Is there a way to reposes or make them pay for an item the butter never paid for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carterd11

New Member
Jurisdiction
Kansas
About a year ago I sold a friend my electric guitar + all the accessories. I gave it to him and trusted him to pay me when He got his paycheck but every time I ask for the money he tells me he doesn't have it. I didn't sign a contract of any sort and he will admit he owes me money plus I have friends who can verify that I sold the guitar to him and he never paid. Is there anyway I can reposes or make him give me the money?
 
You cannot just take the item back - that would be theft.

If he doesn't pay, you can sue him in small claims court. Here is information about that:

KS Courts - Small Claims Court

Small Claims Court -- basic information


EDIT: I'm assuming that we're talking about an amount less than $4,000. If the amount is more than $4,000, then you can either sue for the $4,000 in small claims court and forget about the rest, or you can consider filing in a higher court. The problem with that is that you will almost certainly need an attorney at that point, and that cost is on you.
 
That damn butter...never pays for anything!

Carterd11 said:
Is there anyway I can reposes or make him give me the money?
Click to expand...

The word is "repossess," and you can't legally do that in the absence of a perfected security interest, which you don't have (of course, you can ask that he voluntarily return the gear). Beyond that, your recourse is to sue -- presumably in small claims court. It appears the statute of limitations is three years from the date of breach.
 
Send him a non-threatening notice in writing of your intent to sue in small claims court for non payment, but offer a way out for free if all of the property is returned to you in good condition within 10 days or so of receiving your letter.

He may not comply, but it will give you something to show the court of your attempt to resolve this on your own. He also just might give it back to avoid the hassle.
 
mightymoose said:
Send him a non-threatening notice in writing of your intent to sue in small claims court for non payment, but offer a way out for free if all of the property is returned to you in good condition within 10 days or so of receiving your letter.

He may not comply, but it will give you something to show the court of your attempt to resolve this on your own. He also just might give it back to avoid the hassle.
Click to expand...
It won't make a difference to the court.
 
mightymoose said:
end him a non-threatening notice in writing of your intent to sue in small claims court for non payment, but offer a way out for free if all of the property is returned to you in good condition within 10 days or so of receiving your letter.
Click to expand...

I would attach a copy of a completed, but not filed, small claims complaint form to show that one means business.
 
mightymoose said:
I have heard judges ask what effort was made to resolve disputes out of court. I don't know about OP's state, but here in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing.
Click to expand...

While a judge may ask that question in KS it isn't required to send a demand letter.
 
mightymoose said:
I have heard judges ask what effort was made to resolve disputes out of court. I don't know about OP's state, but here in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing.
Click to expand...
California doesn't require it either.
California simply requires that you have requested payment, but there is no specific form that the request is required to make. Ask for Payment - small_claims_selfhelp
 
Zigner said:
California doesn't require it either.
California simply requires that you have requested payment, but there is no specific form that the request is required to make. Ask for Payment - small_claims_selfhelp
Click to expand...

So in the first sentence you say it is not required, but in the second sentence it is required... Hmm.

More often than not that request is done with a dated letter that can be produced in court. Often emails and text are just as good. I doubt many cases in CA get bumped for failing to make a demand, but doing so certainly does help the plaintiff seeking relief.

Lets not get sidetracked and off topic with your endless and petty need to contradict everything. Thanks.
 
mightymoose said:
So in the first sentence you say it is not required, but in the second sentence it is required... Hmm.

More often than not that request is done with a dated letter that can be produced in court. Often emails and text are just as good. I doubt many cases in CA get bumped for failing to make a demand, but doing so certainly does help the plaintiff seeking relief.

Lets not get sidetracked and off topic with your endless and petty need to contradict everything. Thanks.
Click to expand...

In the first paragraph on the link he posted it says.

Small claims cases require that you ask the other side for payment before you go to court (unless there is a good reason why you cannot). You can ask in person, by phone, or in writing. You will have to tell the court you did this and how on your court form.​

That is not a requirement for a demand letter. It is just that you ask for the payment before you go to court. And even that isn't a requirement if there is a good reason you can't.
 
Ok... So I see we are just being nitpicky about the phrase used rather than acknowledging the obvious intent of what was said. Just mentally edit out the word "letter" if it makes you feel better.
Lets not hijack this with that tired silliness.
 
mightymoose said:
Ok... So I see we are just being nitpicky about the phrase used rather than acknowledging the obvious intent of what was said. Just mentally edit out the word "letter" if it makes you feel better.
Lets not hijack this with that tired silliness.
Click to expand...
Nice back-pedal.
 
Zigner said:
Nice back-pedal.
Click to expand...

I haven't changed anything. You are apparently just stuck on my use of "demand letter" even though it is the most common method and likely the most recommended method used. Required or not, it is worth doing.
Stop being so fussy about everything.
 
mightymoose said:
I haven't changed anything. You are apparently just stuck on my use of "demand letter" even though it is the most common method and likely the most recommended method used. Required or not, it is worth doing.
Stop being so fussy about everything.
Click to expand...
To summarize: You stated, very clearly, that a "demand letter" is required prior to filing suit in California small claims court. It was pointed out that a demand letter is not required in the OP's state, nor is it required in California. You then explained that you didn't mean "demand letter", you simply meant "demand".

I accept that you mistakenly used a very specific phrase when you intended a different phrase. I do agree that it can't hurt and may help for a demand letter to be sent. I now consider the matter closed.
 
Zigner said:
To summarize: You stated, very clearly, that a "demand letter" is required prior to filing suit in California small claims court. It was pointed out that a demand letter is not required in the OP's state, nor is it required in California. You then explained that you didn't mean "demand letter", you simply meant "demand".

I accept that you mistakenly used a very specific phrase when you intended a different phrase. I do agree that it can't hurt and may help for a demand letter to be sent. I now consider the matter closed.
Click to expand...

Your errors are that you assumed a letter is the only method allowed based on my comment suggesting the most common form for such demands, and that you believe I said it is required.
Then you continued to err by believing any of this has anything at all to do with the OP's issue, getting lost in your habitual effort to argue irrelevant points.
When kept in context I was clearly only speaking of the benefit notice of intent can provide to motivate the other party to act, and that such notice could be helpful in court.

I'm an happy you consider this closed because the constant pettiness is tiresome and does not serve to help anyone in any way, especially the OP.
 
While the California Judicial Council website is find and dandy, why not look at the actual law?

Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 116.320(a) states that a plaintiff commences a small claims action by filing a claim form, which, pursuant to subsection (b), "shall set forth a place for (1) the name and address of the defendant, if known; (2) the amount and the basis of the claim; (3) that the plaintiff, where possible, has demanded payment and, in applicable cases, possession of the property. . . ."

Arguably, this statute only says what the form has to say and, in fact, item 4 on the required form asks for information about a demand. I'd be shocked if there's case law on this, and the statute doesn't say what happens if the plaintiff hasn't made a demand without a reason that the judge finds to be valid.

Any distinction between a "demand" and a "demand letter" is silly, and what all this has to do with this thread about Kansas is beyond me, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top