The automobile's title/registration determines the legal owner of the vehicle. Loan documents only concern the signer's legal responsibilities with the bank.
If both names are on the title and you as primary are not paying on the loan then it is the responsibility of the co-signer to pay the loan. Since the the co-signer is still co-owner, and they are paying then the co-signer can take the car away. Remember this is affecting the co-signer's credit as well as your credit.
No. The cosigner will still be equally responsible for the debt
No.
Only if the cosigner is also named on the vehicle title.
Cosigner
No. Unless the cosigner is also a title holder they have no legal rights to the vehicle.
yes
No, a cosigner has no legal rights to a vehicle unless his or her name appears on the vehicle title.
The usual legal recourse for the cosigner when the person named as the primary on a loan has defaulted, is to make the payments on the loan. Then, the cosigner can take the person who defaulted to court to try and recoup some of the money they are out. If the loan was for a car, some states allow the cosigner to take possession of the car and sell it to recoup losses also.
It can be depending upon the course of action the lender chooses to take.
The primary borrower is always responsible for the debt if he or she has signed a valid lending agreement. It would seem logical that if the lender required the primary to have a cosigner and the named person refused to take on that responsibility then the transaction would not occur.
A cosigner is only needed because the primary doesn't have adequate credit rating/history for the needed loan. Hence, the cosigner needs to have credit good enough to qualify for the loan, presumably good, at least betterr than the primary! (Credit scores are not combined or added to get to the needed level). Understand, being a cosigner is essentially the exact same as getting a loan - the cosigner is just as liable as if he got the loan on his own..in fact needs to be more responsible, because he now has to take on the obligations of the primary too, if needed, likely without the control/posession/benefit of what was purchased.
Yes if his anger is due to your not making payments. Otherwise NO.