I think everyone should agree with that solution, to keep the peace, but it’s not exactly fair. If the mom wanted her son to reimburse her for the premiums, she should have said that in the first place and made it a loan. Instead, she gave him the money for years, now she wants to profit from his misfortune. On the other hand, the son should give her something in order to thank her for continuing to pay for his insurance once he hit 18.
There’s a good moral case to be made that son abandoned his interest in the car as property when he refused to take financial responsibility for it and carry the legally required insurance. And again when he turned 18 and didn’t re-title the car in his name(speculating on specifics of the title).
Son twice turned away from his major obligations as a legal property owner. Grandma picked out the car and dropped it in mom’s lap, over her objections. Grandma’s claim of ownership or control over the destiny of the vehicle ended when she signed over the title. Son could have taken proper ownership of it, but he had other plans for his cash, so he didn’t.
Of the three possible “owners” of the car, Grandma, Son, and Mom, only Mom has been financially responsible for it over the past three years. My guess is she’s also kept it registered and maybe even paid for maintenance. If teenager balked at paying for insurance odds are he balked at tire rotations, oil changes, etc. as well.
If mom has done that, then her claim of ownership, regardless of the intention of the original purchaser, or the daily use to which the vehicle was put, is stronger than the others IMHO. Any monies from insurance proceeds belong to her.
Enjoy,
Steven
You said she didn’t care about the “financial and physical wellbeing of her son.”
I contend that giving him a place live, paying for everything including insurance is proof she does.
No, that’s ridiculous. You don’t get to take someone’s car because you think they’ve abandoned their interest. Mom had a choice when Son failed to pay for the insurance. She could have taken him off the insurance and forbade him from driving. Or she could have made her paying the insurance an explicit loan. Or she could have just paid it. It looks like she did the latter.
Definitely not what happened. Grandma had no way to force Mom to add Son to her insurance. So at some point Mom got on board with this even if it were reluctantly.
As for the rest of your post, I’ll repeat. Mom is profiting to the tune of $5k+ on her son’s accident. No amount of hand waving or justification is going to make that ok.
I said taking his 10k doesn’t count as caring for the financial wellbeing of her son.
I used to think that, but I had no problem getting insurance coverage on a car that was still in my mother’s name. I was buying it from her but getting her loan off the title was taking longer than expected. When I talked to the insurance agent tried to work out timing, she said that I could go ahead an insure the car immediately (and let my mother uninsure hers), even though I had no title to the car and no paperwork showing a pending sale.
What if it was something other than a car? what if the grandmother gave the grandson a rare Honus Wagner baseball card as a gift?
The mom thinks “Hmm, that’s expensive item. I better increase my renter’s insurance or home owner insurance”
Then the house is robbed and the card is stolen. Who keeps the insurance money?
An important point here is that (probably) Mom would have to have Son on her insurance if he was living in her house. Almost all policies require you to cover any driver that resides at your home. So beater, new Hyundai, or no car, she would be paying.
According to FindLaw, you can contract for car insurance at age 15 in Kentucky.
Parents make lots of sacrifices for their kids and one of those is often footing the bill for their sky high insurance rates. Mom could have easily not paid the insurance and taken the keys until Son could afford it on his own. But I suspect that while Mom wasn’t happy with Grandma’s choice of car, (maybe also a little jealous being out shined by ex-MiL) she also didn’t mind not having to shuttle him to/from work, school, practice, etc. and so she paid.
I think that the fact that Mom never required Son to at least help out with the insurance shows that she really wasn’t too upset about paying it. With that being the case, the purpose of the insurance payout is to replace the car and that’s what should happen. If Mom wants to keep some of the money she dolled out in premiums, that seems more than fair. But if I were her, I’d forget about the money spent and instead put an equal amount into an account for Son’s future insurance payments, and the remaining payout is what Son has to replace his car. I think this is a good learning opportunity for Son and Mom just keeping the money for herself squanders that.
OK, that’s it.:mad:
Grandma, Mom, Boy-child, not a single of of you deserves a cent. Fuckin losers every one of ya.
Give me the money. I’ll take it so y’all maybe learn from the situation.
(OP: message me for my PayPal details)
Mods: we’re done here.
Cite?
My sister and I both carried our own insurance policies while still living at home with our parents. Before we had our own policies, we wrote our parents a check every month to cover our portion of the insurance…because we were responsible, unlike this kid who clearly didn’t care enough to take out his own insurance or pay his mother back, but wants all the money anyway.
And it actually goes in both directions- my son had to list my husband and I as drivers on his own policy. Because we all lived in the same household.Depending on the insurance company, he might have been able to exclude us or we could have excluded him - but then if we drove each other’s cars , we wouldn’t have been covered. Not if we borrowed the car because one was in the shop, not to move from one parking space to another, not if my son got sick and we picked him up and drove his car home for him.
Interesting, but I guess things might have changed in 25 years, because I know I didn’t have to put my parents or my sister on my insurance.
Still, there’s no reason he could not have paid his mom his portion of the insurance.
That could depend on the state. Here in California, if one driver’s insurer accepts liability, it shouldn’t affect the blameless policyholder’s rates.
I think I see the point of confusion, there are 2 similar but not mutually exclusive scenarios:
- All “potential” drivers living in your household should be listed on your policy as additional/secondary drivers of your vehicles- whether or not they have their own car and own policy. This is good sense, as they may need to drive one of your vehicles at any time and avoids the “did they have permission/should they have been driving your vehicle” questions.
However, - Your adult child who owns their own vehicle and lives with you can insure their vehicle with any company they choose, there is no requirement that they use the same insurer/policy that you have. Of course, they should include all others in the household on their policy as additional/secondary drivers.
Why do people keep on saying that the mother has no right to take $10k of the son’s money? Of course she doesn’t, and nobody’s suggesting that she does. The question is whether the son has any right to take $10k of the mother’s money. The money never belonged to anyone else, and nobody has proposed any reason why anyone else would have any claim to it.
But I agree that the situation as described sounds fishy. We’re told that the accident was through no fault of the son’s. If that’s so, then why is the family’s insurance company paying anyone anything? Shouldn’t the check be coming from the other driver’s insurance?
I’m confused. The kid didn’t pay insurance but he wants the protection from buying the insurance? Second, was anything owed on the car? If so how much was left after paying off the loan and Mom’s premiums?
I say mom keeps the money as a life lesson - “This is why you buy insurance.”
The money is to compensate the owner for the loss of the car. The rightful owner is Son, so any monies should go to him.
So he can scam his future kid?