We purchased a used vehicle in March 2011. In December 2012 the loan company delivered to us the title signed and dated releasing interest in the vehicle. Following instructions on the title, we submitted the title to DMV and a new title with no lienholder was issued to us. Now the loan company is threatening to repossess the vehicle. Can they repossess the vehicle after having released interest in the vehicle?
If the "release" was in error, yes. Otherwise, no.
I am licensed in California only and my answers on Avvo assume California law. Answers provided by me are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers must not be relied upon. Legal advice must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement signed by each of us. The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential and I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo or because I have answered or commented on a question. All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take appropriate action and because I do not provide legal advice in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult with an attorney for legal advice. Also, see Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference
Lemon Law Attorney
To repossess a vehicle the lien holder must have a perfected security interest in the vehicle and have that filed. Further, there must be a contract in place and a default under the contract. None of this exists in your fact pattern. Now, that threat to repo, that's a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act and worth up to $1,000.00 to you if it is provably (hopefully in writing) and they have to pay your atty too.
For more info or direction, contact my office.