My mother went to a car auction back in February of this year. She was looking to purchase a car but was told that the auction was only open to those with dealer licenses, not the general public. The lady at the registration desk introduced her to a dealer who she said could help her in purchasing a car. My mother had a cashier's check in the amount of $4000 which was made out to the auctioneers. She showed the dealer the car she wanted and he made a bid for it. He won the bid but when they tried to drive the car off the lot, it did not work. He returned the car to the auctioneers and purchased two other cars that day (neither of which was chosen by mother). They went to his office after the auction and he told her that he would help her find the car that she had wanted. He said he had another car she could purchase but it would cost an additional $1400. She did not want that car since all she wanted to spend was the $4000 she had given him. About a week went buy and he was not able to find the car that she had wanted at the auction. She asked for her money back but he said that he had used it to purchase the other cars that day. He said he would give her back the money once he sold both vehicles. It's been almost 3 months and he continues to give her the run around. I'm not sure what legal action she can take since the check was never made out to him but to the auctioneers, so I'm not sure how he was able to purchase the cars and still put his name on the titles? What steps can she take next to get her money back?

She made a big mistake. It was not his money to use. I would contact an attorney. When he realizes his license is in jeopardy maybe he will move to repay her

I'm afraid she has made some poor decisions regarding this auto purchase.

With the check being made out to the auctioneers, ANYONE was able to use it to make purchases at the auction.

Unless she has something in writing regarding the buyer accepting the check in exchange for his services, now it is merely her word against his.

If she has something in writing, or has some eye witnesses who are willing to show up to testify against this guy, she may be out the $4000.

With a written agreement, or eye witnesses, she can attempt to sue him for the money.

She should contact the Department of Transportation in your state and file a complaint against the dealer and the auctioneers.

My question is this: how was the dealer able to use your mother's money if her name was on the check and it was made out to the auctioneers? The dealer has no involvement in a cashiers' check when their name is not on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

She should contact the Department of Transportation in your state and file a complaint against the dealer and the auctioneers.

My question is this: how was the dealer able to use your mother's money if her name was on the check and it was made out to the auctioneers? The dealer has no involvement in a cashiers' check when their name is not on it.

---

I disagree, but won't give you a red dot over this one.

The dealer could easily use the cashiers check because it was already made out to the auction.

The auction is there to sell vehicles and make money, why would they care who actually purchased the cashiers check as long as it was made out to them? It was as if he handed them cash.

At this point, I'm assuming that she has nothing in writing to use to take this guy to court.

I did think of one other option, slim chance it will work if this guy was really out to take her money, but, she could try to locate this "buyer" so she could speak to him in person. In a face to face discussion, she could elude to the fact that she has spoken to an attorney, and unless he gives her a promise in writing as to when she will receive her vehicle or money back, she will proceed with legal action. If he is stupid enough to agree, at least then she would have a written agreement and basically a confession that he indeed owes her something.

It may be a good idea to loosen her standards on a vehicle if he offers that instead of the money. At least she will have received something, which is always better than nothing.

Most cashier's check need to be filled out to show who is making the payment; the mother should have put her own name on it. If she did, the auction should never have accepted it as it wasn't from a registered dealer. If she didn't, then the dealer is guilty of theft, not to mention abusing the auction's "dealer only" policy because they essentially let their customer chose and purchase the car that they wanted; that was why I recommended filing a complaint with the DOT. The dealer is not operating legally on either of these situations.

She should have some type of proof that she is the party who actually purchased the cashier's check in the first place; that will show that the dealer did in fact take her money and gave her nothing in return.

One other thing I just thought of: it matters who pays for the vehicle, because dealers are exempt from sales tax. If they took a non-dealer's money and didn't charge tax on the vehicle purchase, then that's a whole 'nother can of worms that they just opened.

And he hasn't "stolen" anything yet.

She "gave" him the check for the purchase of the vehicle.

The vehicle didn't perform.

He tried to offer other choices.

She refused.

He told her he would give her a refund, when the other cars he bought sell.

While he has been very shady, he is not guilty of any crime.

He didn't pull a gun and demand the check, he didn't pressure her into giving him the check, she wanted to give him the check, she wanted the car.

She just went about it in the wrong way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

One other thing I just thought of: it matters who pays for the vehicle, because dealers are exempt from sales tax. If they took a non-dealer's money and didn't charge tax on the vehicle purchase, then that's a whole 'nother can of worms that they just opened.

---

All the dealer is required to do is transfer the title. Some states require the title to be transferred to the dealers name before it can be re-registered, some do not, and allow the dealer to transfer from previous owner to the new owner without putting the title in the dealers name.

The person who licenses and registers the vehicle will pay the tax, no matter who it is.

Assuming she still does not have a car, perhaps she should try and work out a deal on one of the cars he has?? Also consider recording the converstation about him using the money. ( assumming OK for one sided recording in your state) ** also where recording is not allowed in criminal, they are allowed in civil in some states also)

But in the end she will have to sue him. File a complaint against him with the state licensing department.

Give it up this8384, while his actions are shady to say the least, he has not broken any law.

He has not stolen anything, it was freely given to him.

Do you think it was his fault that the car she wanted had mechanical problems?

Since he did "purchase" that vehicle for her, he fulfilled his end of the deal. After that fact, the mechanical problems became evident. The rest is just a mess of what should not have been done.

I stand by the FACT that he has not broken any law.

Her only recourse would be a civil suit, not criminal charges.

He took money under the guise that she would receive a car. I agree that it's not his fault that the car she wanted didn't work; however, as soon as he returned the car to the auction, he should have returned her money. Instead, he kept her money and bought himself more cars with it. That's why I recommended that she file with the DOT.

That is much better, and I agree, that is one of her available options.

Since you have removed the talk of theft and stealing, we are on the same page.

I was raised with the mindset that you do not take something that doesn't belong to you; I'm also an auto dealer myself so this post hit me in 2 soft spots.

I don't like people who are shady and I don't like when people assume that all dealers are. This guy is a the perfect example of why people don't trust auto dealers; he lied to this woman and refuses to remedy the problem that he created. Yes, the money was "freely" given to him but it was specifically given towards the purchase of a vehicle and that's why I brought up theft before. If you gave me $20 and asked me to buy you groceries for you with it but I went and bought myself shoes instead, I'd be calling myself a thief.

That's just my opinion; we can all friends here :)

True enough, If I didn't buy the groceries, it would be.

But, if I bought milk and eggs, and the milk was spoiled, and the eggs were rotten, you would still want your money back, but I would not have stolen anything from you.

Yes, at times here, we just have to agree to disagree, and still remain friendly!

Right again; spoiled milk and rotten eggs wouldn't be very good. However, if I take the bad food back to the store, get your money refunded and then spend it for myself, that's where the moral issue is.

And now I can't get Ron Burgandy from "Anchorman" out of my head after your "agree to disagree" comment *lol*

[QUOTE=JudyKayTee disagrees: Once again this must vary be States - happens all the time in NYS; you let the dealer know what you want, he goes to the auction with you, nothing illegal.[/QUOTE]

But the problem is that the OP stated it's a dealer only auction. If the auction was following their own policy, they should not have accepted a cashier's check from any John Doe off the street; that's why I asked who's name was on the check.

Why I said "illegal" is because he bought the car she wanted, returned it to the auction and kept her money. If Wal-Mart tried keeping your money after you returned a defective TV, that sure wouldn't be legal.

Hello Kas:

Your mother needs to sue the dealer in small claims court.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

But the problem is that the OP stated it's a dealer only auction. If the auction was following their own policy, they should not have accepted a cashier's check from any John Doe off the street; that's why I asked who's name was on the check.

Why I said "illegal" is because he bought the car she wanted, returned it to the auction and kept her money. If Wal-Mart tried keeping your money after you returned a defective TV, that sure wouldn't be legal.

---

You are adding apples and oranges with the Wal-Mart argument. Also - morals or ethics are not the argument - it's about the law.

In NYS - and I cannot address other States - a citizen off the street can attend a dealer-only auction if that person's credentials are accepted at the front desk. Many people attend with a dealer and then go back on their own. I know because it's a liability problem in more than one instance.

You say you are an auto dealer so I assume you own a dealership - I had an instance involving the lemon law and a new car, returned it and the dealership refused to refund my money - right up until we went to Court. Is this the same type of circumstance?

To sum it up in my mind - the mother should sue, take her proof and not get tangled up in side issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

You say you are an auto dealer so I assume you own a dealership - I had an instance involving the lemon law and a new car, returned it and the dealership refused to refund my money - right up until we went to Court. Is this the same type of circumstance?

To sum it up in my mind - the mother should sue, take her proof and not get tangled up in side issues.

---

Your situation has both similarities and differences. Under the Lemon Law, the dealership should have refunded your money which they did not, resulting in you suing them in order to be reimbursed.

The OP's mother cannot use the Lemon Law in her case because it was a used car, not a new one. I agree 100% whole-heartedly that the mother should sue the dealership because they've taken her money and given her nothing in return. That was also why I recommended filing a complaint with the DOT in her state. If she files with the DOT, they will investigate her complaint which could force the dealer to reimburse her without anyone ever having to step foot in court.