Beaters are better because kids are more likely to get into accidents, either due to their own mistakes, or their limited experience in defensive driving. All things being equal, it’s easier to replace a used/cheap car (even if the other driver has to payout) than a new car. I speak from experience, sigh.
It’s not any more expensive if we are doing an apples to apples comparison. The replacement cost is solely dependent on what you choose to replace the totaled car with. Replacing a new car with a new car is more expensive than replacing a beater with a beater. But replacing a new car with a beater isn’t any more expensive than replacing a beater with a beater.
Well, I do. :o
My latest acquisition is a 90 Cherokee that I paid $560 and a 6" Subway sandwich.
But the new car isn’t free. He was supposed to pay insurance on it. Which is more on a new car than an old car. He didn’t, so mom was stuck with the bill because otherwise she’d be personally liable - being the kid’s parent - if he had an accident and God forbid, seriously hurt or killed someone. So Grandma and Dad stuck Mom with an expensive insurance bill that she didn’t agree to.
And if he couldn’t afford the insurance, he couldn’t afford the car.
You’ve already made this point and I’ve already explained why it’s wrong:
Well, in that case it definitely is mom’s money, since all she needed to cover was liability and she also covered collision.
This ^^^ is what it all boils down to.
I think every single person involved was being irresponsible. The grandmother for giving her grandson a “free” car, but not paying all associated costs, which if she really wanted it to be a gift, she should have done.
The Mom for not raising her son to be more responsible about money (pay your bills first, then spend money on fun stuff), and for enabling him by paying the insurance and not making him pay her back.
The kid for thinking he’s entitled to a brand new car, but doesn’t think he should have to pay for the insurance. Then, according to the OP, the kid expects ANOTHER brand new car out of the whole deal. A new car, which presumably he STILL cannot afford the insurance on.
Jesus do people not read any more? This has been explained over and over as well.
This logic is weak. If you total a new car, you get more money for it than a totaled beater with a shitty blue book value. With $10k or whatever it is the cost for a Hyundai is, the son could put that towards a decent used car, perhaps one more in line with what his mom thought he deserved to begin with. He wouldn’t necessarily need to get new car.
Really what it boils down to is this: should the mother expect anything but hard feelings by deciding to profit from her son’s totaled car, that was given to him not by her but by his grandmother? I say hell no, she should not expect that; her decision to “teach him a lesson” this way is like giving him the finger and telling him to suck it. It’s not helpful, it’s not loving, and it’s not something a young adult struggling to get on his feet is likely to shrug off any time soon, like she is apparently counting on happening.
For those who see the mother as justified in her actions, do you think her choice is so defensible it’s worth estrangement from her son? I ask because I’m struggling to see how her actions can be defended without taking into account the strain it’s put on her relationships. It just seems so petty to me for this to happen over free money.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree- not commenting on this specific scenario, but the idea that it is somehow categorically better to give an inexperienced driver a brand-new $25K car instead of a used $5K, because if they crash it I’ll get back more money (and still be out a huge chunk) makes no sense to me. I’d rather start with the less expensive car first and move up to a new car once they’ve proven themselves a safe driver, than destroy a new car and go down to a used one if necessary.
Sure there are reasons a new car might be better- but that’s unequivocally the better choice doesn’t ring true with my experience.
I guess “YMMV” has never been truer than here…
If the car is free to you, then I don’t understand why it should matter. A wrecked car is a wrecked car. The only thing differentiating the two states of destruction is the payout, and only a fool would turn down more money over little money.
I guess I ethically have an issue with giving an inexperienced driver a new car to potentially wreck or get wrecked. It seems like such a waste. Plus, if the payout is higher from my insurance my premiums may go up more than if it’s a smaller payout. You don’t have to agree, but my POV isn’t inherently foolish or flawed, just a different opinion. I really don’t need to continue this much further.
What a great deal. I’m going to tell my insurance company that I’m not going to pay any premiums and they still have to replace my car.
And the son is not the rightful owner. The mom was considering she paid the insurance and registration. Thanks to the manipulative grandmother (and she is the one to be blamed giving the grandson a car he couldn’t afford) it is really the mom’s car that the son was allowed to drive. That being said, mom should use the insurance money to buy the son a car like SHE wanted him to have to begin with.
The mother should hire Mtgman to be her lawyer.
But I think the reasonable thing would be for her to recoup her losses from the premiums and then give the rest of the money to her son. He’s grown now. He can figure out how to get a replacement car and insurance, plus do the maintenance. I’m sure the insurance pay-out is substantial enough to enable him to be a responsible car owner going forward.
Mistakes were made on both sides. It’s time to move on though and get over the butthurt for the sake of family harmony.
If it’s really Mom’s car then she scammed Grandma into buying her a car. Because when Grandma paid for it, she thought it would really be Son’s car.
I strongly believe that in most cases, buying a 16 year old a brand new car has a negative impact on their growing financial management skills. It sets up unrealistic expectations to be gifted something so far outside what you will be able to expect to buy on your own as a young adult (how’s the kid gonna feel when he realizes the car he had at 16 is nicer than the car he can afford at 30?). And it takes away one of the most obvious and common training grounds kids have for learning money management.
I think a new car is a generous gift for a young adult who has had some time to practice saving for and maintaining big-ticket items, and who understands the reality of life outside of the comfort of their parents house. But for a 16 year old who is just getting their first crack at a paycheck and bank account, I think it’s potentially a harmful one.
even sven, I hear what you’re saying, but there was nothing stopping the mother from using the gift to teach her son how to be fiscally responsible. I can understand not foisting the enter insurance premium on a kid, but why not go make him halfsies on it? Or make him responsible for the maintenance and gas?
The truth is that sometimes kids catch a windfall and there’s nothing the parents can do about it. If it’s not a generous gift, it can be a huge inheritance. I can understand not wanting your kid to receive a brand new car, but once the gift has already been bought, good parenting should allow that kid to learn the value of the gift they’ve received.
the key to me in all of this is that the kid managed to drive the car for three years accident free, and then the accident was not his fault.
So he has pretty much proven himself to be a “responsible driver”.
If Mum didn’t want to pay the premiums no one forced her.
The money belongs to the kid
Way too many of you are ignoring that this is a familial relationship, not a business one. Did you insist your kids pay you back for everything you did to help them?
Trying to figure out who the money belongs to is entirely the wrong tact. The question is about the appropriate consequences that a parent bestow on her child. He didn’t pay for his insurance, so there should be consequences. But it would be irresponsible of mom not to help him out in what is a pretty bad situation with no vehicle.
So the solution offered in the OP makes sense. She gets her money back, he gets the rest to get a car. He got some consequences, but mom helped him out. Oh, and he gets back on her insurance, but has to pay both his insurance and the difference in what mom pays on hers.
Of course, other solutions are possible. But ones based on mom getting all the money because she got the insurance or the son gets all the money because he owns the car are both ignoring the real situation.
It’s been resolved. Not everyone’s happy, but that was never going to happen anyway, so…
My sister bought a newer car for herself with the insurance money, signed her old car (2002 Ford Focus wagon) over to her son, and she’ll continue paying his insurance (?), but just liability this time around so if something happens to this one, he’s SOL. He’s whining a bit, but he’s come out of this much better than he deserves based on his choices.