[JudyKayTee]

If a man purchases a (very expensive, by the way) auto for a woman in contemplation of marriage (and pays cash!), auto is titled/registered in both names, they do marry - and then she files for an annulment what, if any, claim does he have on the car?

I don't know what the alleged grounds for the annulment are.

I realize this is a question for an Attorney but does anyone have any idea? I can't find anything on the subject.

[Wondergirl]

I found this --

Gifts in Contemplation of Marriage

A gift conditioned on marriage, such as an engagement ring, may be recoverable by the donor under certain circumstances if the marriage does not take place. Under Civil Code section 1590, when a party to an intended marriage receives a premarital gift of money or property from the other party and then refuses to enter into the marriage as contemplated or both parties agree to not marry one another, the party giving the money or property may reclaim it or whatever part of its value the court or a jury finds proper.

But since they did marry, I'm guessing the car is hers free and clear, as property acquired before marriage. (The courts have no authority over non–marital property. Generally speaking, all property acquired by either spouse before the marriage is considered non–marital property.)

[cdad]

What you have to understand is that they did get married. No the important focus would be on why an annulment was chosen. If it were due to deception on her part. Like already married etc then there may be recourse. If not then the car might be lost forever.

[JudyKayTee]

What you have to understand is that they did get married. No the important focus would be on why an annulment was chosen. If it were due to deception on her part. Like already married etc then there may be recourse. If not then the car might be lost forever.

Here is the devil's advocate part of me - the annulment will (presumably) be granted because for some reason or other (as Wondergirl said) there was an impediment to a legal marriage. Otherwise there would be a divorce.

So - if the annulment means there was no marriage...

[cdad]

Here is the devil's advocate part of me - the annulment will (presumably) be granted because for some reason or other (as Wondergirl said) there was an impediment to a legal marriage. Otherwise there would be a divorce.

So - if the annulment means there was no marriage ...

An annulment doesn't mean a marriage didn't occur. It means that the marriage is invalid. There is a big difference. But like I had said if deceit comes into play then its up for grabs.

[stinawords]

At leat in my state an annulment means that the marriage legally did not happen. Any taxes filled jointly during the marriage have to be refilled separately because of it being "never happened". But as for the car it was titled in both names then he would at least have an equal share (again in Indiana).

[this8384]

I agree with stina on this one. If the vehicle is registered in both names, it is the legal property of both parties, regardless of marriage or annulment. The vehicle cannot be sold or traded in with only one signature UNLESS the title reads "Mr. John Doe OR Mrs. Jane Doe" - if the title reads AND instead of OR, then it's his vehicle too.

[rw113]

An annulment means no marriage is deemed to have taken place, retroactive to prior to the marriage. Since she is filing for annulment, if the care was conditioned on marriage, the likelihood is Civil Code 1590 would entitle him to a return of his property.

However, there is also a presumption of title - which is likely to take precedence in this situation. Talk to an attorney.

[JudyKayTee]

"An annulment means no marriage is deemed to have taken place, retroactive to prior to the marriage. Since she is filing for annulment, if the care was conditioned on marriage, the likelihood is Civil Code 1590 would entitle him to a return of his property.

However, there is also a presumption of title - which is likely to take precedence in this situation. Talk to an attorney."

I have no idea what "retroactive to/prior to" the marriage means.

How did this work out? The Court decided it was not a gift in contemplation of marriage because, if it were, it would have been in the name of the person gifted, solely.

By the way, the Court decided this in 2010.

[AK lawyer]

I found this --
Gifts in Contemplation of Marriage
... Civil Code section 1590, ...

What state or country, Wondergirl, is it in which section 1590 is the law? It matters a great deal.

Oh. Now I see that it's an old thread. OP probably long since solved his problem, I guess.

[cdad]

What state or country, Wondergirl, is it in which section 1590 is the law? It matters a great deal.

Oh. Now I see that it's an old thread. OP probably long since solved his problem, I guess.

I think she did. Just read the post above yours.

[AK lawyer]

I think she did. Just read the post above yours.

Ah, right. Sorry JudyKayTee, "she". :)

Anyway, I tend to agree: an anullment would be the same as if the marriage never took place, in which case if the law in the jurisdiction says the giver gets it back, absent marriage", s/he would get it back (or the half interest given in the case of a jointly titled automobile). So, in other words, the court was wrong.

[JudyKayTee]

To hijack and discuss "wrong decisions" - I was in Court recenty (on another matter) when a Judge threw out checks which had "loan" written on them, no question "loan" was on the checks when they were cashed, not added later.

The ruling was that they were uncollectible because "loan" doesn't state terms. "Apparently" in NY "you" would have to write "$5,000, $250 [or whatever] per month on the 15th of each month until paid."

I've never seen that before!

So, yes, there are screwy rulings.