It's not possible to give a definite answer as it would be the lender's decision alone. However, most lenders are willing to work with the debtor if it is at all possible rather than pursue litigation or perhaps force the debtor into bankruptcy.
I'm not exactly sure what information this question is looking for, so let me give you my generic "what is a motion for stay" answer, and if you still have questions you can ask a follow up question. Ahem... A Motion for Relief from Stay is what a creditor files with the Bankruptcy Court when they want permission from the Court to repossess or foreclose on some collateral (like a house or car), either because they are upset because the debtor in bankruptcy hasn't done something they said they would do, or because the debtor indicated that they did not want the collateral. Motions for Relief from Stay can be filed in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 cases, but I find that they are much more common in Chapter 13's. A common example of when a Motion for Relief from Stay would be filed is if, say, a debtor in a Chapter 13 case is supposed to be paying his or her mortgage outside the Chapter 13 Plan by making direct payments to the mortgage lender, in addition to his or her Chapter 13 Plan that he or she pays to the Trustee. If that debtor misses a mortgage payment, then the mortgage lender would be upset and would file a Motion for Relief from Stay in the Bankruptcy Court, in which they are basically asking the Bankruptcy Court for permission to foreclose on the home since the debtor has failed to make payments. The debtor is given a short time in which to file an Objection (in writing) to the Motion for Relief from Stay with the Bankruptcy Court. If the debtor fails to object, the Motion for Relief from Stay is ordinarily granted and the mortgage lender may begin foreclosure proceedings. If the debtor does object, then different Bankruptcy Courts have different procedures, but normally the Bankruptcy Court sets the issue for a hearing. At the hearing, the mortgage lender normally complains about how the debtor hasn't made payments like they were supposed to, and the debtor normally explains why they missed the payments and how quickly they can get them caught up, and exclaims that they won't get behind again. Then the Court makes their ruling. What happens much more frequently than a hearing is that prior to the hearing, the debtor's attorney and the mortgage lender's attorney agree prior to the hearing on how and when the debtor can become current again, and then the hearing gets canceled so long as the debtor and the mortgage lender are in agreement on how the debtor will get caught up and that the debtor promises to stay current thereafter. If an agreement is not struck between the debtor and the mortgage lender before the hearing, then at the hearing, when ruling on whether to let the debtor keep the home or let the mortgage lender have it back, Courts frequently consider things like whether this is the first Motion for Relief from Stay or if there have been more than one, what the debtor's payment history has been like, what happened to make the debtor get behind, how quickly the debtor can get it caught up, how likely it is that the debtor's method of getting caught up will work, how long the debtor has lived in the home (i.e. Courts seem to give a little more lee-way to debtors who might lose a family home they've had in their family 100 years than they are if the debtor bought the home one year ago and has missed 8 payments in the 12 months they owned it), etc. Please note that nothing in this posting or in any other posting constitutes legal advice; this is simply my understanding of the facts, which I do not warrant, and I am not suggesting any course of action or inaction to any person. Visit RossLawOffice.com for more information about bankruptcy.
The contract will be in default and the lender may take steps to recover the debt owed.In such a case it is unlikely that the lender would repossess the vehicle. It would be in the best interest of the borrower to contact the lender before the due date and try to extend or refinance the loan.
The debtor can still be sued by the lender. A lawsuit would need to be implemented by an attorney licensed to practice in the debtor's current state of residence and usually in the state court in the county where the debtor resides.
Depends how the bankruptcy was set up and whether the car was listed. There should be some consideration in that case as to whether you can make the payments, or not.
The limit is in the contract you signed. It likely says that when you are in default the lender can repossess. That means anytime you are behind at all... even one day, although most places wouldn't do that. They would rather get the payment rather than go to the trouble to repossess.
I would say, YES, just so the lender will have proof, they sent them. There is no guarantee the debtor will get them, just that they were sent.
The car lender would repossess the vehicle and sell it off, if there is a remaining deficiency, then the lender can go after the co-signer to be paid (so yes it would negatively effect the co-signer's credit rating)
Yes, although the creditor would need to follow the proper legal procedure which is usually a civil suit against the debtor in a court in the county where the debtor resides. If the lender is awarded a judgment the judgment can then be executed as a wage garnishment.
That decision would be up to the lender.That decision would be up to the lender.That decision would be up to the lender.That decision would be up to the lender.
A vehicle is secured property therefore the debtor has only two choices when declaring bankruptcy. If the vehicle exemption protects it, then the debtor may reaffirm the loan if the lender is willing and keep the vehicle. If the exemption does not protect the vehicle, it will be taken by the trustee sold, the debtor will receive the exemption amount but will have to pay the lender the sale deficit plus any existing fees. When new bankruptcy laws are activated in Oct, 2005, the debtor will have to pay the entire loan amount regardless of whether the vehicle is kept or forfeited.
Your lien would be ineffective if the debtor no longer owns the property. If the property was foreclosed- the debtor no longer owns the property.Your lien would be ineffective if the debtor no longer owns the property. If the property was foreclosed- the debtor no longer owns the property.Your lien would be ineffective if the debtor no longer owns the property. If the property was foreclosed- the debtor no longer owns the property.Your lien would be ineffective if the debtor no longer owns the property. If the property was foreclosed- the debtor no longer owns the property.
That would be at the lender's discretion. Call and ask. Banks don't like to repossess and if you are making an honest effort to correct the default they will probably go along with you.
No. Only the lender can "repossess" a vehicle. You need to keep making the payments to protect your own credit. It is likely you would need to bring a court action, prove you are making the payments and petition the court to order a transfer of title.
No, and why would they? If the payments are up to date and have been made on time, there would be no reason for the dealer to repossess the vehicle.
Generally, open game. When you signed the contract, you more than likely signed a right to cure giving the lender the ability to enter private property to repossess the vehicle if necessary. If you are fishing for a way to hinder repossession, don't bother. It would be illegal for you to attempt to hinder the lender, and you could be charged with a felony.
NO, the city CANT repossess your car. They can impound it for a violation of a city law. The only one who can repo a car is the LEINHOLDER. THEY can repo it as a result of the city impounding it for the cities reasons. And only repo it AFTER they pay the city and/or impound fees. Yes - they can have it towed for example if it is abandoned on the side of the road and the lender would have to pay the amount due to get it back just to repossess it. Their lien takes precedence over all others.
There is some confusion here, as only wages and bank accounts can be garnished, (bank accounts are referred to as levied). If this pertains to the repossession of a vehicle where there is a deficiency in the sale of the vehicle and the debt owed then the borrower/debtor might or might not retain the vehicle (lender's option) but can have wages garnished for the entire amount owed by a lawsuit judgment. Other issues could be foreclosure discrepancies and the execution of a judgment as a wage garnishment for creditor debt. In such cases property that is not considered collateral for the debt would remain with the garnishee/debtor. If the property was used as collateral such as a big screen TV purchased on a merchant's account, the company can repossess the item for the amount of the defaulted account in some instances the debtor can keep the merchandize by paying the depreciation cost. There could still be an outstanding balance that would have to be paid depending upon the circumstances.
You need to discuss it with your lender. The present mortgage would need to be discharged and the new mortgage executed if the lender agrees.You need to discuss it with your lender. The present mortgage would need to be discharged and the new mortgage executed if the lender agrees.You need to discuss it with your lender. The present mortgage would need to be discharged and the new mortgage executed if the lender agrees.You need to discuss it with your lender. The present mortgage would need to be discharged and the new mortgage executed if the lender agrees.
That is up to the lender. You need to contact the lender.That is up to the lender. You need to contact the lender.That is up to the lender. You need to contact the lender.That is up to the lender. You need to contact the lender.
Get a death certificate and get him off of the loan. He is the secondary on the loan, not the primary so you are o.k. if you keep the payments current. Y-THINK-Y * The vehicle would not be subject to probate procedure. However, it would be the lender's decision as to what should be done concerning the loan. The lender could repossess the vehicle if another cosigner is needed and there is no one willing to take the responsibility. The other option for the lender would be to require the primary borrower to refinance the car in their name only. Many lending contracts will include clauses that relate to such situations, (death, divorce, etc.) that allow the lender to take almost any type of action to insure the security of the property.
If I remember right, you can. * No. Only government agencies can seize federal or state tax refunds for matters such as tax or child support arrearages. A creditor or lender would need to execute a judgment against the debtor's bank account if the state laws where the account is held allows the action.
I assume you took over the payments after the other owner missed payments. If you are caught up on all the payments then there would be no reason for them to repossess the vehicle. You need to contact the lender ASAP to make sure everything is fine. Failure to contact the lender may create a bad situation.
Your best bet would be to contact a repossession company there. You happen to be very lucky, there are some major companies there that are extremely effective. Check your local yellow pages.