Statute of Limitations on Vehicle Repossession

Status
Not open for further replies.

bizminded

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
It is now 2018. I had a lease from 2005 for a Mercedes Benz CLK 55 AMG. When I went to turn the car in at the end of the lease (2008), the dealer wanted to charge me exorbitant amounts for a small ding and other minor issues. I told them "no" and drove away. Afterward, I tried and tried to settle but we couldn't agree. Since they wouldn't sign off on the return of the car, I had to keep it.

It was charged off in Aug 2008 and they refused to accept the car back at all. They never sought judgment. While they sent me to collections, they never repossessed the vehicle. The credit entries disappeared 3 years ago (after the 7 year expiration).

Yesterday, they repossessed the car. It's been 10 years.

Coincidentally, just 2 weeks ago, I called MBZ Financial & asked if I could buy the car. They wanted the full residual amount of $61K. The car is worth about $8K. I told them "no" and again offered $8K. They refused. I asked if they would take the car back and they said they were not able to do so as their time frame for collections had elapsed. They actually told me they had no further remedies.

As I can't sell the car without title, MBZ won't take it back & the convertible top leaked etc., just 2 weeks ago, I spent $5K on the car for new top, body & engine work and more figuring I would just drive it into the ground.

The 4 year SOL in CA has long since expired & I believe that renders the debt uncollectable. While I agree the debt is still owed & that they have collateral interest as a secured creditor, I believe the expiration of statute barred them from collecting & I believe repossession was a form of "collection."
 
Last edited:
If you want to file a suit, contact an attorney.
 
The 4 year SOL in CA has long since expired & I believe that renders the debt uncollectable. While I agree the debt is still owed & that they have collateral interest as a secured creditor, I believe the expiration of statute barred them from collecting & I believe repossession was a form of "collection.

You no longer owe the lender a dime, legally.

The SOL supports your position, despite the lender's assertions.

Have you ever heard of a BONDED TITLE?
Research same in CA.

Read the data on the website below, there is a way:

Request Rejected

I can't tell you, but I can point you in the right direction.
 
I asked if they would take the car back and they said they were not able to do so as their time frame for collections had elapsed. They actually told me they had no further remedies.

Calling them probably woke them up to the fact that you still had the car and that the car had some value to you so they lied to you and sandbagged you with the repo.

The 4 year SOL in CA has long since expired & I believe that renders the debt uncollectable.

Nope.

The 4 year statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

The right of repossession does not require a lawsuit so there is no deadline on the right of repossession.

You're right that the repossession is a form of "collection" but it is one that is not time barred by the statute of limitations.

just 2 weeks ago, I spent $5K on the car for new top, body & engine work and more figuring I would just drive it into the ground.

Nothing you can do about that.

And you can forget about a bonded title now that the car has already been repossessed.

You might be able to redeem the car or buy it at the auction when it goes up for sale.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the great answers. I looked up bonded title, and you're right, too late. But I learned something as I never even knew that existed.

As for the repo, I agree, that does not require a lawsuit and I agree that does not extinguish the debt, but I do think it extinguishes the remedy.

It seems clear that they have nor right... no remedy to collect.

THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REPOSSESSION IS LEGALLY A FORM OF COLLECTION.

I believe they used repossession as a remedy to collect on their debt. The question is whether remedy includes ALL remedies or only bars filing of a lawsuit.

The Statute of Limitations...

"Does not discharge the debt but only takes away the remedy." (Sichel v. Carillo) 42 Cal 493 Cited 50 Cal 150 and therefore becomes statute of repose McCormick v. Brown 36 Cal 180 Cited 72 Cal 600

"A creditor cannot recover after the statute has run upon the original contract or obligation without proving a new promise. " McCormick v. Brown 36 Cal 180

"Action to recover barred debt must be based on the new promise." Lambert v. Schmalz 118 Cal 35 50 Pac. 13

"When debt is barred by statute, remedy to enforce payment is gone." Lambert v. Schmalz 118 Cal 35 50 Pac. 13

They indeed got a very large payment from me today. Were they entitled? Hmmm...
 
They indeed got a very large payment from me today. Were they entitled? Hmmm...

This question has been asked many times, and is heavily debated among the legal community.

Once the car is repossessed, the clock starts ticking.

Under California law a repossession agency has 48 hours to give you a Notice of Seizure that provides you with the name and contact information of both the legal owner and the repossession agency.

The notice must also include an Inventory of Personal Effects that includes a list of your personal property in the vehicle when it was taken, as well as information about how to recover your property.

The notice must also show the amount charged for storage fees.

The repossession agency must store your items for 60 days, after which all unclaimed property can be discarded, or sold at auction.

Anything that YOU installed after-market to the car an audio system, custom rims, etc... don't expect to get them back unless you negotiate DIRECTLY with the lender.

Once the lender has "repoed", the lender has to take some affirmative steps before the car can be sold.

California law mandates the lender serve you (personally, by certified mail, or first-class mail) with at least 15 days written notice of their intent to sell the vehicle.

The Notice of Intent to Sell must be served within 60 days of the car's repossession.

The notice gives you the right to ask that the lender delay the sale for an additional 10 days.

Additional reading on CA repossession laws:

Can I Get My Repossessed Vehicle Back in California without Bankruptcy?

Zombie debt in Cali:

Debt collector calls about old debts that are past the SOL.

Good luck...
 
Actually guys... all of this is wrong... Here is what my attorney just told me:


California Commercial Code 2725 provides a four year statute of limitations. It extends the time to seek an alternative remedy 6 months after the termination of any other remedy. So your repo was not lawful. It would have been considered an abandoned vehicle because it was a leased vehicle.

Code of Civil Procedure 338(c)(1) limits an action to repossess property to 3 years:

"Within three years:

(c) (1) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or chattels, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property."

You may bring suit against the company MBZ for unjust enrichment and a lien for improvements to their vehicle. Since the lease lapsed years ago, you have had possession of an abandoned car, paid taxes on it, etc. It is the equivalent of adverse possession since you did not hide the car from them, and they refused to repo it until after you repaired it and spent considerable funds on their car.

I think a letter demanding the return of the vehicle should be sent to them giving them so many days, after that you can sue them for damages and return of the vehicle.

Your statute of limitations is three (3) years to seek the return of the vehicle. It is probably shorter for damages for conversion.

I will also say that I omitted the conversion and possessory action. Did they send you any notice of repo and sale? They are required to do so. You may also place a lien on the vehicle for the repairs. All of that may be necessary.

Also, you may demand that the law enforcement agency remove the authorization to tow for a $15 fee and demand the return of the vehicle, by reporting at stolen.

HE HAS DECIDED THAT THEY ABANDONED THE VEHICLE AND THEREFORE...

You are entitled to $1 a square foot storage fee for each month you've been storing the car since whenever it expired. A car is a 10 x 20 space. 200 square feet. Over a period of 9 years its about $21,600 plus reasonable interest. And if you made repairs to the vehicle, then that may be extra.

Thanks everyone!
 
Actually guys... all of this is wrong... Here is what my attorney just told me:


California Commercial Code 2725 provides a four year statute of limitations. It extends the time to seek an alternative remedy 6 months after the termination of any other remedy. So your repo was not lawful. It would have been considered an abandoned vehicle because it was a leased vehicle.

Code of Civil Procedure 338(c)(1) limits an action to repossess property to 3 years:

"Within three years:

(c) (1) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or chattels, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property."

You may bring suit against the company MBZ for unjust enrichment and a lien for improvements to their vehicle. Since the lease lapsed years ago, you have had possession of an abandoned car, paid taxes on it, etc. It is the equivalent of adverse possession since you did not hide the car from them, and they refused to repo it until after you repaired it and spent considerable funds on their car.

I think a letter demanding the return of the vehicle should be sent to them giving them so many days, after that you can sue them for damages and return of the vehicle.

Your statute of limitations is three (3) years to seek the return of the vehicle. It is probably shorter for damages for conversion.

I will also say that I omitted the conversion and possessory action. Did they send you any notice of repo and sale? They are required to do so. You may also place a lien on the vehicle for the repairs. All of that may be necessary.

Also, you may demand that the law enforcement agency remove the authorization to tow for a $15 fee and demand the return of the vehicle, by reporting at stolen.

HE HAS DECIDED THAT THEY ABANDONED THE VEHICLE AND THEREFORE...

You are entitled to $1 a square foot storage fee for each month you've been storing the car since whenever it expired. A car is a 10 x 20 space. 200 square feet. Over a period of 9 years its about $21,600 plus reasonable interest. And if you made repairs to the vehicle, then that may be extra.

Thanks everyone!

I didn't say ANYTHING about the lawfulness of the alleged repo.

I only provided you information as to how one might counter a repo and enforce any rights one still possesses after suffering a repo.

A lease is quite a bit different than a purchase.

Insofar as leases in CA, your state has special laws to address leases.

Read this expose first, as it addresses repossessions of MB financed leases:

IMPORTANT Mercedes-Benz Repossession Information

This one is about lease repossessions in CA generally:

California's Repossession Law for Leased Cars

You are NOT out of luck.

You have quite a bit of life left, IF things are as you've recited.
 
THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REPOSSESSION IS LEGALLY A FORM OF COLLECTION.

You can cite a thousand cases but they are irrelevant UNLESS they SAY that there is a statute of limitations on the repossession of collateral.

Find one that says that.

That's how case law works.
 
The car never belonged to you. You were fortunate to get to use it for so long.

The owner of the vehicle has taken it back because it was never paid for. You have always been using it on borrowed time.

I don't see you getting anywhere with any complaint.
 
I suggest you talk with a few more attorneys and get a consensus before you get a excited about what this one told you.

What I'm reading here makes me think you found a bit of a kook.
 
At least two of the posts hit the ball out of the park and I thank them as this thread was very exasperating. (Others were good as well.)

1. "The car never belonged to you. You were fortunate to get to use it for so long."

OP is not and never was the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was being rented. Rental agency is the owner. OP had a possessory right that ended when the lease was breached. It simply took the owner a long time to take back its property. This is akin to evicting a tenant who fails to pay rent but without the need to do a forcible detainer action.

2. "The 4 year statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit."

Not only that but it is an affirmative defense to a law suit - a defense that, if not timely raised, is waived.

OP - if you find an attny willing to file suit based upon the facts you have presented - ask him/her if he/she will do so on contingency. I'll venture that the answer will be a resounding "NO".

Des.
 
Your original post didn't ask a question, so I'm unsure what sort of response you're seeking.

THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REPOSSESSION IS LEGALLY A FORM OF COLLECTION.

That's not a legal question. Whether or not it's reasonable to slap a label ("collection") on a particular action (repossession) doesn't make a bit of difference.

They indeed got a very large payment from me today.

No, "they" didn't. "They" took possession of an asset that "they" legally owned.

Were they entitled?

Yes.

You apparently are in consultation with an attorney, so any further discussion seems to be pointless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top