Re: Legal question on car ownership

On 23 Dec 2007, jtees4 <jtees4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I bought four cars over the last few years . . . [using]
money from a joint account with my wife. One is
mine, one is my wife's, one is my son's, and the fourth
is basically an extra car. Recently my wife was telling
me that she does not own her car. It's true her name
is not on the reistraton but I feel she can easily prove
the money was joint and she is joint owner. What do
you all think?

You are making numerous self-confusing and also materially incorrect
assumptions having to do with you conflating several different senses
of "own" as if one and the same and also on your misimpression of the
significance of funds in general and of a "joint [bank] account" in
particular.

(As an aside, you also neglect to explain what you think you mean by
"easily prove" if there were some sort of adverse claim/dispute if,
f'r'instance, it could also be proved [easily?] that you and your wife
do not always deposit all your income and gifts from others into the
bank account in question. Your "easily" and "prove" above thus beg
the question whether whoever is the adverse claimant, if there were an
unsettled dispute about the matter, would be able to show [bearing in
mind, too, that, presumptively, money is fungible] that the source of
funds for the payments was not the bank account [perhaps EVEN IF you
could show that on the day of or a few days before you made the
purchase you withdrew an amount from the bank account in question
equal to the purchase price or if you obtained bank checks from that
bank by way of a transfer of funds from that account (although you do
not say this is what occurred)].)

In any event, the generally prevailing principle of law throughout the
U.S. (though with some variations in the law from one jurisdiction to
another so that your failure to answer the "where?" question prevents
definitive/reliable analysis for you) is that joint owners of a bank
account are presumed to own an undivided interest in the whole,
although with a duty to account to one another for the funds on
deposit depending (among other things) on which of the two deposited
funds into the account in what amounts, so that, with respect to
_third_ parties (again: as distinguished from the account owners as
between themselves), the person who makes a purchase of goods or
services is presumed to be making a purchase on his or her own behalf
(UNLESS it can be shown by competent evidence that an element of the
seller's contract - what the seller agreed - was that the sale was to
both owners of the account, although you do not make any such
statement with respect to your purchase of the vehicles to which you
refer and, in any case [if a real-life law-related "case" relating to
these issues were to eventuate] what evidence would be "competent" for
this purpose could become an issue that undermines both your "easily"
and "prove").

Much more to the point, it is the law in all fifty U.S. states that
the "owner" of a vehicle registered to drive on the roads of the state
is the person in whose name title of the vehicle is held, in a "title"
jurisdiction, or in whose name the car is registered in a (mere
registration without title) state for the purposes of dealing with the
state and with other _third_ parties.

(Depending on where the husband and wife permanently reside and on the
nature of any written agreements between them, there may be monetary
claims having to do with "community property" or "equitable
distribution" rights/obligations in the context of marital economic
relations regardless in whose name between the two [or, perhaps, in
the name of some putative corporate or like enterprise in which they
have ownership interests] a vehicle is titled or registered. It is
also possible, and sometimes the fact, that personA and personB agree
that, as between the two, personA shall be the nominal owner of a
vehicle in whose name the vehicle shall be titled and/or registered
but, nonetheless, this shall be deemed an agency or other "trust"
relationship in/by which personA does so entirely/solely for the
benefit of personB, so that, as between the two, personB and not
personA shall be deemed the "owner" [who may or who may not have
provided the funds or credit to enable the purchase in the first
instance], _although_ such an agreement ordinarily would not have any
effect whatever on dealings relating to the vehicle's use and
ownership between personA [and/or personB], OTOH, and third parties
[e.g., the State or a person who might be injured in a crash between
the vehicle in question being driven by personA or personB] and, in
any event, whether and _how_ personA and personB have so agreed is
also not necessarily a matter that is "easily proved".)

She claims I can say the car was stolen
and she'd be in trouble.

If the registered owner reports to the police that the vehicle
registered in his or her name has been stolen and is probably being
driven by some identified other person (e.g., by the registered or
title owner's wife), the police ordinarily would make a reasonable
investigation or, at least, a note to themselves to inquire if they
happened to come across and see the vehicle and presumably would stop
and inquire if they did observed the vehicle and, in such event, the
apparent credibility of the complaint/report in light of the degree or
not of persuasiveness of the vehicle's driver might indeed result in
an arrest of the driver.

Whether in such event the police would also then become sufficiently
interested in investigating the reasons for and nature of what you
seem to be theorizing would be a false report of a serious crime
(because, on the facts as you posit them, you indicate that you and
your wife have agreed that, as between the two of you, the car she
will have been driving in the scenario you hypothesize would be
"[your] wife's" car even though registered only in your name and so
could not have been "stolen" from you) and then prosecute you as the
maker of a false police report or as prosecutable for some related
criminal offense is another question your hypothesized scenario raises
but does not answer.

Sure I could, but I think it would be pretty easy for
her to prove it was joint money etc.

In sum: this would depend in what PARTICULAR NATURE/CONTEXT of a
dispute and claim about who owned the car in question -- e.g., whether
between (only) you and your wife, whether against you by one of your
creditors, whether a claim against you or your wife or both of you by
someone who alleges s/he was injured by your wife's operation of the
vehicle, whether a monetary claim against your wife by a third-person
sought to be enforced as against the vehicle with that other person
claiming it belongs only to your wife and not to you despite you being
the registered owner; etc., etc.

What do you all think?

At least insofar as the vehicles in question are concerned, you appear
to be making your life more complicated than it need be and,
apparently (you seem to imply), you are creating friction with your
wife that can and perhaps ought be avoidable (EASILY) if you would
simply transfer whichever applies of the title and/or registration to
her so that what you refer to as "[your] wife's" car actually can and
would be registered in her name as owner and, if applicable depending
where you and she reside, titled in her name (and, if you and your
wife and son agree, DITTO with respect to the car you say you are all
treating as if his).

You meanwhile might want to note that it will not be difficult for you
to obtain confirmation although one might hope for you sake that you
never have the real-life occasion to confront the reality that perhaps
one of the most self-delusional and also self-damaging assumptions to
many persons make viz-a-viz potentially disputed situations is that
some sort of fact or claim can be "easily proved" (even though,
sometimes in some cases, this might be so).

------------------------------------

There is not any need to respond/acknowledge as, instead, either
just do the simple/practical Thing, or don't, as you wish.
.

Relevant Pages

  • ZANU PF are cowards....
    ... They told me that I had two minutes to vacate my property otherwise they will send the mob there and the house is not worth sacrificing my life for. ... At that stage I asked them if they would react to any incident that my occur and they informed my wife that they would speak to the Assistant Inspector. ... I managed to get through to the Assistant Inspector and the Chegutu Police Station to ask for assistance before there were dead bodies in the house. ... When they had finished beating her, one of them grabbed her by her feet and dragged her over to the vehicle. ...
    (soc.culture.zimbabwe)
  • wild life photographer became wheelchair bound due to chronic Lyme disease
    ... It's the world's only expedition-class AWD motorhome. ... Shahn Torontow ... A gift of love for his wife, he began with an OSHKOSH M1000 ... an extraordinary vehicle that offers complete luxury almost anywhere. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: Hotmail ID impersonation question
    ... but this is actually a message board for questions about the ... your wife really has set up an email account and really did send ... > myself or my wife had set up a Hotmail account. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.security)
  • Re: Tracfone Promotional Codes
    ... We have our account set up with our credit card so that it ... the account data on their website saying that they have the wrong ... Still, for an occasional user like me and my wife, it's a very good ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Dead Hollywood Producer, Daughter Ruled Accidental
    ... He deserts the wife, dumps ... The part that jumps out at me is that some of their belongings were stuffed ... He had so much crap in the vehicle he needed to clear some out for them ... Making room for a place to sleep back ...
    (alt.true-crime)