Can you insure a car without the title? I could get temp coverage on a new car with a phone call, and then fill in the dots later. But that’s because I’ve had multiple cars covered by the same agent for years. I’d guess that someone who’s never had coverage before would have to have the title first.
Before you take the advise to not pay the fees I would make sure the city can’t put them on your credit report and sell the balance to a collection agency
Just out of curiosity, what’s liability here for the person who actually did hold the title at the time?
Who carries insurance when you lease a car? The leasing company or the individual?
The individual is required to have insurance. If the leasing company finds out the car is not insured I believe they will buy insurance to cover the bare minimums and then charge you.
When I bought the car I have now it was the first one in my name. I was able to get insurance over the phone while at the dealer so I could take the car home.
Yeah, I made a dumb move by not just waiting until I could get down there to get the title transferred in my name/insurance. No doubt about that.
As it stands, there are a ton of fees involved with getting it back, so it isn’t even worth it (plus, it would probably need a ton of repairs)
We’ll find out in 10 days what is going to happen to my brother.
No offense, but the brother in question is a major asshole - where is the ambiguity here?
**Don’t drive the non-registered, uninsured car, that does not belong to you. Don’t drive cars that do not belong to you, unless you have explicit permission to do so.
**
I’d add: Do not drive cars that do not belong to you, unless you are renting them.
The stress of being part of someone else’s car damage experience is just not worth it.
This is why nobody drives my car, except me. And why I strongly prefer to rent loaners when the need arises.
This is also a great advert for uninsured riders on your insurance - you insure yourself against problems with uninsured belligerents.
If you want to park/store a car without the risk of someone driving it, lock the thing down and keep the keys with you.
Not necessarily true. My friend’s car was broken into, and the police caught the teenager would-be-theives in the car, trying to start it with a screwdriver, but because of the broken window, they had it towed overnight. The impound did have it listed as “stolen”, but my friend was still on the hook for 300$ or so (for about 48 hours, due to the cops not giving her the right location for the impound and her work schedule).
Actually, now that I think about it, if you aren’t the legal owner of the car (on paper), why the heck would they even agree to turn the car over to you? Aren’t all the debts on the actual owner?
How is the lady who was hit? Was she injured? She’s really the innocent victim in this.
If the car is still in the previous owner’s name, it’s still the previous owner’s car. Just let it go. Nobody has to get it back. Since your brother stole the car, the owner shouldn’t have to pay an impound fee anyway.
Just buy another junker. Use your credit card for cash if you have to. You’re basically going to be out the cash you already spent on the car, so not much you can do about that. Lesson learned. You’ll get past it. I don’t know how many times in my youth I thought, “well this is it. I am permanently fucked this time. I see no way out of this.” Yet, I always got through it. Things are never as bad (or as good) as they seem, though. Somehow you always muddle through. The important thing is to learn from it.
Has your brother expressed any remorse (either to the lady he hit or to you), or any intent to pay you back?
The city asking for it and your friend going along ignorantly aren’t the same as being liable for it. Had your friend fought it and gone to city hall he’d have won.
Well, the OP has made clear that she doesn’t want to get her brother in even more trouble than he’s already in, and if she reports the car as stolen then he will be charged with stealing it. The police know that he was driving it, after all.
Also, while she did tell him not to drive it, she also left the car with him. Under these circumstances, it would be pretty hard to make a case that the car was stolen.
Don’t worry. When your young brother goes to jail over this, he will learn first-hand about getting screwed over.
Just a nitpick, but here in the U.K., the car would not be classed as ‘Stolen’, but ‘Taken Without Owner’s Consent’ because he intended to return it. Is the same distinction made in America?
For all the people claiming the car is the problem of the last titled owner. No. They sold it. The buyer just didn’t transfer the title like they are required to do. This won’t be the first or last time something like this happens. The courts and cops understand this.
No. If there’s no transfer of title, there’s no transfer of ownership and no proof of sale. If either of them denies it, the court won’t recognize it.
I don’t know the laws in every state, but I’ve never heard of this distinction in the US.
Do you have a cite for this? The transfer of over a thousand dollars is usually pretty darn good proof of a sale taking place. I have no idea what the law is on this, though.
It might not be her choice if any liability defaults to the original (and still registered) owner). She has no reason to protect the brother.