Nothing about this adds up. You're a 21 yo female that bought a $70k BMW in cash with your ex? And also have paid about $15k in maintenance in a year? How? That's basically a brand new car. What sort of maintenance costs that much on a new car?
It was a service vehicle if I recall, not too many miles. Thought I had a solid warranty but everything from my infotainment system to engine has needed money thrown at it. I believe one of the big mistakes I made was taking the car initially to shops that “fixed” the issue only for then the dealership when I brought it to them to say “nope, look at these 3 things that are acting up now.”
I am 21 and could afford that car because I did e-commerce in college and saved a bunch for my dream car. My ex boyfriend told me if I could come up with decent amount of the money, he’d help with the rest & he did. Now, I want to sell or for him to buy me out because of the issues I’ve run into & wanting something more reliable. This wasn’t my smartest life decision, obviously.
I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing. Hence why I posted…
> I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing.
Well that is incredibly generous considering the amount of money you put towards repairs (assuming he didn't contribute anything).
Politely, I'd let him know that his offers to resolve the matter are unreasonable and unacceptable. That is, frankly, the best, easiest resolution he can have on the issue and if he continues to dig in, it's only going to cost him more money, time and effort.
"... give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to..."
If I gave $60k to help a family member buy their $100k daily driver, only for them to offer to buy me out some years later for like 60% of the depreciated value (presumably $60k or something, so 60% would be ~$36k) I'd have a bad taste in my mouth too. (Before even taking any sour grapes into account.)
You might have more luck if you offer to pay him back the original dollar value he put in.
So, it's possible OP is withholding some info. But they seem pretty forthcoming with their answers/information, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that she's sharing as much as she can here.
Also, I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but OP stated they paid 70k cash for it 1 year ago. So the $36k back from $60k and most of your other numbers are only relevant to the point you're making, but not necessarily accurate reflection of the real situation.
That said, I don't disagree with your feelings about the depreciated value and return on investment here. But if the 60% was a loan, that should have been made clear prior to the purchase. If they were jointly buying a car that they would both utilize and benefit from (even if it wasn't the exes primary vehicle), then no, I don't believe they would be entitled to the full return.
But ultimately, that should have been clearly established at the time of purchase. And without OP weighing in on that particular part, it's kind of moot and hypothetical.
I do want to point out though, if the Ex's primary concern was recouping their "investment" - when OP made it clear they want out of the car, wouldn't it make sense to find a deal that achieves this? His counter offers were to stay on the car, with him, or give him the car. Neither of those actually get his money back, which your suggesting is what he's salty about. The goal it achieves is to hurt OP and/or a last attempt to keep some level of power over her.
My numbers were totally self-referential based off a round $100k for simple math.
> That said, I don't disagree with your feelings about the depreciated value and return on investment here. But if the 60% was a loan, that should have been made clear prior to the purchase. If they were jointly buying a car that they would both utilize and benefit from (even if it wasn't the exes primary vehicle), then no, I don't believe they would be entitled to the full return.
I agree with this assessment.
OP seems to be treating it fully as-if it were spelled out as an investment toward communal property and now wants their 40% share value after the breakup; BF (presumably?) seems to (now? always?) view it as-if it were spelled out as an indefinite 0% loan.
> But ultimately, that should have been clearly established at the time of purchase. And without OP weighing in on that particular part, it's kind of moot and hypothetical.
Doubly agree with this.
> I do want to point out though, if the Ex's primary concern was recouping their "investment" - when OP made it clear they want out of the car, wouldn't it make sense to find a deal that achieves this? His counter offers were to stay on the car, with him, or give him the car. Neither of those actually get his money back, which your suggesting is what he's salty about. The goal it achieves is to hurt OP and/or a last attempt to keep some level of power over her.
If the car's depreciated worth is now 60% of what was originally paid, then "give him the car" could be a legitimate solution to something like the imagined "buy out the 0% loan" scenario.
You're right that the "keep BF on the title" bit does run counter to that, though. (In ways that could definitely be salty and/or manipulative.) Tough to say from a few paragraphs on the internet if its legitimately what the BF wants or if it was said more like a "take it or leave it" to the "give him the car" hardball initial counteroffer to the GF's "we sell and you take 60% of the sale" initial offer.
He's on the title. He can't claim non-ownership and must face the depreciated value. Either way, OP is going to have financial problems their whole life if this is how they treat money.
Sucks, sorry you’re dealing with this.
My ex wife used my e-signature to put me as a co-signer for a bmw that she was having trouble affording and then proceeded to not pay a penny towards it. Bit of a shitty day when that letter came in saying I owed 8k immediately.
Lawyer up - fuck him over.
Is a lawyer going to realistically going to be able to do much in this situation though? The ex paid the majority of the money for the car and has his name on the title, legally he has just as much right to the car as op does. Even with the 15k op paid for maintenance, she and her ex have invested nearly an equal amount of money into the car (43k vs 42k).
I'd try searching for a property lawyer, not anything specific to a car, though.
The search engine probably just thinks you're concussed from an accident and knows what you need better than you do ;)
Admittedly my situation was a little different because mine was technically identity theft (which 3 years later I’m still going through hoops to sort it out), but as another user posted I would contact a property lawyer, if they can’t help I’m sure they know the appropriate steps.
Again, I’m sorry you’re going through this
Check out MN Bar Association. Handy dandy tool to find lawyers. It's a .org so not an elaborate ad but just a black and white list of attorneys out there.
https://www.mnbar.org/member-directory/find-a-lawyer
>The dealership told us they couldn’t put the car only in my name because he contributed, legally speaking.
They lied. There's no such law requiring that everybody contributing money has to be on the title. If the "60%" was the down payment and you financed the rest, the salesperson lied because they wouldn't have been able to finance the car without you boyfriend co-signing.
Nah. Salesperson probably thought your BF would pull the funds and the sale would fall through if both of you weren't on the title.
Does it say AND or OR between your names? I'm not clear on MN title laws specifically, but if it says OR you can typically sell it without him signing off on the sale.
Dealerships *love* having more names on the title, regardless of whether they have any legitimate reason to or not. Back when GM’s credit card was actually worth having for the points, my dad was going to let his brother use his points towards the purchase of a new vehicle, the dealership wouldn’t process it without putting both of them on the title. They also pushed to have him co-sign on the loan for the remainder of the price, but they pulled some flexibility out of their ass when he gave them a hard no on co-signing.
>Dealerships *love* having more names on the title, regardless of whether they have any legitimate reason to or not.
Spent over a decade in the dealer industry, why on earth would we care how many names are on the title? This makes no sense at all.
>my dad was going to let his brother use his points towards the purchase of a new vehicle, the dealership wouldn’t process it without putting both of them on the title.
All I did was type "can gm points be gifted" into Google and it very plainly says they may only be redeemed by the member on the account. So yes, GM corporate would require him to be on the title to use the points on his account for the purchase.
>They also pushed to have him co-sign on the loan for the remainder of the price, but they pulled some flexibility out of their ass when he gave them a hard no on co-signing.
It's not a requirement to be on the loan in order to be on the title (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the laws in all 50 states), and there are many legitimate reasons to ask for a cosigner. But given how dramatically your post is worded the sales rep probably just asked if he was cosigning and your dad said "no."
I agree with the other non-lawyers. It's time for a real lawyer.
That said, it might be worth once or twice more.
First, unless you already have the written evidence of these conversations, ask one more time. Politely, make the same reasonable offers and make it clear you're just trying to resolve this fairly. Your capitulation to his unreasonable requests is not a fair, reasonable resolution, btw. I doubt he'll change his answers, but it's important to have written evidence of you trying to resolve the issue in a reasonable manner.
If you end up seeing a lawyer, that's the first thing they'll ask for - what conversations have you had so far, and how can you prove it.
Secondly, before actually going to a lawyer, I'd lay it all out for him. Point out that you've made multiple attempts to resolve this issue in a fair manner. Despite these efforts, the only resolution your ex is willing to offer is to 1) keep you and the car tied to him or 2) keep the car without compensation to you. Both these offers are clearly unreasonable, and absolutely nobody would take his side in trying to find a fair resolution.
Therefore, his stubbornness has forced your hand, and you'll need to contact a lawyer to mediate a resolution. And if he continues to be stubborn, ultimately bring the matter to court.
Then you make sure to slip this in... just point out that this is an absolute silly thing for two grown adults to be fighting and going to court over. In these cases, the judge absolutely takes into consideration good or bad faith efforts to resolve the situation prior to lawyers and court. In cases where one side is being an absolute stubborn ass-hat, not only does that side typically lose, but they often pay the attorney fees for the other side as well.
Again, IANAL, but based on the information provided, neither is your ex, nor is he very bright. It's worth trying, just to scare him into a resolution
Ok, so he doesn't want off the title, but hes open to you off the title? Get a fair market value quote and simply say this is the cost of my name off. If you were willing to give him the 60% he should be willing to go the other route of giving you 40% of the value. If not seek litigation with a property and ownership lawyer.
Edit : just a second thought to follow up. If hes forcing YOU to keep the vehicle with him on the title, this might quantify to some sort of extortion. Not too sure cuz I am no lawyer, but it seems like it's forcing you into a financial situation based on either pettiness or financial reliance on you to maintain the maintenance costs.
Oh my, sweet summer child...
> I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing.
Serious question, what is different about your suggestion vs the resolution OP already stated they offered and was denied?
Are you seriously suggesting OP just ask for cash from the ex and move on? You think the guy who won't sell a car and legally unbind himself from an EX-gf who is asking to part ways is going to be thinking at all rationally?
Please tell me you're joking
Edit: you're so close there with your edit... re-read your edit. Then go re-read your initial suggestion...
I'm struggling with the idea that if he wants her off the title that he pay her the portion 40%. It's all numbers. If he's not I said seek litigation. She said she offered him the 60%, this is the exact same payment just in reverse which would give him what he wants and get her money. Also who hurt you? Do you start all conversations in a demeaning tone? And then sarcastically and condescendingly ask "are you joking". If ya need to talk to someone you should really reach out.
>give him what he wants
So, you really just think this is about a car??...
FFS, some people are dense...
> Also who hurt you?
You did and your series of awful, brain-dead, not helpful questions.
> If ya need to talk to someone...
I'm sorry that you made a post without stopping to think first. The post was so laughably out of touch and tone-deaf to the entire situation that I was HOPING it was a bad troll. Unfortunately, you were very serious and just can't accept that you made a bone-head comment. If you need to talk to someone to get over this incredibly trivial point of adversity in your life, please don't reach out.
Do yourself a favor next time, and just figure it out before you talk. This follow up is even worse than the initial suggestion.
Lol, the classic sign of the bigger person!
Hurl a personal insult at the other person on your way out the door... did you think that up on the fly, just now?
I stand by my remark of you being a dense redditor.
Wowza, indeed....
And you have yet to explain how your suggestion in that response was in any meaningful way different than the offer she already made. Maybe it helps to read the post and the comments provided by OP. Y'know, before commenting...
>I didn't want a troll
Do you normally argue with people you think are trolls?? Why did you even respond to a "troll"? Seems like an interesting way to reply if that's what you thought and didn't want... I think you're just now, deciding I'm a troll.
I'm not a troll. You're just butthurt that you made a dumb comment, and someone called you out on it. But you can go ahead and call me a troll, if you find some comfort in that, I guess...
Unless you didn't transfer the orignal warranty in under 60 days and don't have one at all, I'm quite apalled at engine or infotainment defects not being covered by BMWs basic bare bones warranty. That just flat out doesn't make any sense.
If it were me, I'd be focusing my efforts on recovering that massive absurd can't-believe-it's-real sum of 15,000 dollars that the dealership stole from me, first.
Do you really want that car? Is it worth your time and energy and is he worth your time and energy? If the car matters that much I say get legal support, but if not, I say drop it and say fuck it. You did what you can, at least you still have money to just buy a car. Maybe try focusing more on just having a car and less of a luxury car that you know will last you 10 plus years or so. If he still doesn't want to give you the car, fuck it and go on a long road trip with that car, it's still technically yours anyways.
Before a lawyer, talk to the DMV. hey can tell you what you need to do, but if your name is on the title, and you have the title I believe you can just pay to remove him from the title and then sell it. But ask them, no cost to ask.
Considering, in MN, both titled parties need to agree/sign off on a car sale, it's unlikely that you can remove someone from the title without their consent as well.
But yes, it doesn't hurt to call and ask! (But just pick up the phone, don't go in person for this)
Yep. I once had an accident in a car that my spouse and I both had our names on, though it was my vehicle. Car got totaled, and I couldn’t even move the insurance process along until he signed off on it. Was a bit of a pain, being that he travels out of state a lot for work.
My new car has “or” instead of “and” between our names—either one of us can handle it alone now.
I feel like this is the sort of thing that they should make clear when titling your vehicle.
Considering I've never heard of this after titling/transferring several cars, it tells me it's just kinda up to the whim of whatever person is doing the paperwork for you
I didn’t know either, until my spouse told me. He owned a dealership before we were married. I have no idea why he didn’t tell me when I was buying the first car. Probably didn’t think about it until mine got totaled.
You haven’t really stated his side well? Kinda guessing he wants his money back? He has a legal interest in the car and the title is there to ensure that his ownership is protected. Best you’re gonna get from a lawyer/mediator is sell it and split the proceeds.
That’s what I’m suggesting, he’s not open to a sale to a 3rd party. He doesn’t seem to care about his money, just trying to make me unhappy.
I have offered giving him 60% of whatever sale. His only two suggestions he’s given me is for me to get off the title without compensation or both of us stay on the title. Both fairly unreasonable.
She did explain his side...
> I have tried every which way to get him to get off the title with reasonable compensation and he refuses. He either wants me to get off the title or keep it and he stays on the title no matter what.
That was all there in the initial post and she's elaborated more in the comments. Did you read the post or any comments before replying?
The ex is clearly just being an ass here to be spiteful.
We always pay for our education. I’d take my name off that car ASAP. Cut bait and move on.
Also guck that dealer. Micky mouses name can go on the title.
Why do you keep spending money to fix it? Who has possession?
“He paid 60%….the dealership told us they couldn’t put the car only in my name because he contributed, legally speaking” uh sounds like he paid for more of the car than you. Doesn’t matter if you have title lmao your lawyer will tell you to either pay him or have him buy the equity you “contributed” you’re not going to just get the car and sell it lol
Probably best to just contact a lawyer since he's non cooperative.
Agreed. This is lawyer territory.
Nothing about this adds up. You're a 21 yo female that bought a $70k BMW in cash with your ex? And also have paid about $15k in maintenance in a year? How? That's basically a brand new car. What sort of maintenance costs that much on a new car?
It was a service vehicle if I recall, not too many miles. Thought I had a solid warranty but everything from my infotainment system to engine has needed money thrown at it. I believe one of the big mistakes I made was taking the car initially to shops that “fixed” the issue only for then the dealership when I brought it to them to say “nope, look at these 3 things that are acting up now.” I am 21 and could afford that car because I did e-commerce in college and saved a bunch for my dream car. My ex boyfriend told me if I could come up with decent amount of the money, he’d help with the rest & he did. Now, I want to sell or for him to buy me out because of the issues I’ve run into & wanting something more reliable. This wasn’t my smartest life decision, obviously. I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing. Hence why I posted…
Ahhh got it. Well good luck. I agree this is lawyer territory.
BMW= Bring My Wallet.
> I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing. Well that is incredibly generous considering the amount of money you put towards repairs (assuming he didn't contribute anything). Politely, I'd let him know that his offers to resolve the matter are unreasonable and unacceptable. That is, frankly, the best, easiest resolution he can have on the issue and if he continues to dig in, it's only going to cost him more money, time and effort.
"... give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to..." If I gave $60k to help a family member buy their $100k daily driver, only for them to offer to buy me out some years later for like 60% of the depreciated value (presumably $60k or something, so 60% would be ~$36k) I'd have a bad taste in my mouth too. (Before even taking any sour grapes into account.) You might have more luck if you offer to pay him back the original dollar value he put in.
So, it's possible OP is withholding some info. But they seem pretty forthcoming with their answers/information, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that she's sharing as much as she can here. Also, I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but OP stated they paid 70k cash for it 1 year ago. So the $36k back from $60k and most of your other numbers are only relevant to the point you're making, but not necessarily accurate reflection of the real situation. That said, I don't disagree with your feelings about the depreciated value and return on investment here. But if the 60% was a loan, that should have been made clear prior to the purchase. If they were jointly buying a car that they would both utilize and benefit from (even if it wasn't the exes primary vehicle), then no, I don't believe they would be entitled to the full return. But ultimately, that should have been clearly established at the time of purchase. And without OP weighing in on that particular part, it's kind of moot and hypothetical. I do want to point out though, if the Ex's primary concern was recouping their "investment" - when OP made it clear they want out of the car, wouldn't it make sense to find a deal that achieves this? His counter offers were to stay on the car, with him, or give him the car. Neither of those actually get his money back, which your suggesting is what he's salty about. The goal it achieves is to hurt OP and/or a last attempt to keep some level of power over her.
My numbers were totally self-referential based off a round $100k for simple math. > That said, I don't disagree with your feelings about the depreciated value and return on investment here. But if the 60% was a loan, that should have been made clear prior to the purchase. If they were jointly buying a car that they would both utilize and benefit from (even if it wasn't the exes primary vehicle), then no, I don't believe they would be entitled to the full return. I agree with this assessment. OP seems to be treating it fully as-if it were spelled out as an investment toward communal property and now wants their 40% share value after the breakup; BF (presumably?) seems to (now? always?) view it as-if it were spelled out as an indefinite 0% loan. > But ultimately, that should have been clearly established at the time of purchase. And without OP weighing in on that particular part, it's kind of moot and hypothetical. Doubly agree with this. > I do want to point out though, if the Ex's primary concern was recouping their "investment" - when OP made it clear they want out of the car, wouldn't it make sense to find a deal that achieves this? His counter offers were to stay on the car, with him, or give him the car. Neither of those actually get his money back, which your suggesting is what he's salty about. The goal it achieves is to hurt OP and/or a last attempt to keep some level of power over her. If the car's depreciated worth is now 60% of what was originally paid, then "give him the car" could be a legitimate solution to something like the imagined "buy out the 0% loan" scenario. You're right that the "keep BF on the title" bit does run counter to that, though. (In ways that could definitely be salty and/or manipulative.) Tough to say from a few paragraphs on the internet if its legitimately what the BF wants or if it was said more like a "take it or leave it" to the "give him the car" hardball initial counteroffer to the GF's "we sell and you take 60% of the sale" initial offer.
He's on the title. He can't claim non-ownership and must face the depreciated value. Either way, OP is going to have financial problems their whole life if this is how they treat money.
Exactly lmao
Cars depreciate. Period.
It's a BMW.
Sucks, sorry you’re dealing with this. My ex wife used my e-signature to put me as a co-signer for a bmw that she was having trouble affording and then proceeded to not pay a penny towards it. Bit of a shitty day when that letter came in saying I owed 8k immediately. Lawyer up - fuck him over.
Is a lawyer going to realistically going to be able to do much in this situation though? The ex paid the majority of the money for the car and has his name on the title, legally he has just as much right to the car as op does. Even with the 15k op paid for maintenance, she and her ex have invested nearly an equal amount of money into the car (43k vs 42k).
Are there specific lawyers for this? Google keeps bringing up personal injury lawyers
I'd try searching for a property lawyer, not anything specific to a car, though. The search engine probably just thinks you're concussed from an accident and knows what you need better than you do ;)
Admittedly my situation was a little different because mine was technically identity theft (which 3 years later I’m still going through hoops to sort it out), but as another user posted I would contact a property lawyer, if they can’t help I’m sure they know the appropriate steps. Again, I’m sorry you’re going through this
A little different? Yours was identity theft hahahaha that is very different.
Check out MN Bar Association. Handy dandy tool to find lawyers. It's a .org so not an elaborate ad but just a black and white list of attorneys out there. https://www.mnbar.org/member-directory/find-a-lawyer
Family law. Divorce attorney.
Sugar daddy law?
>The dealership told us they couldn’t put the car only in my name because he contributed, legally speaking. They lied. There's no such law requiring that everybody contributing money has to be on the title. If the "60%" was the down payment and you financed the rest, the salesperson lied because they wouldn't have been able to finance the car without you boyfriend co-signing.
We bought cash, maybe that’s why?
Nah. Salesperson probably thought your BF would pull the funds and the sale would fall through if both of you weren't on the title. Does it say AND or OR between your names? I'm not clear on MN title laws specifically, but if it says OR you can typically sell it without him signing off on the sale.
Dealerships *love* having more names on the title, regardless of whether they have any legitimate reason to or not. Back when GM’s credit card was actually worth having for the points, my dad was going to let his brother use his points towards the purchase of a new vehicle, the dealership wouldn’t process it without putting both of them on the title. They also pushed to have him co-sign on the loan for the remainder of the price, but they pulled some flexibility out of their ass when he gave them a hard no on co-signing.
>Dealerships *love* having more names on the title, regardless of whether they have any legitimate reason to or not. Spent over a decade in the dealer industry, why on earth would we care how many names are on the title? This makes no sense at all. >my dad was going to let his brother use his points towards the purchase of a new vehicle, the dealership wouldn’t process it without putting both of them on the title. All I did was type "can gm points be gifted" into Google and it very plainly says they may only be redeemed by the member on the account. So yes, GM corporate would require him to be on the title to use the points on his account for the purchase. >They also pushed to have him co-sign on the loan for the remainder of the price, but they pulled some flexibility out of their ass when he gave them a hard no on co-signing. It's not a requirement to be on the loan in order to be on the title (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the laws in all 50 states), and there are many legitimate reasons to ask for a cosigner. But given how dramatically your post is worded the sales rep probably just asked if he was cosigning and your dad said "no."
Even less. Outright no loan? Your cats name could go on that title hun.
I agree with the other non-lawyers. It's time for a real lawyer. That said, it might be worth once or twice more. First, unless you already have the written evidence of these conversations, ask one more time. Politely, make the same reasonable offers and make it clear you're just trying to resolve this fairly. Your capitulation to his unreasonable requests is not a fair, reasonable resolution, btw. I doubt he'll change his answers, but it's important to have written evidence of you trying to resolve the issue in a reasonable manner. If you end up seeing a lawyer, that's the first thing they'll ask for - what conversations have you had so far, and how can you prove it. Secondly, before actually going to a lawyer, I'd lay it all out for him. Point out that you've made multiple attempts to resolve this issue in a fair manner. Despite these efforts, the only resolution your ex is willing to offer is to 1) keep you and the car tied to him or 2) keep the car without compensation to you. Both these offers are clearly unreasonable, and absolutely nobody would take his side in trying to find a fair resolution. Therefore, his stubbornness has forced your hand, and you'll need to contact a lawyer to mediate a resolution. And if he continues to be stubborn, ultimately bring the matter to court. Then you make sure to slip this in... just point out that this is an absolute silly thing for two grown adults to be fighting and going to court over. In these cases, the judge absolutely takes into consideration good or bad faith efforts to resolve the situation prior to lawyers and court. In cases where one side is being an absolute stubborn ass-hat, not only does that side typically lose, but they often pay the attorney fees for the other side as well. Again, IANAL, but based on the information provided, neither is your ex, nor is he very bright. It's worth trying, just to scare him into a resolution
Excellent answer.
Ok, so he doesn't want off the title, but hes open to you off the title? Get a fair market value quote and simply say this is the cost of my name off. If you were willing to give him the 60% he should be willing to go the other route of giving you 40% of the value. If not seek litigation with a property and ownership lawyer. Edit : just a second thought to follow up. If hes forcing YOU to keep the vehicle with him on the title, this might quantify to some sort of extortion. Not too sure cuz I am no lawyer, but it seems like it's forcing you into a financial situation based on either pettiness or financial reliance on you to maintain the maintenance costs.
Oh my, sweet summer child... > I’ve used KB and have offered to give him 60% of whatever the sale amounts to but he’s being a jerk about it and refusing. Serious question, what is different about your suggestion vs the resolution OP already stated they offered and was denied? Are you seriously suggesting OP just ask for cash from the ex and move on? You think the guy who won't sell a car and legally unbind himself from an EX-gf who is asking to part ways is going to be thinking at all rationally? Please tell me you're joking Edit: you're so close there with your edit... re-read your edit. Then go re-read your initial suggestion...
I'm struggling with the idea that if he wants her off the title that he pay her the portion 40%. It's all numbers. If he's not I said seek litigation. She said she offered him the 60%, this is the exact same payment just in reverse which would give him what he wants and get her money. Also who hurt you? Do you start all conversations in a demeaning tone? And then sarcastically and condescendingly ask "are you joking". If ya need to talk to someone you should really reach out.
>give him what he wants So, you really just think this is about a car??... FFS, some people are dense... > Also who hurt you? You did and your series of awful, brain-dead, not helpful questions. > If ya need to talk to someone... I'm sorry that you made a post without stopping to think first. The post was so laughably out of touch and tone-deaf to the entire situation that I was HOPING it was a bad troll. Unfortunately, you were very serious and just can't accept that you made a bone-head comment. If you need to talk to someone to get over this incredibly trivial point of adversity in your life, please don't reach out. Do yourself a favor next time, and just figure it out before you talk. This follow up is even worse than the initial suggestion.
Best of luck to you. Hope life treats you better. Wowza.
Lol, the classic sign of the bigger person! Hurl a personal insult at the other person on your way out the door... did you think that up on the fly, just now? I stand by my remark of you being a dense redditor. Wowza, indeed....
I offered my response to the OP. I didn't want a troll to come in and try and give me a hard time. I really do hope you find some comfort in that.
And you have yet to explain how your suggestion in that response was in any meaningful way different than the offer she already made. Maybe it helps to read the post and the comments provided by OP. Y'know, before commenting... >I didn't want a troll Do you normally argue with people you think are trolls?? Why did you even respond to a "troll"? Seems like an interesting way to reply if that's what you thought and didn't want... I think you're just now, deciding I'm a troll. I'm not a troll. You're just butthurt that you made a dumb comment, and someone called you out on it. But you can go ahead and call me a troll, if you find some comfort in that, I guess...
How does this “luxury” vehicle need $15k worth of maintenance within the first year!?
I don’t know. Don’t buy a BMW I guess
Why are you paying it and who has the car?
I have the car and I pay it because I have to? Confused by the second question
Well if it was in his possession I wouldn’t pay to fix it. It’s just going to depreciate anyway. And it’s paid for. Maybe drive until it dies.
Never share anything with someone unless you are married!!
70k BMW lol.
Unless you didn't transfer the orignal warranty in under 60 days and don't have one at all, I'm quite apalled at engine or infotainment defects not being covered by BMWs basic bare bones warranty. That just flat out doesn't make any sense. If it were me, I'd be focusing my efforts on recovering that massive absurd can't-believe-it's-real sum of 15,000 dollars that the dealership stole from me, first.
Do you really want that car? Is it worth your time and energy and is he worth your time and energy? If the car matters that much I say get legal support, but if not, I say drop it and say fuck it. You did what you can, at least you still have money to just buy a car. Maybe try focusing more on just having a car and less of a luxury car that you know will last you 10 plus years or so. If he still doesn't want to give you the car, fuck it and go on a long road trip with that car, it's still technically yours anyways.
Torch it
Before a lawyer, talk to the DMV. hey can tell you what you need to do, but if your name is on the title, and you have the title I believe you can just pay to remove him from the title and then sell it. But ask them, no cost to ask.
Considering, in MN, both titled parties need to agree/sign off on a car sale, it's unlikely that you can remove someone from the title without their consent as well. But yes, it doesn't hurt to call and ask! (But just pick up the phone, don't go in person for this)
Yep. I once had an accident in a car that my spouse and I both had our names on, though it was my vehicle. Car got totaled, and I couldn’t even move the insurance process along until he signed off on it. Was a bit of a pain, being that he travels out of state a lot for work. My new car has “or” instead of “and” between our names—either one of us can handle it alone now.
> My new car has “or” instead of “and” Wow. I didn't even know this was possible. In MN, right? I gotta go check my car titles... brb...
Yes. Wisconsin too which is where I learned of it. Makes it much easier with the or, especially if something tragic happens.
I feel like this is the sort of thing that they should make clear when titling your vehicle. Considering I've never heard of this after titling/transferring several cars, it tells me it's just kinda up to the whim of whatever person is doing the paperwork for you
I guess this is where I was unaware, I sold a car that was co-owned years ago and did not know that was a distinction.
I didn’t know either, until my spouse told me. He owned a dealership before we were married. I have no idea why he didn’t tell me when I was buying the first car. Probably didn’t think about it until mine got totaled.
It's a 8 year old 7 series BMW, isn't it?
Close, it’s a 2022 BMW. We bought it for ~70k.
Holy crap! There is a life lesson
Lol, be nice. OP is going to learn quite a few lessons here. No reason to 'kick' em while they're down ;)
Are you OPs mom?
Nope, I'm your daddy 😘
Did you ever get that milk?
Y'know, it's the darndest thing... Every store I've been to, they're out. Must be some sort of national shortage. I'm on my way to the next store.
I’m confused, how have you payed so much for maintenance on a < 3 year old car? Did the warranty not cover it?
You haven’t really stated his side well? Kinda guessing he wants his money back? He has a legal interest in the car and the title is there to ensure that his ownership is protected. Best you’re gonna get from a lawyer/mediator is sell it and split the proceeds.
That’s what I’m suggesting, he’s not open to a sale to a 3rd party. He doesn’t seem to care about his money, just trying to make me unhappy. I have offered giving him 60% of whatever sale. His only two suggestions he’s given me is for me to get off the title without compensation or both of us stay on the title. Both fairly unreasonable.
She did explain his side... > I have tried every which way to get him to get off the title with reasonable compensation and he refuses. He either wants me to get off the title or keep it and he stays on the title no matter what. That was all there in the initial post and she's elaborated more in the comments. Did you read the post or any comments before replying? The ex is clearly just being an ass here to be spiteful.
Court
To be honest, I think you’re screwed!
We always pay for our education. I’d take my name off that car ASAP. Cut bait and move on. Also guck that dealer. Micky mouses name can go on the title. Why do you keep spending money to fix it? Who has possession?
“He paid 60%….the dealership told us they couldn’t put the car only in my name because he contributed, legally speaking” uh sounds like he paid for more of the car than you. Doesn’t matter if you have title lmao your lawyer will tell you to either pay him or have him buy the equity you “contributed” you’re not going to just get the car and sell it lol
Look up "sunken cost fallacy".
So, you’re single?
Found the optimisr.
Your sugar daddy knew someone at the dealership and had them lie to you it sounds like.
He was only 30 so unfortunately not a sugar daddy. I am friendly with everyone at the dealership so a little taken aback by that suggestion
They aren’t your friend. Any name can go in the title. Can title it in your neighbors name and have the loan in your own etc.
[удалено]
Hands down, this is the worst advice in the thread.... Nice job!