After watching a show about them on Discovery last night I was wondering a few things. I realize that the laws must vary from state to state, but in general don’t these guys have the law on their side?
They are hired by a bank to confiscate what is essentially the bank’s property. Once you default on a loan the car or boat or plane etc. is no longer, in any way, yours, right? Then why is it that the documentary always showed them, once they located the vehicle, laying low and quietly sneaking in and out. If they have every legal right to the vehicle why don’t they just strongarm their way in and take it? And if the (former) owner interferes why don’t they have a right to just cuff them? Why don’t the repossessors carry sidearms? Many are former police.
At one point in the show while trying to repossess a car this deadbeat’s whole family assaulted the agents, including fire gunshots at them. When the police arrived they had them leave the car “in the interest of neighborhood peace” or some such nonsense. I was increduleous! Not only should the police have made sure the car was taken they should have arrested the lowlife’s kid for reckless endangerment (or attempted murder!)
So what’s the deal? Do the police in general look down on repossession agents and not want to get involved? Isn’t having collateral for a defaulted loan akin to possessing stolen property? Shouldn’t the agents have every right to seize it, including cutting locks and trespassing? Isn’t it completely false to think of repossessors as the bad guys, when they actually are doing a vital service? Kind of like dogcatchers in cartoons?
With your caveat about laws being different from state to state, and IIRC from law school, the general common law rule is that you can recapture wrongfully retained personal property so long as you do not cause a “breach of the peace.”
The legal system doesn’t really like self-help remedies like repossession. The laws that allow people to repossess things like cars also limit the right of repossession - you can’t repossess something if it will breach the peace. Therefore, most of the questions you ask aren’t helpful because they are either designed to breach the peace or very likely to breach the person.
The legal system would much prefer a more orderly settlement of disputes than trespassing and carrying guns would likely cause.
You see, the automobile never was the driver’s vehicle to begin with. It remains the property of the lienholder until the final payment is made. Failing to honour the terms of the loan agreement renders the agreement for the driver to maintain and operate the vehicle void. The lienholder can then recover the vehicle. The problem with this is that so many people forget it’s not their car and tend to want to shoot or otherwise harm the repo folks.
Having the law on one’s side and surviving an action taken thereby are two different issues.
My understanding is that the law clearly backs the bank’s being in possession of the car, but things are a bit murky in terms of the bank or its agents acquiring it. If the repossession can be done with stealth, generally any question of how it was acquired is moot, but if the act of repossession entails a confrontation, the issue gets complicated.