lamborghini reported stolen after i bought it

It says "Someone else has a lien on Your Title not registered with the DMV for the state where Your Title is registered on the Policy Date"

That still says to me that the lien covered for exists at the time of "The Policy Date", just in a different state.

 

That's line #3, and it is saying that you are covered even if there is an unreported lien.



Now, keep in mind that the claimed date of loss on the March report is 12/22/07. So someone is claiming that they have a lien valid 12/22, yet that was not reported when Roy did his due diligence title search.


So the lien existed (someone claims) but wasn't reported (to your state DMV).

Thus, you would have been covered if you had paid the $49.95 for AutoCheck's TitleGuard policy.

It's a covered event.

 

Yes and THAT is the way when you call Auto Check they read it...as THERE was no lien on the vehicle at the time of the Policy and/or purchase...in the State of California, BUT of course to have this the buyer would have HAD to title and register the car, which was also not done...

In speaking to them thier theory( Autocheck) is that they will only defend for "in-State" issues from the State YOU ARE registring your car...NOT from the State where the Title came from...so it appears this is only good if the Title you are transfering was issued by the same state you are registering it into..

Again I think this is double talk and there may or may not be casue for action...but I am not a lawyer...

 

From the sounds, a representative of the leasing company received a payoff on the car and released a clean and clear title to the customer. Another representative of the leasing company claims this sale is invalid and now claims they have a lien on the title. There's no actual lien on the title even now! What if that claim is denied? There's just a claim! Not covered.

 

Nope. Covered. You've got a title dispute. That's why you buy title insurance.

 

Well, IMO, just like this messed up F**c up situation...this to would only be settled by lawyers from both sides going to a court and letting the Judge decide...

 

A lein that was not filed is NOT a lein....one of two things either happened....either the original owner removed the lein statement and then registered the car or the leasing company didnt add a lein to the title (along with the fact that they just sent a title to someone)....they would not be leins...that is why at big dealers they actually take care of the title work for you because if the lein isnt actually perfected and the pink slip turned in with the loan papers they wont get paid because NO LEIN IS FILED....I would have to say Roy is right and the title insurance would not pay because nothing was actually filed.

 

So what your saying is if I call the police and say you owe me $2500 for your seats in your car (and I have already released the car to you) they will pay me because you have title insurance? I do not agree. Thats basically whats happened with Joshs situation excapt the leasing company has manipulated the las vegas police to pick up the car and combined with Joshs reasoning to not title the car for 2 months..got away with that manipulation!

 

I am a super-firm believer in the benefits of leasing, especically as business owner.

This whole deal cements it forever in my mind that I will be leasing forever and letting the leasing company (i.e. the OWNER) deal with any of these messes.

The only execption would be a brand new Fcar from a F-dealer. In that case it would be worth the cash buy, especially if you can by at sticker or reduced dealer markup.

 

Agreed, I guess I just worded it wrong.

 

If you get a brand new Fcar from a dealer, you will be leasing. For one year at least.

 

As another note on titles and registrations, if you are not a permanent resident of a state (and you can define this in a million ways, including having any 2nd or 3rd home anywhere else) you can techincally temp tag the car indefinitely in some states, and never register, never pay sales tax.

This is exists also because sometimes there ARE TITLE PROBLEMS, even for in state residents, and you are under the law in some states afforded the right to operate your vehicle that you rightfully possess.

For example, in the state of TX, temp tags are good for 30 days, and it is a paper license plate issued AT THE TAX OFFICE (there is no DMV for car regs). There are people who have been into their local tax office and getting a new temp tag every 30 days for YEARS because of title problems with the car they have. And as long as your title issue is documented, the state of TX must keep giving you the plate, and not charge you sales tax, and can't force you to register the car.

YMMV.

 

Can you expand on this? I mean it reads simply, but are you saying that if you buy a new F-car, they make you lease it for a year? Why?

 

Not trying to hijack here.

I was told that all new Ferrari sales will have to be run through Ferrari Financial services for a minimum 1 year lease to keep the flippers away. It has been discussed in other threads as well.

 

New to me, never heard that before...I wonder how they can make you use their LEASE, but then it is a Private Owned Company, so I guess they can set what ever grounds these wish for the purchase..dont like it, dont buy it??

 

Yes, Ferrari is a privately owned company, but they are engaged in the sale of new automobiles in the US.

There are laws governing the sale of new motor vehicles in the US. For example minimum warranty period. All exotics will be coming with longer warranties as time goes on and the government stipulates longer minimum warranties.

If what you're saying about Ferrari is true, imagine if GM and every other single car dealer did this. There would never be an opportunity to buy in cash from any new auto dealer in the country ever again, because GM says that too many people flip their cars and you must lease them first?

That would NEVER ever be workable. If Ferrari is indeed doing that to all new customers, it is likely illegal. Companies doing illegal things often get away with them for a while until either enough people sue and/or the government steps in a quashes them.

If I had to pick an area of law off the top of my head by default it would be price fixing. Whether you use a 3rd party (like the bank or lessor) or do it yourself to engage in price fixing and stifling of the free market economy, you get in trouble. There is a mountain of case law about this, and event little companies selling shoes get in deep crap for that, nevermind $200,000 cars.

 

Post 38:

Step 7 Leasing company is able to get a Nevada Judge to issue a "writ" to secure and HOLD the vehicle till a hearing can be had to determine the correct ownership of the car. (IT WAS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN A STOLEN VEHICLE REPORT)

How is it that you make one claim from public records stating one thing then something else entirely, both presumably from the same records which have been the same since 3/21?

 

Nope. Line item #3 specifically covers liens that aren't on file at your DMV when you buy the title insurance (i.e. at roughly the same time as you bought your car).

So, if you had title insurance, then you would have been covered. That's why I went to the trouble of posting the *actual* title policy onto this thread.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Simple, I was WRONG, spoke to soon from information I had PRIOR to ready actual documents...

That is why today I stated there will be no more posting of "facts" unless I have a document in hand to read and post...

The fact remains, the car had no lien and no report of stolen on the date we bought it, sold it and no issue came of this until 3-21-2008 when the report was filed with the Las Vegas Police.

 

Of course you were wrong, but my point was that all along you've claimed that you're looking at the official public records, but this recent development suggests that at least once before you weren't getting your information from the records from which you said that you were.

Thus, it must have been assumption on your part or your claims of looking at those records were also inaccurate.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Maybe...it is a gray area...the problem I see is that Line #3 says liens that arent on file on the date of registration....it doesnt say anything about UNFILED liens..which would be the leasing companies fault....there is a big difference there IMO. It would make more sense to me under #2 (fraud, on the part of the original owner) or #4 (incompentacy, on the behalf of the leasing company). The other BIG problem in this case is why was the car not registered??? It was 2 months? No title company is going to pay you when you drive a car UNREGISTERED for 2 months trying to beat the tax system, realize there is a problem at a date 1.5 months later, and then try to register the car and ask for your money back.

I would also be curious to see the "conditions" pages (2,3,& 4). Post those up!

 

I feel like I should get a ribbon, or a badge or something for reading this thread!

I feel like I watched a tennis match, but an extreme fighting version.

So, I have to say after all of this:

I feel that Roy has gone way beyond the call of duty.
Josh is clearly a moron, but a wronged moron.
I am curious to see if any action has been taken towards the person who fled.
I feel that irreparable damage has been inflicted towards Roy.
Moron damage is irrelevant, he is too thick headed and makes his living getting hit. This in no way will impact that.

I have tried to explain this thread to my friends and see what their takes are. I have seen the gamut. Some feel that Roy needs to make the kid right, others feel that this is purely the result of the leasing company and they need to make it all right.

Either way, I feel that the smarts of FChat need to stop assisting this guy. For all of the 1000 reasons listed and state above. All we need is a wiki with a daily update and links to the official documents.

Wow, thanks for the ride!

t.

 

Yup. That sounds right. You can't really depend on the system to work for you when you are scamming it.

 

I think this is appropriate..
Image Unavailable, Please Login