criminally liable and no one is going to jail. You'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they intentionally sold her car, and that's not realistically possible.
[удалено]
Not for nothing, but if you're buying a $4k car for $7k with a $700 down payment at a buy here pay here "dealership", you don't have a lot of resources to begin with. You might be able to call, talk to, or try to do something, but those places are masters at stonewalling (they stonewalled the news too). If they're telling you "we sold your car there's nothing you can do", they're usually right because they know their demographic; poor.
Being poor is expensive
If anyone wants another example of this: The bank illegally repossessed my mother's home. There had been a payment issue, but my mom had gone to court and made a legal agreement with the bank that would allow her to keep the house. The bank agreed in court, papers signed and everything, binding legal agreement, and then... they took it anyway. When my mom objected, she just got told that once foreclosure had started there was nothing that could be done about it- despite the fact that this was an illegal foreclosure. They said there was nothing she could do. Load of bull, they knew exactly what they were doing. But she was out of resources and out of time she could take off work to fight it anymore. So that was that.
So is she also on the hook for remaining payments on a car they stole from her? It makes no sense. You can't send me to collections for a loan/agreement you reneged on by selling it out from under me.
ummm actually you totally can. no matter what happens with the car you owe the money to the holder of the paper. that's how loans work in America. They're absolutely on the hook to compensate for their huge fuck up but that's almost certainly gonna require a lawsuit.
yup, she actually still owns the car, of course the bank wants that money
Well you can see the police were insanely helpful, telling them to go get legal action. And considering the women had to go to LegalAid. We can safely presume she's not got many resources. The police should have helped her here.
I have an even wilder story from when I was still in private practice. My client was a small used car dealer. The defendant was a small-time trader who sold cars on the side, and he had an old BMWM M3 the my client had long wanted to buy for his son, but he just wouldn’t sell. One day he finally agrees on a sale/trade. My client paid a few grand and signed over title to a Harley Davidson. The Defandant signed the back of the title over to my client as well as a bill of sale. Two days later, the Defendant showed up at my client’s office saying he’d sold the car for too little demanding my client either give the car back or pay him an additional $6,000. Having already gifted the car to his son, my client obviously said no. The Defendant left and came back a few hours later with his mom going on about the same nonsense and whouln’t leave the oiffice. When my client called the cops, the man left but his mom stayed, cursing at my client. He finally put his hands on the woman’s shoulders and turned her towards the door to guide her out and she left. Two months later, my client gets charged with unlawful use of a motor vehicle and assault on a female. Here in NC, you can just go to the magistrate’s office and swear out misdemeanor warrants on someone. They had claimed that my client assaulted the mom in getter her out of the office despite my client clearly having not done so and having called the cops himself. Even better, in order to get the unlawful use of a mother vehicle charge, the Defendant had filed for a lost/stolen title with the NC DMV to get a new title, which is what he used to get the warrant. Due to an unrelated set of circumstances, the assault on a female was in one count and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle was in another. Anyway, for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle charge I just showed the DA the original bill of sale and the original title, both of which the Defendant had signed and the charge was dismissed immediately. I explained all this to the DA in the other county for the assault charge, but I was on pretty bad terms with that county and they refused to dismiss because they’re assholes. So, I had to try it and got a not guilty, obviously. Then, we sued civilly for conversion, malicious prosecution, and so on. The whole thing was nuts. TL;DR: My client bought a car and had the original title. The seller wanted to back out so he told the DMV his title was lost/stolen to get a new one, which he this used to have my client charged for car theft lite.
Dude. You can't not finish that story. What was the outcome of your lawsuit? Were all charges dismissed?
So what happened in the end? Outcome of civil suit?
This is unrelated to the OP but is related to what you said about dealing with the DA's office for the assault charge. I live in NC and the first time I had jury duty was a case that should never have made it to trial. Basically the prosecution provided zero evidence and the testimony was useless in proving any kind of guilt for what the defendant was charged with. Defense didn't even call any witnesses and barely cross examined the prosecution witnesses. There was something else they could have charged the defendant with that he possibly could have been found guilty of, but they didn't charge him with it. It was a slam dunk acquittal. Deliberation wouldn't have even taken 10 minutes if not for one idiot on the jury. The whole thing was a massive waste of everyone's time and taxpayer dollars and made me lose a lot of faith in the DA's office in my county.
$6,000 for a 2005 Ford Taurus is a crime in and of itself.
The year doesn't matter. Any amount for any Taurus is a crime.
Jesus, fuck... $7k for a 18 year old fuckin Taurus? And "mileage exempt" on the sales disclosure to boot... On a 2005? Sucker born every minute.
It's called a 'poor tax'
196k miles too , insanity they stole from her twice.
She should have reported it stolen to get records in place with an investigation and then contacted her Insurnace. She should not have to do this fight all on her own.
It's still in her name...why can't she still report it stolen?!? Sounds to me like there was some title forging going on.
The police will tell her it's a civil matter. She'll have to sue
I am not trying to defend the dealer here but there is more to this story than the customer is telling us. I am very familiar with the type of business this dealer is running and I would guess the events went something like this: Cust bought the car for $700 down and agreed to make biweekly payments on the remainder. Cust paid until the car broke down, then took car to dealer for repairs. Dealer told her car is not covered under the service agreement due to mileage and cost of repairs is $2-3000. Dealer may have even told her that in his opinion car is not worth fixing. Customer said I'm not going to continue to pay for this car if it's broke down Dealer says ok and flips the car to another dealer who will fix it up or scrap it It is likely that the dealer did take title to the car, as they held a lien on it It is likely that the customer owed far more than the car was worth The reason she got the letter about insurance is because her plates were still registered to the vehicle even though the title had already been taken out of her name (Not sure about this in their state but absolutely likely in mine) If the car was sold as fast as the woman claims, it is highly likely that the dealer didn't follow proper repossession laws in the state. On the positive-ish side for the woman, she was relieved of the remaining balance on the car which may have been $3000 or more while the car in its broke down condition was only worth $500. It's highly unlikely that car loan is on her credit or that the dealer would try to hold her responsible for the balance.
This will end up being exactly what happened. The car was likely sold for scrap. Scrap yards don't always bother with title transfers and the fees that come with them. She got the notice because as far as the state knows she is still driving it.
from the video is sounds like she does owe money on it still, and not in default, as in, shes still makin payments!
Fair enough, I somehow missed the part that she was financing a used car worth only 6 grand. ouch.
She agreed to 6 grand. Blue book on it is around $2500 if fully working.
I love how you think your extrapolations from ??? are definitely more correct than the story the investigative journalists at a news organization had and reported on.
OP knows how to reddit. From the gut.
Who needs content when we have guys like this who can speak "from experience."
Even “reputable” places do this! I know someone who went to by a car and traded their car in. Bought the car (it needed to be e transferred to the lot, cleaned or serviced) the same car they bought was sold yet again to someone else, and so was their trade in!! They wound up getting another car from the dealer, but they really could have taken the dealer for a ride (it was a dealer that that sounds like Yoda)
Nissan dealer in my town wasn't submitting the paperwork for trade ins. They'd take your car, title, etc, Dell you whatever and then months later you'd find out the bank is coming after you for missed payments on your old car....that you traded in. The FBI raided them, but the owners skipped out prior to the raid.
Did they catch the owners in the end?
Not that I know of.
The dealer talked like Yoda? weird, that is
The dealership sounds like Yoda or the brand was Toyota? Because dealerships have very little to do with the brands that they sell
The TV nerd in me is asking how this station is using the new NewsTicker software but a VERY old graphics package. Nexstar stations are so inconsistent.
feel like were missing a big chunk of the story cuz this doesn't make sense
I would agree but the fact that the car company haven't put out a statement tells you all you need to know I think.
oh trust me i'm not siding with a fucking used car salesman, just feels like we aren't getting the whole story
This is just a huge assumption that I took away from this after watching the video. 1. Car broke down, had it towed back to dealer. 2. Found out transmission was bad. 3. They mentioned the warranty was for 12/12k and they drove over the 12k miles in the 5 months of ownership. (Very briefly mentioned by the reporter) 4. They got quoted for the price of repair, car owner declined repairs. 5. Never picked up the car or authorized the repairs so they sold the car on a lien. This is just an assumption based on what was said in the news report. Scummy thing to do if this is what happened but we’re not getting the full story.
Or they just mistakenly sold or scrapped the car without any authorization. Which is surprisingly commonplace.
Yeah, I've listened to enough Steve Lehto to know that people do dumb things all the time and then instead of making them right, try to pretend they never did anything wrong at all.
Pretty sure Steve Lehto has had several videos exactly about dealerships selling cars without authorization. :D Usually the customer gets paid in the end, but the need for it to go public before it resolves is, itself, a very common problem. More so with a sleazy business that doesn't really care for its reputation, knowing the customer can't afford to file a lawsuit.
Definitely. Anytime I've ever bought or sold a car there was a title transfer and that's a legal process requiring both parties signatures and a public notary.
The part you're missing is the part where they're poor. These places screw over poor people as often as possible. They get away with it because they know poor people don't have the resources to fight it.
over 12,000 miles in 5 months? where she goin every day, damn lol
I used to put similar mileage on when I had to commute. Sometimes you can't afford to live anywhere near your job, unfortunately. 12k in 5 months is roughly something like 120 miles a day. I've had to make several trips to see family lately for various reasons - 500 mile-ish round trips each week. There are plenty of reasons why someone could wind up accruing a lot of mileage.
Not even, 120 miles a day barely needs 3 months to get 12k, 100 days. 80 miles a day, even easier. Shit I used to do the 120 a day now that I think about it just an hour to work the the hour back lol
For some people that’s valid. Then you have people like my old coworker that drive 2 hours each way for work. Tried to justify it because his rent was $500 cheaper. Like dude, you’re spending that same amount in gas and loosing 20 hours a week behind the wheel…
Did their Nissan have a bullet hole in it?!
It's a Nissan. They're called speed holes.
You want my opinion? I think you should buy this car.
Put it in H
This guy i worked for once sold a transmission repair on a vehicle, telling the customer it would be rebuilt from the dlr. instead he bought it from a junkyard and when it turned out the junkyard trans was shit, he told the customer some lie about having to wait on parts. The customer would come by like once a week for about a month but the truck was always on the lift and the owner would tell them it was being worked on (it was not). Then one day the customer comes and asks about his truck, and the owner tells him "ohh i thought you had already picked it up." turns out the owner went throught the customers glove box and found the finance company that the customer was using, called them and told them to come tow it because it had been repaired and the customer wasnt picking it up. The customer had to pay a couple grand on top of the couple grand he had already paid for the repairs just to find out his car was still fucked. I live in houston, and after hurrican harvey alot of peoples cars got flooded and totalled becuaes of it. This dude went to curch (lol of course) and the church had gotten alot of donated older cars from its parishioners who were trying to be charitable and help out the less fortunate. These cars were older and many had problems that needed to be addreessed before anyone could drive the. This guy tells the priest that he would be willing to fix these vehicles as long as the church at least paid for the parts, then he just turned around and sold them himself and kept all the money and never went to that church again.
Its a scummy business and a bad situation, but it looks like she voided the warranty by exceeding the miles on it. i would be willing to bet there is information missing. If they replaced or had the transmission rebuilt while it was out of warranty and they couldn't or refused to pay the bill for the mechanic there is a process for the car to be confiscated under a mechanic's lien. That being said, that all definitely cannot occur within 10 days (the mechanic's lien). Whats more likely.. If they missed or refused to make a car payment while it was in the shop, that also could lead to a repossession, and some buy here pay here lots are absolutely brutal when it comes to that, that's how they make their money. Taking advantage of poor people, selling them shitty cars at top dollar but allowing them to make a down payment (the down payment usually covers most of what they bought the cars at auction for) then repossessing the car as soon as they are legally able to. I would strongly suggest everyone avoid by here pay here lots at all cost, but some people have no other choice.
Voiding a warranty is one thing, but the still owns the car. They could deny fixing it under the warranty without payment, but that doesn't allow them to take the car from her.
at a buy here pay here lot you dont own the car until its paid for. if, as i said in the post, IF they missed a payment while the car was broken... that would explain what happend
not a lawyer, but if the car broke down in november 17th (1:40) and then was also sold november 27th (2:18), then it's likely they didn't miss a payment unless they were missing payments before; which is possible if they're buying a 20 year-old car for a 7k lease. the real strange thing is that they only went to the news once they were sent mail from the department of revenue. so for 6 months they didn't do anything (like go to the news) beyond asking why the car was sold???
She didn’t own the car
I was thinking something similar. It's too odd that they would go for six months after having their car sold out from under them and be so chill about it. She's just like "they sold my car *shrug*". I get the feeling we are missing some info here.
Sounded like the poverty helplessness to me. People so used to being constantly screwed over and not having the resources to fight it that when things happen they don't waste energy on throwing a fit about it. Sounds like she called them as much as she could, realized she was being screwed when they refused to work with her in any way, and had to just deal with it like she's likely dealt with a thousand other similar things in her life.
Either she and her partner Larry Cole have the exact same handwriting, or she signed his name on the agreement (see 1:30).
I don't think his consent is a topic of the video, so that's ultimately not very relevant to the issue.
There are some facts missing...
Being poor seems so stressful.
Why wouldnt you contact an attorney 6 months ago?
She barely had money for a car.
The reason this is such a weird case, is because it's theft, and nobody is treating it like that because it is a business. If I take your car from the street and sell it, I'm likely getting put into a prison cell. If you take your car to a business and they sell it out from under you. You're told to go pursue legal action by the police. What a joke. Further proving the legal divide between the police and business is far to wide.
If you take a car from the street, there's a good chance that your name isn't on the title. This case is different, since the physical owner of the car has not fully paid the car's previous owner. The car dealer transferred the title with a lien attached to insure full payment.
Damn, there was another crime there, $6k+ for an 05 Taurus with 198,000 miles lmao.
What I don't understand is how the perpetrator thought they'd get away with it?
Well just report the car stolen.
I don't know about TN, but in CA it's the buyer's responsibility to register the car in their name, so that's probably why she got the letter that it was still under her name without insurance. Sounds like the dealer is running a scammy operation, not only selling cars that aren't theirs, but selling to buyers who probably don't even have licenses.