There isn't any.This is a civil matter not a crimminal one.If you are stopped by the police for speeding they don't care if the car is up for repo it is not their problem.It is between you and the lender.That is why the lender hires the repo co.
Its really a moot point because you are NOT hiding a car from the repoman. YOU wouldn't do that. And the lowly repoman CANT file the charges anyway. S/he doesnt have that authority to act on behalf of the lender. The lender wouldn't waste anymore money on the clunky car you alledgedly are hiding. IF they could put you in jail, how would you ever pay the money you owe?????
Yes, it could be considered "theft by deception". When the lenders go to court to start reposession they have taken ownership of the vehicle. At that point you no longer have rights to the vehicle and if the lender claims that you are deliberately hiding the vehicle they could have a good argument for the theft by deception.
The lender owns the vehicle until it is payed for by the lender. The Primary lender will own the vehicle once it is payed for. It also depends on whose name appears on the title.
a lender can do as he/she pleases with the vehicle after 31 days...in the state of Alabama
Possibly - especially if you start hiding your vehicle from the lender or the repo-man in order to keep the lawful owner (the lender) from taking it back due to non-payment. If you are willfully and knowingly depriving the lender of his lawful property and converting it to your own use, it is the same as if you had stolen it.
The lender is always responsible for any damages to the vehicle itself.
Contact the lender and make arrangements for them to secure it. If it is discovered that you are assisting in hindering repossession, or when the vehicle is found to be in your possession, you could be criminally charged. This could vary from accessory to a felonious act to as serous as grand theft auto.
Confusing, but there are a number of scenarios where this might be possible. First, if the lender is the lender on the vehicle, the ARE a lien holder. They may not have "perfected" the lien, that is registered it with the state, but that is an easy matter for them to rectify. Second, if they are not the lender on the vehicle, and there is no other lien holder, provided they have a judgment, the court may order the surrender or sale of other property to satisfy the debt and the judgment. Third, if you have two vehicles with the same lender, and you are defaulted on one but current on the other, the lender may choose to do what is called a"converson of collateral." If so, then the lender may repossess the vehicle you are current on due to the default on the other. They will take which ever vehicle is the esiest to recover in these situations.
25%
You don't. You voluntarily surrender the vehicle to the lender, or at least offer the ooprtunity for the lender to secure it. If the lender declines, you get this in writing and ask the lender to surrender the title to you. On the outside chance this occurs, you take the title to the DMV and change the title.
The lender is not required to take possession of the vehicle and can let the lien stand until the debt is paid. In addition, the lender can sue the borrower/debtor for the entire balance of the loan plus applicable legal fees, etc. rather than go through the reposssession and selling of the vehicle. As long as the lender is a lien holder the vehicle cannot be traded, sold nor transferred to another party.
If there is money owed to the lender with the vehicle used as collateral, the lender will be shown as a lien holder on the title and can if the contract is defaulted recover the vehicle according to the laws of the state in which it is registered. yes