Car repossessed. No right of redemption as required by law.
Date: Fri, 03/06/2009 - 12:57
Jurisdiction is Washington State.
FACTS:
1- Ex defaulted on car loan I had co-signed.
2- OC had my address (on contract), was advised (by phone) of divorce and address confirmed, and sent paperwork for title name change from divorce to this address.
3- No notification of Ex’s payment delinquency – no chance to take over payments.
4- No notification of impending auction of car – no right of redemption as law required.
5. CA (junk debt buyer) is demanding I pay the deficiency from sale of vehicle. (Ex is in hiding from creditors.)
OBJECTIVE:
1. Good- CA drops their claim and doesn’t litigate… plus restoration of good credit rating.
2. Better- Toyota purchases back the debt from the CA so this nightmare ends here, PLUS sends me a notarized letter stating I am free from all liability as a co-signer for this debt because Toyota did not allow me my legal right of redemption.
QUESTION 1:
Is it correct to state that a deficiency can NOT be claimed by OC/CA unless all the required notices were properly and timely given to both primary and co-signer? Where do I find the cite for this? AND where do I find case history supporting it?
QUESTION 2: Which is the best / strongest approach ---
1. Letter of Validation demanding proof of contract, etc.
2. Letter of Deficiency Dispute demanding proof of notification. – (Concern here is IF CA doesn’t drop pursuit and litigates, what IF OC mistakenly sent notice to me at a wrong address (ex: Ex’s address), could this possibly be construed as a “good faith†effort on their part?]
3. Demand proof of both ? - Or am I confusing apples and pears? One is questioning the original debt and one is questioning the deficiency debt. Should I keep it simple and just stick with violation of my right of redemption?
QUESTION 3:
Can/should I, in my initial response that I am sending to both the CA and OC demanding proof, also demand above mentioned notarized letter from Toyota releasing me from all liability?
FACTS:
1- Ex defaulted on car loan I had co-signed.
2- OC had my address (on contract), was advised (by phone) of divorce and address confirmed, and sent paperwork for title name change from divorce to this address.
3- No notification of Ex’s payment delinquency – no chance to take over payments.
4- No notification of impending auction of car – no right of redemption as law required.
5. CA (junk debt buyer) is demanding I pay the deficiency from sale of vehicle. (Ex is in hiding from creditors.)
OBJECTIVE:
1. Good- CA drops their claim and doesn’t litigate… plus restoration of good credit rating.
2. Better- Toyota purchases back the debt from the CA so this nightmare ends here, PLUS sends me a notarized letter stating I am free from all liability as a co-signer for this debt because Toyota did not allow me my legal right of redemption.
QUESTION 1:
Is it correct to state that a deficiency can NOT be claimed by OC/CA unless all the required notices were properly and timely given to both primary and co-signer? Where do I find the cite for this? AND where do I find case history supporting it?
QUESTION 2: Which is the best / strongest approach ---
1. Letter of Validation demanding proof of contract, etc.
2. Letter of Deficiency Dispute demanding proof of notification. – (Concern here is IF CA doesn’t drop pursuit and litigates, what IF OC mistakenly sent notice to me at a wrong address (ex: Ex’s address), could this possibly be construed as a “good faith†effort on their part?]
3. Demand proof of both ? - Or am I confusing apples and pears? One is questioning the original debt and one is questioning the deficiency debt. Should I keep it simple and just stick with violation of my right of redemption?
QUESTION 3:
Can/should I, in my initial response that I am sending to both the CA and OC demanding proof, also demand above mentioned notarized letter from Toyota releasing me from all liability?
OK...just checking. Repo's in most states are covered under the
OK...just checking. Repo's in most states are covered under the UCC SOL of 4 years which starts when the deficiency is realized. You might PM DebtCruncher on this one. He's the repo guru here.
I've read your post and will respond soon... forgive me, though,
I've read your post and will respond soon... forgive me, though, it is Friday night and I'm getting ready to go out, so I don't have time right now.....
Nascar, the actual act of repossession is generally covered unde
Nascar, the actual act of repossession is generally covered under the UCC. But the financing contract itself that creates a security interest is usually governed by state law and would follow SOL for a "written contract" in that state. (In IL it's 10 years).
Having said that...
1) As a co-borrower, you would have been equally responsible for the debt. (Getting divorced doesn't affect your responsibility on the account).
3) If they were reporting the delinquency on your credit report as the payments were missed, then they definitely should have sent you late notices, or at least the FCRA notices required by Reg V
2) Upon repossession, they should have sent all debtors on the account the required notices. (Notice of Intent, Right to Redeem, etc).
3) After the sale, they should have provided an accounting of the sale and notice of deficiency balance due.
Quote:
OBJECTIVE: 1. Good- CA drops their claim and doesn???t litigate??? plus restoration of good credit rating. |
Quote:
2. Better- Toyota purchases back the debt from the CA so this nightmare ends here, PLUS sends me a notarized letter stating I am free from all liability as a co-signer for this debt because Toyota did not allow me my legal right of redemption. |
Quote:
QUESTION 1: Is it correct to state that a deficiency can NOT be claimed by OC/CA unless all the required notices were properly and timely given to both primary and co-signer? Where do I find the cite for this? AND where do I find case history supporting it? |
Quote:
QUESTION 2: Which is the best / strongest approach --- 1. Letter of Validation demanding proof of contract, etc. 2. Letter of Deficiency Dispute demanding proof of notification. ??? (Concern here is IF CA doesn???t drop pursuit and litigates, what IF OC mistakenly sent notice to me at a wrong address (ex: Ex???s address), could this possibly be construed as a ???good faith??? effort on their part?] 3. Demand proof of both ? - Or am I confusing apples and pears? One is questioning the original debt and one is questioning the deficiency debt. Should I keep it simple and just stick with violation of my right of redemption? |
1. Yes
2. Yes, demand to see copies of the notices they sent you upon repo (IL requires lenders to send them certified). If creditor sent your notices to previous address, they might argue "good faith" - but do you have anything to prove they had your new address (ie anything they mailed you afterwards)? Or else you could subpoena their computer notes to see if/when they have a record of changing your address.
3. Yes. You can also demand an accounting of the sale (evidenced by 3 bids & bill of sale if private sale bidding, or auctioneer's receipt if it was sold at a public auction). Demand an accounting of the balance, you should see some credits for 1) if it was a 78ths note, there should be a finance charge rebate upon termination for the unearned interest; 2) if you had any warranties, CL/AH, or GAP, there should be credits for any cancellation refunds against those products.
Quote:2. Yes, demand to see copies of the notices they sent you
Quote:
2. Yes, demand to see copies of the notices they sent you upon repo (IL requires lenders to send them certified). If creditor sent your notices to previous address, they might argue "good faith" - but do you have anything to prove they had your new address (ie anything they mailed you afterwards)? Or else you could subpoena their computer notes to see if/when they have a record of changing your address. |
this one appears easy to prove because when the divorce took place, the lender sent the paperwork for the title name change to her present address. That happened before the payments got behind from the looks of it, so that should help.