Car possession assigned to wife, title in husbands name

[terrance10]

-------BACKSTORY--------
In the original documents she received ownership of the car that they bought together (although title is still in his name).

But there was an oral agreement for amendment, that if she returned the car that he would assume responsibility for some of the debts previously allocated to her (including the car loan).

So he wrote up the amendment and they signed it. However when I looked over amended document and while the debts were listed as his responsibility, the possession of the car is still listed as hers.



It seems like a clerical accident on his part but in that case is it still considered binding? There is some more evidence of this because while the car loan was transferred to his name in the debt section. In the possessions section the loan is noted as security for the car. However in this section the loan is still listed as her responsibility.

Intent for transfer of the vehicle was also not specified in the amendment reason as follows:
"The car is in 'husbands' name and 'wife' is unable to make payments for it at this time."

-------MY QUESTION--------
He said that if she didn't return the car by the end of the month (as agreed orally) he would call it in as stolen. He does have the title but if it's listed as hers in the papers would she still face repercussions?

It's not necessarily an ethical thing to do but at this point I'm just in search of a loophole to help her get anything out of this divorce.
They constructed it themselves and he obviously took as much as he could, because she didn't know any better.

I mean no alimony, no custody, and passing on his loans from before marriage to someone who was previously a "stay at home mom". Not cool.

 

[army judge]

Expect anyone to attempt most anything.
If he reports the car stolen, the police might believe him, or they might not.
The sure way to not get caught up in the madness others create is to avoid playing their silly games.
If I were advising her, I'd tell her to give him back the car.
If she chooses to keep it, or give it back, their divorce decree has no impact on the loan contract, if she was a signatory to same.
Divorcing spouses mistakenly believe the decree means to others what it means to them.
It doesn't.
No divorce court judge can mandate to a lender that Sam be absolved of his liability under a loan contract, and Judy be solely responsible for paying the note.
They both remain on the hook to Big Bucks National Bank.
As to the car, the jerk with his threats, and potential car theft; highly unlikely, but not impossible.

If her name is on title, she remains the LEGAL owner of the vehicle.