lamborghini reported stolen after i bought it

Doesn't need it's own thread. Pretty simple. Didn't like my last name. When I was 15 a cop made a comment to my mother about her name while I was standing next to her, it was in passing, didn't seem to phase her - stuck with me for life. Can't get it out of my head. Told myself no child of mine was ever going to go through that or go through what I did in school. Thought I'd end up being Bill Henderson, or Bill Smith, whatever - but nothing is easy in life, oh well.

At least my name isn't Josh =)

Bill

 

I think I can relate to that. My name gets mistaken for Ho all the time. Especially when people are cold calling my house phone on weekend mornings. I just politely respond.........the name is Oh not the other way around, maybe you're thinking about your mother?

So what is your last name? Surely it cant be anything as bad as Gaylord Focker?

Best

-Peter

 

Um, no, it isn't =) PM sent.

Bill

 

What a good response!!!

 

The train wreck that keeps on wrecking.......................................................

 

Like I said the energizer bunny ain't got **** on this thread.

Just keeps on going and going and going......

 

so whats the latest news? anyone know?

 

VOTED BEST POST OF THIS THREAD! This sums it up 100%!

 

One other thing. The reason that the car wasn't titled or registered yet wasn't entirely the owner's fault. From what I got reading in the thread somewhere, the out of state attorney that was to be handling the out of state registration (supposedly to save on sales tax or whatever) was someone that Roy recommended to the purchaser, but that Roy doesn't handle on behalf of his purchasers but demands the purchaser does himself.

So when Roy finally got the title to Josh in February and Josh sent it off to whomever Roy recommended, he didn't totally bungle it on his own but was just following Roy's recommendations. So the fault of the vehicle remaining untitled and unregistered to the new owner lies partly with Roy.

 

Something like 20% Roy's fault, 80% kid's fault. Both were taking on gargantuan levels of risk by dancing around sales taxes and tag fees, especially by allowing the car to go unregistered for an extended period of time (which left the title "underground" and subject to scams by other parties).

 

So if I tell you which corner Mary Rottencrotch stands on, I'm partially responsible for you getting crabs? Bullsh*t.

 

How much is your responsibility if you put up a freeway billboard with a big arrow and the words "Free Beer Here!" on an exit that has a bridge out?

 

Not correct, I DID not recomend the Lawyer in Montana to Josh...he ASKED us to send the title to him, I refused as I do not want to be a part of what I consider a somewhat in-correct way to escape sales tax in his state...(I am not going to make a comment to its legalty, thats between a client and his lawyer)....so the Title was sent DIRECT to Josh...which he has stated before is correct.

 

Did you offer any experiences, knowledge, or advice on how other people may have avoided sales taxes?

 

We should make sure facts are correct...

The State of Washington, which is where I am a licensed Dealer...requires me to provide the Title to the purchaser within 45 days of the sale...this was done with in that time frame...what the buyer does after that is NOT in my control. Josh COULD have gotten the car registered the day he got it in his State with just the bill of sale and having the vehicle go through the VIN check with CHP..the TITLE is and was not required to REGISTER the car..what ever actions he took are on him, not even 1% my issuse.

Had the car been sold in my State to a Washington State Resident, then YES I would be required to transfer the title, provide registration and plates to the new owner with in 45 days...but he was not so he needs to do what ever is required of him in the state he resides...I AM not the tax collector for the State of California...NOR a commissioned Police Officer to enforce their laws.

 

Your transfer of the title was and is fine, per what's been said so far.

Your words to the kid that involved potential ways others may have avoided sales taxes, however, open you up to partial liability...just as posting a freeway sign to take a dangerous/closed exit exposes you to some liability, even though you aren't the one driving the cars that take the exit with a bridge out (especially if the drivers are young and/or stupid).

 

Having read every post on this thread I am pleased not to be a party to this thing. It's just a bad deal all around. It makes everyone look bad. I have done a little business with Roy and he was very helpful and I was 100% satisfied. I have no ax to grind with him at all but he sold a car to a guy who was stretching to the moon to buy and came up with a headache for it. The buyer had no business with this type of car and had little knowledge of how expensive maintenance costs are for these cars. I have had instances where a claim was made against me that I have paid and didn't loose my claim against the insurance co. I still made the claim and was later paid what the insurance co. wanted to pay which was the full amount. Things may be different in the car claim business. I have also settled claims where we did no wrong but one of my subs wouldn't take care of a situation. I later resolved with the sub, sometimes with a judge. Sometimes it is best to take care of the problem to avoid being dragged threw the mud. I think Cats has done a great job of keeping the excitement in the marketplace. I look forward to his posts about his cars for sale and his own private stock of exotics. I would do business with Cats again if the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps he should of just paid the kid his money and moved on and kept this thing off the net. If I bought a car and the title had a cloud over it that was discovered, I would expect the seller to hold me harmless.

 

It doesn't matter anyways as he went and picked up the car himself in Las Vegas, yet a 3rd state in the mix.

Anyways I thought I'd read somewhere in the thread that you (Roy) refered him to that lawyer that you've refered others to in the past, but maybe I misread somewhere, I'll have to go back and look.

 

Where are you guys getting that Roy told Josh about the Montana Lawyer/LLC/Tax Loop Hole? I don't remember reading that...

 

He never did. Back on 30th March Roy posted:

-mick

 

...

 

Perhaps you were mistaken.

 

Read what Roy says there again, and then tell me where did you read that Roy told Josh about the Montana Lawyer/LLC/Tax Loophole.

 

It's clear that Roy told a lot of people about Bennett in Montana.

When Roy says that he didn't "have to tell Josh" about Bennett, you seem to be reading it as "Roy did NOT tell Josh about Bennett" instead of "Roy mentioned Bennett to Josh even though that attorney was common knowledge."

 

I AM SO glad you KNEW what I did or did not do...I ALMOST thought I had changed my screen name here for a minute..

NOW FROM MY mouth, again so you clearly UNDERSTAND this.

I DID not tell, mention, give a name, a number a address or even bring up John Bennet to JOSH. Prior to ANY transaction ever was completed HE and ONLY HE requested we send the title to his lawyer John Bennet..he was advised from the start that we would and DID not do it...in refrence to me advising HIM to call his LAWYER in Montana after this all came up...it was ONLY because he advised me that JOHN had the title to the car in HIS POSSESSION...and since JOSH could not understand ar find a way to contact a LAWYER on his OWN..I advised him to contact the ONLY LAWYER he already had in this matter..JOHN..WHO IN turn advised HIM that he did not practice in California.

FYI, The Lawyers firm in question does a LOT of advertising in California, FLorida, Kentucky and numerous other states...as a MATTER of fact last year at Concourso in Monterrey, there were even little 3x5 posts cards handed out to some people in reagrds to this service...so I like to know where you get off saying that I TOLD A LOT OF PEOPLE about him...

And ONE other point to make perfectly CLEAR...I and KEVIN spent a full HOUR plus on the phone with the management of "Auto check" AND you are wrong, they WOULD not have covered this under their policy and claim...WHY Simple...there was NEVER a LIEN in place on the vehicle 60 days prior to the sale that was failed to be picked up and reported to a goverment agency (ie DOL). So yes it would have been a waste of $49.00.

"4. The Customer must provide to Experian a copy of the front and back of the Branded Title, certified by the issuing state authority. The Branded Title must have been issued at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the Report was run. "

From the fine print of their contract,, you have to read it ALL, not just what they offer in the way of services, BUT the condition to recieve payment on their BUY BACK policy.


NOW, what do you not understand about this...??I HOPE this is perfectly clear to you?