Castle doctrine question

[djthomas]

Please note that is not a fine distinction. I have seen problems with this on many occasions regarding "hillbilly car loans": the "seller" gives the "buyer" the car and wants the "buyer" to pay $xxx per month until the price is paid, and then the "seller" will sign over title. If the "buyer" quits paying, the "seller" calls the police and claims Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle. We usually tell the "seller" that we will consider that charge, just as soon as the "seller" pleads guilty an unclassified felony under R.C. 4505.19(A)(2). That is usually followed by a long silence on the part of the "seller."

That's what ya'lls calls a "civil issue" right there. I call those in to my dispatcher as "Options explained. 10-8"

[WY_Not]

Not trying to be a wise-butt here. I tend to drive my vehicles as long as possible and wring every mile I can from them before scrapping them and have never been involved in such convoluted schemes so don't know all the ins and outs of titles and registration. But when I buy new vehicles and take out a loan on them, I get a copy of the title, the bank holds the title until it is paid off, and they send me the real title once it is paid off.

How would a private individual holding on to the title until the loan is paid be any different than the bank holding it till the loan is paid off? Or is it that with a bank the title is transferred but with a lien on it?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Not trying to be a wise-butt here. I tend to drive my vehicles as long as possible and wring every mile I can from them before scrapping them and have never been involved in such convoluted schemes so don't know all the ins and outs of titles and registration. But when I buy new vehicles and take out a loan on them, I get a copy of the title, the bank holds the title until it is paid off, and they send me the real title once it is paid off.

How would a private individual holding on to the title until the loan is paid be any different than the bank holding it till the loan is paid off? Or is it that with a bank the title is transferred but with a lien on it?

The last clause of the section Werz quoted says, "except as otherwise provided in this chapter;"

And here is a provision otherwise: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4505.12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Memorandum certificate)

[WY_Not]

MWSY,

I can write a manual telling you how to take an aircraft apart, troubleshoot and repair it, and put it back together but ORC usually reads like Greek to me usually. So, I'll let this one drop before it derails the thread any further.

[Bama.45]

If a Rental is not covered then what's to say that a Leased vehicle is? After all, you do not technically "own" it.

The same could be said about any car you have financed actually... Because the bank owns it until you make the last payment.

No, you own it. Title is in your name. The bank has lien which is noted on the title.

Please note that is not a fine distinction. I have seen problems with this on many occasions regarding "hillbilly car loans": the "seller" gives the "buyer" the car and wants the "buyer" to pay $xxx per month until the price is paid, and then the "seller" will sign over title. If the "buyer" quits paying, the "seller" calls the police and claims Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle. We usually tell the "seller" that we will consider that charge, just as soon as the "seller" pleads guilty an unclassified felony under R.C. 4505.19(A)(2). That is usually followed by a long silence on the part of the "seller."

Ok then how can a rental car or leased car not be considered yours while you are paying for it?... With a rental you have a contract with the company you rented from which to me is no different than the contract that you have with the bank on a financed car...And yeah, you "own" the car as long as you're paying for it... Quit paying for it though and see. How long you "own" it... You are basically renting it until it is paid for..

[Werz]

If a Rental is not covered then what's to say that a Leased vehicle is? After all, you do not technically "own" it.

The same could be said about any car you have financed actually... Because the bank owns it until you make the last payment.

No, you own it. Title is in your name. The bank has lien which is noted on the title.

Please note that is not a fine distinction. I have seen problems with this on many occasions regarding "hillbilly car loans": the "seller" gives the "buyer" the car and wants the "buyer" to pay $xxx per month until the price is paid, and then the "seller" will sign over title. If the "buyer" quits paying, the "seller" calls the police and claims Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle. We usually tell the "seller" that we will consider that charge, just as soon as the "seller" pleads guilty an unclassified felony under R.C. 4505.19(A)(2). That is usually followed by a long silence on the part of the "seller."

Ok then how can a rental car or leased car not be considered yours while you are paying for it?... With a rental you have a contract with the company you rented from which to me is no different than the contract that you have with the bank on a financed car...And yeah, you "own" the car as long as you're paying for it... Quit paying for it though and see. How long you "own" it... You are basically renting it until it is paid for..

I never said that a rental car was not included. My suspicion is that it would be, if you have rented it for your own use, to the exclusion of all others. That proposition has never been tested, and the likelihood of those circumstances creating any case law is fairly low.

What I said was that renting a car and financing a car are not the same thing because, when you finance a car, the title actually passes to you.

[Bama.45]

That is true but you still don't physically have the actual title so you?... Just what is called a memorandum title... The bank or finance company has the physical title(or at least they do in Alabama) then once the car is paid for they mail you the title... I have always heard possession is 9/10ths of the law... If you had the physical title, you could not pay for the car and the bank wouldn't have any recourse as far as repossession... But I agree that a rental car should be considered yours while the rental agreement is in effect... I know you never said it wasn't but some have.

[JediSkipdogg]

That is true but you still don't physically have the actual title so you?... Just what is called a memorandum title... The bank or finance company has the physical title(or at least they do in Alabama) then once the car is paid for they mail you the title... I have always heard possession is 9/10ths of the law... If you had the physical title, you could not pay for the car and the bank wouldn't have any recourse as far as repossession... But I agree that a rental car should be considered yours while the rental agreement is in effect... I know you never said it wasn't but some have.

Here's something to should help differentiate the two...

Buying/Leasing a vehicle and failing to meet the guidelines (failing to make payments) of the purchase/lease would be a civil violation and subject to repo. Repo is civil, not criminal.

Renting/borrowing a vehicle and failing to meet the guidelines (i.e. keeping it longer than one should) of the rent/borrow agreement is a criminal violation called Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle.

So the courts already look at the two totally differently.

[schmieg]

That is true but you still don't physically have the actual title so you?... Just what is called a memorandum title... The bank or finance company has the physical title(or at least they do in Alabama) then once the car is paid for they mail you the title... I have always heard possession is 9/10ths of the law... If you had the physical title, you could not pay for the car and the bank wouldn't have any recourse as far as repossession... But I agree that a rental car should be considered yours while the rental agreement is in effect... I know you never said it wasn't but some have.

When you finance a vehicle, you receive a memorandum certificate of title. The lender holds the original as collateral and it shows its lien on the title (as well as on the MCoT). The title is in your name. If the lender repos the vehicle due to non-payment, he must go through a process to have the vehicle sold to satisfy the lien. You may cure the default and breach of contract and regain the vehicle (and the title) up until the time it is sold by the lender. This is quite a bit different from a rental and even more different from Werz' "hillbilly" financing (which I used to see quite a bit of myself). In fact there were some "buy here, pay here" places that did exactly that kind of financing until the law changed.