[ChihuahuaMomma]

It would be interesting to know in whose name is the car titled.

Verbal agreements are binding. Yor grandmother is just asking to get back the money she spent on helping your sister buy the car.

Truth is a defense to defamation. Your sister looks like the bad guy by not paying your grandmother back.

The title is in my sister's name. It was her choice to put the car on the credit card and it wasn't revealed to my sister until three years later when the card was paid off. I don't see how my sister is responsible for that.

[twinkiedooter]

CM - I kind of figured that there was no phone number. That certainly would have been too easy. You might want to also check out just who owns the property with the County folks if you can do this online. You just may be surprised to find out just who's address this really is. Also cross check the name of the attorney in the public records of the county to see just where he lives (if he owns real estate that is). You'll probably be surprised.

I do this sort of thing all the time and I come up with some rather interesting results when I "cruise" the county records... from the tax auditor's office, to the civil and criminal dockets. It's really a WOW some days for me. I guess you could say I'm a wannabe detective.

[ScottGem]

Grandma didn't ask for payment for interest, and didn't reveal to sister that she even put it on the card until two months ago when the balance was paid off.

See, the issue here is there was NO written agreement (correct?). A lot depends on what each party claims was the deal. If Grandma said 'I will pay for the car and you pay me $75/mth until the balance is paid' then she has wriggle room. Your sister can claim that she was not aware there would be interest and it becomes a he said/she said. Another issue is what Grandma said when sis stopped payments. If it was something like;

G: Why did you stop payments?
S: because I paid the whole $3000
G: But I put this on a credit card so there is interest and you need to keep paying until that's paid.

It still becomes a matter of your sister having no proof that interest was in the agreement. Without that I think a court is going to side with Grandma because its normal to charge interest when someone loans money. And this WAS a loan! Anytime one party provide3s money for another party to use with the expectation of a payback, it's a loan.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

See, the issue here is there was NO written agreement (correct?). A lot depends on what each party claims was the deal. If Grandma said 'I will pay for the car and you pay me $75/mth until the balance is paid' then she has wriggle room. Your sister can claim that she was not aware there would be interest and it becomes a he said/she said. Another issue is what Grandma said when sis stopped payments. If it was something like;

G: Why did you stop payments?
S: because I paid the whole $3000
G: But I put this on a credit card so there is interest and you need to keep paying until that's paid.

It still becomes a matter of your sister having no proof that interest was in the agreement. Without that I think a court is going to side with Grandma because its normal to charge interest when someone loans money. And this WAS a loan! Anytime one party provide3s money for another party to use with the expectation of a payback, its a loan.

Correct, there was no written agreement, only verbal. And I meant grandma didn't take a loan.

[ScottGem]

And I meant grandma didn't take a loan.

Actually she did. By using a credit card to make the purchase she was taking out a loan.

Frankly, unless sis can prove that grandma only expected the $3K to be repaid, then she is going to lose in court.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Actually she did. By using a credit card to make the purchase she was taking out a loan.

Frankly, unless sis can prove that grandma only expected the $3K to be repaid, then she is going to lose in court.

OKAY, I meant that Grandmother did not take a loan from the finance company to purchase the car. Thank you.

I'm sorry to be disrespectful but how can you predict the outcome of a case that has yet to even occur? I think that is up to the judge if this actually even goes to court.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

CM - I kinda figured that there was no phone number. That certainly would have been too easy. You might want to also check out just who owns the property with the County folks if you can do this online. You just may be surprised to find out just who's address this really is. Also cross check the name of the attorney in the public records of the county to see just where he lives (if he owns real estate that is). You'll probably be surprised.

I do this sort of thing all the time and I come up with some rather interesting results when I "cruise" the county records.... from the tax auditor's office, to the civil and criminal dockets. It's really a WOW some days for me. I guess you could say I'm a wannabe detective.

I did Google the address and it turned out to be the lawfirm that the lawyer says she works for in the letter, yet she's not listed there on the state bar. I will call Monday to find out if she's really there.

And here is the information that Judy found for me on the subject:
"She WAS a presiding (in office) Administrative Employment Law Judge. Might still be.
She’s active in the gay rights/civil rights movement; in fact, is legally married to a female."--JudyKayTee

[ScottGem]

I'm sorry to be disrespectful but how can you predict the outcome of a case that has yet to even occur? I think that is up to the judge if this actually even goes to court.

I'm not predicting the outcome, I'm expressing my opinion based on my knowledge of the law and court procedures. Of course, it will be up to a judge. But a judge has to rule according to the law. Contract law requires that there be an offer and an acceptance. So Grandma made the offer to pay for the car. Sis accepted the offer by taking the car and making payments. So the ONLY question here is whether the agreement was to pay just the purchase price or the financed price. A reasonable person would expect to pay interest for a loan. So a judge will rule on the "reasonable person" premise. This is reinforced by the fact that Grandma asked why payments stopped. So its my opinion that, unless she can prove that only the purchase price needed to be repaid, she will lose.

[JudyKayTee]

My question was and is - did the sister agree to X payments of $X each. Or did she say, "I'll pay $X a month until the balance is paid?

[ChihuahuaMomma]

They agreed upon $75 a month for 40 months.

[JudyKayTee]

And there's your answer - the ORAL CONTRACT was 40 x $75 - anything after this attempts to amend the contract.

Your sister owes EXACTLY 40 x $75.

[ScottGem]

They agreed upon $75 a month for 40 months.

Can she prove it? While Judy is correct that Grandma can't change the contract, sis has to prove that was the contract.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

No, and Grandma can't disprove it. It was a verbal contract.

[ScottGem]

No, and Grandma can't disprove it. It was a verbal contract.

And therein lies the rub. Since neither can prove that was the agreement a judge will have to rule based on the reasonable premise principle I mentioned. If I was the judge I would tend to side with Grandma based on the evidence presented here.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

What evidence? That it's reasonable to expect interest?

[ScottGem]

What evidence? That it's reasonable to expect interest?

Haven't you been paying attention? I explained the law that a judge will have to follow a few posts back!

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Anyway. I'll come back with updates about the phone call tomorrow. It's also suggested that sister send a copy of the letter to the state bar.