to get thread on the wvu/amichele level, we need to get the kid in here.

This may be true, but the law does not provide a defense that you were acting in good faith. You can be acting in good faith and still be liable or be found to have committed a crime. One of the classic legal adages is that "ignorance of the law is not a defense." Just because you think you are acting in good faith, does not mean you are ok.

In Colorado, (I assume it's the same in other states) the title was transferred the moment he signed it. The buyer paid for the car, received a signed title and took possession of the car, OP does not own that car.

NLS,

The thing about the law is you don't get to just make stuff up based on what you think is fair.

Do you guys always cross at cross walks too? Sounds like OP found a good hack to get through all this admin b.s without it costing him too much money or time and everyone admits the buyer was not going to get the car so who does it harm?

I don't disagree that OP was doing what he thought was right (ignoring sending a threatening message to the buyer and referring to him with a racist term), but I don't see how that legally matters in terms of who owns the car. There are still steps OP can take to ensure that he isn't listed as the owner of a car that he sold, but he doesn't plan on doing any of those. Instead, assuming the buyer never comes to find OP, he plans on lying to the DMV to get a new title and then selling the car for a second time. Does this really not feel wrong to you?

maybe the law doesn't factor in good faith but as objective 3rd party observers we can all pretty easily see that OP was acting in good faith which is why i don't understand everyone ganging up on OP.

another person making sense ITT

sorry if anyone responded to this post, but i took a shower and my opinion changed. imo, OP was obligated to go to the dmv, fill out the sale form, and go from there. i don't hate what he did nearly as much as most. and i think doing that opens him up to a pretty high chance he's going to end up stuck paying for the car. but that's the only reasonable way for him to have proceeded. i don't hate what he did nearly as much as most of you though.

All - Diablo alluded to this, but let us use this thread to serve as a reminder to always get documentation/paperwork etc. executed in a timely manner.

If you do not, there's the potential you will have to spend countless hours wading through whatever horrendous bureaucracy is involved in your issue to re-state or correct the error. I'm sure we've all been there before with the DMV/financial institution/whatever -- so incredibly painful and horrible.

Side note: wading through horrendous bureaucracy to correct the error is still a better line to take vs. stealing someone else's car

ETA - I see Apathy disagrees with my side note. Fair enough. Still illegal tho, which, though unlikely, opens up OP to potentially even more hassle and drama.

Couldn't agree more.

Just because the impound lot guy said OP owed the money doesn't make it so. What else would you expect the guy to say? He just wants to be paid.

What recourse would OP have if the buyer shows up to take possession of a car he paid cash for and that OP claimed from an impound lot even though he had sold the car?

I do not think that registration = ownership. I could be wrong about that, but I am pretty certain that once you accept money for a car and sign the title over to the person who gave you the money, that you no longer have the right to take a key that you kept and take the car back into your possession.

If I were OP, I would much rather have hired an attorney if necessary to straighten this mess out while the car was in the impound lot, than to face the possibility of hiring one to defend me for car theft or any other liability that I might incur because I am now in possession of a car that I no longer own.

Another hypothetical concern is if the buyer discovers OP bailed the car out, then buyer goes to DMV and registers the title he already has before OP gets to the DMV to attempt to nullify his previous title transfer. What then for OP?

I can't really fault OP for not blindly following the advice he received from OOT, because, after all, this is OOT. But in this case OP should have given more weight and consideration to that advice than it appears he did.

Well the hope would be that OP wouldn't be on the hook for anything since he really did sell the car and the other guy admitted to this on facebook (in the message and by having that pic), so we don't even know if the buyer would resist admitting this to the DMV. OP didn't even fight this very hard. He called the DMV once, accepted the answer, then stole back the car. Would you not have tried harder to make sure you weren't doing something illegal?

I don't mind jaywalking so much, but stealing a car sounds bad to me. If I got caught with either, I wouldn't mind the <$100 fine, but I would mind the felony charge and whatever punishment comes along with that.

Apathy,

Lol @ the crosswalk analogy.

All he needed to do was go to the DMV and fill out whatever form late, then go to the tow place and tell them it is not his car and not to send him **** about it in a way that they don't think he's a little bitch they can jerk around.

Or he could have done what he said and gone over to the dude's house and set things straight like a man with him/his parents/whoever.

Unfortunately, he's too scared of black people to do that, so he chose the shady route.

it wasn't just the tow company that told OP he was liable/still owned the car. THE DMV TOLD HIM THE SAME THING @tom

el D if doing this paperwork is enough to absolve himself of liability then i totally agree that's what he should have done but if thats the case why is it necessary for him to tell them in a way that makes them not think he's a little bitch?

NLS,

The chances OP explained the situation accurately and articulately to DMV person on the phone are slim to none.

It was more of a metaphor/analogy, I'm sure you can think of some laws that other people are actually in jail for now that you break regularly.

Where in this does it say that the seller at any point or under any circumstance has the right to re-claim or re-possess the vehicle?

Sucks. But neither party in this transaction seems to possess even a modicum of responsibility.

Edit: Also note the term of "owner of record" rather than "owner".

I would not have asked them anything. I would have filled out the paperwork and left it at that. I can guarantee that the DMV would not have told me I owed fees on car that belongs to someone else.

NLS,

Because if they think he's a little bitch, they'll prob still bill him and he'll have to go through the additional hassle of dealing with that crap. If they take him seriously and believe they'll get nothing and be taken to court etc if they pursue him falsely, then they'll prob give up on that and pursue the new owner.

?? Have you spoken to many DMV employees?

Unfortunately yes, lol. I've been a car collector for thirty years as a hobby. I've had plenty of wild problems over the years.

its nice that you already know exactly what to do in this situation but OP clearly did not. ya DMV employees are really dumb but i don't see how you can fault OP for asking the DMV what to do here. as to ElD's point about whether he accurately relayed the story, who knows.

as far as i can tell, the line OP took made things easier on everyone from the new buyer, to the DMV, to the towing company, and lastly himself.

i'm pretty sure if a neutral 3rd party asked both the new buyer and the towing company whether they would rather have OP fill out the paperwork and let the towing company go after the new buyer, or pay the fee and take the car back, both would have vastly preferred he pay the fee and take the car back himself rather than filling out the paperwork. there is no victim here, everyone won. (and despite you guys claming he pulled some epic coup by paying 400 dollars to get to sell an $800 car TWICE!, im pretty sure OP "won" the least in this whole deal.)

El d

How do you reconcile calling him a huge pussy for not confronting buyer at his home and/or being more of a man to the tow guy which would then magically make him not **** with the OP with the opinion that laws and system processes of society should be followed to the letter no matter the situation which I would consider a pretty pussy stance.

I posted the correct answer in post #83, how is this thread still going on with debate about what he should have done?