Which is why the owner should have been the one paying for the insurance. But he wasn’t.
shrug I’ll take this non-sequitur as an acknowledgement that you have no argument against my actual point.
True, but even if he was, if it was under her policy, the check would still be payable to her name. Technically, she could still [del]steal the money[/del] “teach him a lesson” about when its other peoples fault but you are controlled by a dollar-hungry unethical third party.
"Here, my pretty! Here’s an insurance card. Think of it as an investment I’ve made in buying All My Friends front row seats to see ‘Wicked’ based on the little faith I have in you!
AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…!
I’ll get you, my little Y chromosome! And the money for your Little Car Too!!!
AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…!
She paid for the insurance, she gets the money. All of it. End of story.
I don’t know how much money the payout is compared to how much she paid for in insurance, but if it were me and someone refused to pay insurance on a car (illegal where I am) and I have to pay for it, it doesn’t matter if there’s leftover money. You forced me to pay for something over my objections so you could act like an idiot and crash a car, now you get no car. If you want a car, pay for it yourself.
I seriously doubt if the son had been paying his mom for his portion of the insurance, she would do something like that. Why would she?
But the fact he he didn’t take one bit of responsibility for insuring his car. How does anyone excuse that? At the very least, he should have taken over paying his portion of the insurance when he turned 18.
I think whatever payment arrangement a 18 year old and their parents work out is up to them. The kid in OP doesn’t sound particularly spoiled. He works a crappy job and goes to school. The fact that he can’t support himself says a lot more about the current economic reality than anything else.
And ultimately this is beside the point. Mom paying for Son’s insurance is a gift. Before she gives the gift she is free to set any conditions. She may also set conditions on any future gift giving. What she can’t do is retroactively change the deal because she wants some free money.
But that’s the thing: she didn’t have to pay for it.
What’s funny is that we’re calling the son irresponsible. Wonder where he could have gotten that from? Isn’t it the height of irresponsibility to pay for something for 3 years and then act like someone is forcing you to do it? It sounds like a case of mom choosing for 3 years not to put her foot down, but now wanting to play the martyr entitled to free money. And for what? A “sacrifice” that millions of parents do all the same time without expectations of reimbursement or reciprocity.
It’s not surprising to me that she doesn’t get along with her ex MIL. Grandma was generous enough to give her grandson a car, in contrast to mom who is all about grabbing crash from her son’s car accident, at the son’s expense.
I agree with this. The OP didn’t say enough to make me think that he is any more irresponsible than most teenaged males. If we’re supposed to think he’s a freedloading ingrate simply because he’s 18 or 19 still living at home and has his mother paying his car insurance, then that conclusion is a struggle for me absent any other information.
Grandma did something against the mother’s wishes. That doesn’t make the grandmother generous. It makes her manipulative. She could have compromised and purchase a used car for the kid (with lower insurance, I’m sure), but insisted on buy a brand new car despite the mother’s objections.
Of course, the mother should have refused to purchase the insurance in the first place, so clearly that was a mistake on her part. If Grandma wants junior to drive a car he cannot afford insurance for, she should be paying the insurance. Why wasn’t she? or at the very least, why was she not reimbursing the mother?
This whole family seems screwed up to me.
Yes, this is true. But the grandma was also presumably listening to her son as well, who supported the decision. Why assume manipulation when it could be this was a compromise between two extremes (a beater versus a Mercedes)?
Frankly, the mother’s complaint about her son getting this car strikes me as being about as First World Problem as it gets. A new car would last him longer than a beater would, and would also probably incur fewer repair expenses and do better on the road. It could also have better resale value so that if the kid wanted to later trade it in for something else, he could at no cost. But instead of recognizing these benefits and being grateful, she’s resentful about how much extra the insurance is. Like, really? How many sane people would turn down a free car over something like this? It makes me think what it really comes down is jealously, which is sad.
Not only are posters treating her gripe as a valid weapon to use against her son, they’re treating it as a valid reason to vilify the grandmother. You know, the one who came out of pocket to pay for the car in the first place. I find this kind of amazing.
Because perhaps she thought the insurance was something the parents would work out between the two of them, with the kid’s help. Like most middle-class American families do when it comes to cars given to teenagers.
There are many valid reasons why a family may prefer their teenager not receive lavish gifts, including:
- Kid just got (or didn’t get) first job and it’s time to learn that the way to get nicer things is to work and save
- Kid has previously treated valuable things poorly
- Family has other kids that can’t expect similar gifts
- Kid has had unrealistic expectations, is overtly materialistic, or otherwise doesn’t need a taste for luxury indulged right now
- Kid is doing poorly in school or being a jerk at home and shouldn’t be rewarded right now
- Parent doesn’t want the kid to experience a sharp drop in living standard when he transitions to financial independence
- Patent knows kid isn’t going to pay for upkeep, and doesn’t want to get stuck with it
I’m sure we could all think of more.
I do think that resentment toward the ex-MIL and ex-husband is likely the primary driver here, and the unfair impact to the kid is ancillary damage. I think the OP said somewhere that the mother said, paraphrasing, that she knows they’re mad (I assume this includes the son) but they’ll get over it. An amazing quality of people who will pull shit like this is that they are actually surprised when it doesn’t work out that way. That kid has had plenty of time to think about it, sitting on the bus. Totally aside from who signed what and whose name is on what paper, I think it is sad that this woman seems to be more interested in being punitive to hated ex’s than she is in working with her son so that he can responsibly replace the car that was gifted to him, lost through no fault of his own. I wouldn’t mind if she covered what she paid on premiums, at least since he reached 18, but I think to keep anything beyond that is wrong.
Another thing I was thinking about is how the kid has been working, and therefore perhaps paying for some things like dates, clothes, eating out and other entertainment that it’s not unusual for parents to cover for their minor children. Also, as a person who bought a beater at 16, I would find it impossible to believe that the mother did not benefit from having another driver in the family. I know there were countless times that I was sent to ferry my sisters around or do errands, which of course I did as my parents did things for me. So we don’t really know how what’s happened in the past would all net out. An earlier poster suggested that the focus should be on using this situation to teach the kid to handle owning a car as a responsible adult, and I agree with this.
All true but not none of these appear in the OP. All that we’ve been told is that mom thinks the son deserves a beater because he’s an irresponsible teenager (no evidence provided) and she doesn’t have a new car…so no fair!
If she’s concerned about upkeep but wanted him to get a used car, then that is an irrational concern.
Here’s how I read it: he was going to drive with or without her permission, and she can either pay for insurance or be liable if he crashes. Sure, she could have physically wrested the key away, have the car impounded, or sold it and returned the money, but I don’t see what she did was totally unreasonable given an unreasonable kid, husband, and MIL
My teenagers drive a beater - that they have to share. The insurance, without collision, on the beater for two teens (one without very good grades) is $200 a month, when just one of them had their license, it was $150 a month. That is the minimum I could get on a car that is a serious (but safe) piece of shit. There is no way I’d have my kids drive new cars. I think it isn’t a good risk (the car has been driven into in the school parking lot, its been rear ended at a stop sign - all since my kids started driving it), and I think it sets unrealistic expectations about cars and a poor example on financial priorities. We make mid six figures a year and neither my husband or I drives a car bought new.
Since my kids are minors, I can be held liable for their actions. Which means I need to insure any car they might get in and drive. About the only way for Mom to make the kid pay his own insurance (or arrange something with Dad or Grandma) would have been to remove the keys. And what are the odds Grandma or Dad would have called the dealer to have new ones made. And I’m still liable for the kid driving without insurance. So I don’t think the “she didn’t have to pay for the insurance” argument holds much water. I think grandma sounds like a shortsighted git and dad sounds like a spoiled brat (who can blame him with a mom who gives a sixteen year old a new car with no provisions for insurance), and mom’s been the only adult in the whole thing.
(Don’t think teens don’t do things they aren’t supposed to - like drive without insurance. Yesterday I saw one of my daughters friends driving around with a teenager who’d just gotten her license…there were too many teenagers in the car for someone who’d just gotten a license, and my daughters friend isn’t allowed to ride with teenage drivers - her parents rules - which has meant that although they live down the street, we stopped carpooling with them when my daughter started driving. And these are “really good girls” - National Honor Society, responsible, really mature teenagers - breaking rules - and the law - with too many teens in the car. In addition to breaking the law, the car could also be lost in civil forfeiture - unlikely when its too many kids in the car, not unlikely if the kids decide to smoke weed in the car. My daughter, who is encouraged to by open and honest with me, recently admitted getting drunk with these girls - and sixteen year olds who have been drinking aren’t known for their amazing common sense.)
Kid has had the car 3 years. If she’s paying collision (and if she isn’t there may not be much of a check) is probably $300+ a month. Lets say she’s paid $11k for insurance. (insurance rates vary a lot across the country, along with insurance laws). That’s a nice vacation sitting on the beach Mom has given up every year - or $4k a year in a 401k. I don’t know what sort of car he had to start with, but the payout, once he pays mom back for the insurance, isn’t going to be enough to buy a new car. My advice is that she takes out her insurance expenses, and gives him the rest of the money so he has some idea of how expensive insurance is and cars are. If grandma wants to step up and pay the difference so the kid can get another new car, go for it, but there is no way mom should insure it again.
That’s interesting because I see the exact opposite.
When I look at Grandma, I see someone who gave her grandson an awesome gift that will serve him for a long time. Having reliable transportation is so enormously valuable for a poor person. Without it employment and housing choices are drastically different. It’s literally a life changing gift for a 16 year old. Something that he can reasonably expect to use until he is 30.
I agree that used is generally more economical than new, but buying new brings advantages. For example, Hyundai has a 5 year warranty that comes with road side assistance and covers essentially every thing that can go wrong with a car. You can’t get that sort of warranty on a used car. In essence, Grandma is paying more to guarantee that kid has a car for 5 years without major expense. That might not be a choice you or I might make for our kid. That’s because I’d be able to handle any major expense. Grandma might not think she’d be around or be financially able to do that.
In contrast with Grandma, Mom seems like a short sighted twat. Let’s start with the original decision. She wanted kid to have an “old beater”. Old beaters are far less safe than newer cars. That’s a short sighted decision. Trading a slight risk of catastrophic damage for money in the pocket now. In the medium term, say kid had gotten the old beater instead. What happens if it dies or needs an expensive repair he can’t afford? In the here and now, she’s taken away her kid’s transportation. What if he, for example, gets an internship in Louisville for the summer? He’d have to scramble and might lose the opportunity.
And it doesn’t seem like Mom’s motivation is coming from a good place here. It sounds like a lot of it is she has a crappy car and doesn’t think the kid should have a better one.
No one made Mom pay for collision insurance. If she spent more money on that because of the new car that is 100% on her. She was on board with kid getting a car, so she’d pay for liability insurance anyway. If anything, a new car is going to be cheaper for liability insurance because it is safer.
Kids typically get beaters because it’s the cheapest option for parents who want their kids to drive but aren’t rolling in dough. Let’s try to not make the beater-is-best viewpoint more deeper than it really is. if money wasn’t an object, no one would go out of their way to own a beater.
If you or your son is handed a free car from a generous relative, take that shit and be happy. Don’t look for reasons to be resentful or feel put upon.
How would that happen if they are not on the title? Dealers can’t just make car keys on demand for just anyone, let’s be serious.
Son didn’t pay for car. Son didn’t pay for insurance. How is son entitled to payout or anything?
Do you know how many high schoolers at my kid’s school have totaled their newish cars this year? - six. There are 400 kids in a class, and most of the kids don’t get new cars. Yes, the car could last 15 years, but in the hands of a sixteen year old, it could also easily get totaled.
And insurance covers replacement value. So there are a lot of kids who drive new cars at sixteen - and beaters the next year.
A reliable used car (a Honda or a Toyota are both pretty good for running for 200,000 miles) IS better - with the money saved on insurance and purchase cost, repairs can be covered for the three to five years the car runs - and have money so poor kid could get a degree at a state tech school ($6,000 in Minnesota for a year). It doesn’t have to be a beater - a three year old car is awesome.
A new car is a great example of why poor people stay poor. Not buying new cars is one of many reasons why I’ve gone from not being able to afford heat to being able to retire at 50.
If the kid is on the title, Dad or Grandma can show up with the kid and have keys made.
This is something else I don’t get about this thread. People treat the ones who gifted the kid a car as unreasonable monsters, while the person who profits off their child’s accident is the reasonable one.
I think you with the face said it best. The only reasonable thing to do when your kids is offered a free car is to take that shit and be happy. Anything other that indicates something is majorly fucked up with you. (Excluding cases with the kid having extreme behavior issues)
I think choosing a free beater over a free new car is also a questionable financial decision.