[berrysweetncgurl]

:mad: Ok so here is the question please bear with me, I got this car from a private dealer that my ex knows. On the title that I signed it said that the car was paid in full, there was no lien on it whatsoever. It was not notarized with me present. A couple of weeks later my boyfriend (ex now) decided he was going to get some rims and tires from the guy to put on the car. From what I knew the rims and tires were paid off. Now that we broke up the guy called (a friend of his) and said he was going to repossess my car because there was still $240 left owed on the rims and the tires. He said that there was a lien on the car because of the rims and tires. I am confused because how would a lien be put on the car if when I signed the title the rims and tires were not even in the picture? Could he legally in NC repossess the car if the rims and tires were not paid off? Or could he just repossess the rims and tires?
So either way it goes, I gave him the $240 to pay off my ex's debt, but now I am keeping the rims and tires. When I did he gave me the title that said he had released the lien. I am still confused because like I said before when I signed the title to the car to begin with the title had NO lien on it, and my ex didn't get the rims and tires put on there till weeks later. Could he have added the rims and tires as a lien on my car without me even present? And if this is illegal, What can I do about it?
Thank you in advance to anyone who can help me with this situation, if there are any questions you need to ask me to answer this question better please let me know!

[RichardBondMan]

If I understand this, first you bought the car, received the title, saw there was no lien, but this is where I am confused --- after the tires, rim deal and after you paid him the additional $240, he gave you the title again ? If you had the title in the first place, saw there was no lien (and I guess he didn't install the tires and rims and had posssession of the veh ?), then I don't see how he could have had any lien on the vehicle, your ex just owes him for the tires and rims and if he can't collect, he should go after your ex, not you? And can't place a lien on the veh if you have the original title and he didn't install the tires and rims, so he can't have a mechanics lien where he had possession of the veh and won't release the vehicle until the bill is paid. Maybe give us more details.

[berrysweetncgurl]

I bought the car and then went to the dmv to send off the title, when I sent off the title it went back to him, and that's where I am confused too... as far as I know there was no lien on the car when I signed the title. But when it came back he kept the title... it was something I am sure him and my ex worked out to try to keep the car from me. But it all doesn't really matter anymore because I paid the 240 just to keep him from repo-ing the car and I had the receipt marked paid in full so I don't have to deal with him or my ex anymore. I'm just pissed because he was trying to repo it illegally. And the fact that he was trying to repo the car because of the rims and tires not being paid off and they were not a "part" of the car when I signed the title,

[mr.yet]

Report this matter to the state attorney in you county, it confusing why there is two titles.

Smells like fraud.

[Fr_Chuck]

Sounds like one title, but the dealer had the title sent to him, not to the owner. ( in some states the titles come back to dealers to be given to the buyer)

But he could have ( but did not) apply a mechanics lien on the car for the additional work. Same as if you took it to "Sams Garage" and had the transmission fixed. Where if you don't pay Sam, he will file a mechanics lien on the car.

But basically if the rims went on your car, you needed to pay the man, but he was sort of lying to you to be sure he got paid, Most likely since you broke up with ex he was scared about getttng his money.

What he did was not right, but then I am not sure I personally balme him, he more "streached" the truth since he could have filed a lien.