Tweet
Just had one: (BG) Customer was originally in on Friday. He had just bought a car, so he was putting the title into his name, and was listing his bank as the lienholder. (From what he told me today, he bought the car paying cash, but he is using the car as collateral for a home loan). When asked about purchasing a plate, he showed the clerk his plate which he wanted to put onto the car. Only problem is that the plate was in his wife's name alone, and the law here says that in order to transfer a plate onto your car:
(1) The plate must already be in your name (either yours alone, or with someone else), or
(2) The other person's name must be added to the title of the new car.
He really wants to save the money by using a plate that is all paid up and the wife is there, saying it's okay with her, so the clerk puts both names on the title, along with the bank as lienholder. End BG.
He's back first thing this morning. The bank will not okay the car loan because wifey has crappy credit, and they will not let her sign on the loan, and they will not finance the loan if her name is on the title. So take her name off. Now he can do this, because the law says that her name only has to stay on long enough to transfer the plate, and then they can pay for another title to take her name off.
Oops, wait. There is one problem. Once you have a lien on a title, there are no changes in ownership of a car without written permission from the lienholder: no adding a name, no dropping a name, no transfers.
Well, until he pointed it out, we did not know we were being silly. Her name was put on there only to use the plate, so now take it off. I explain about how name changes are only allowed with permission of the bank, but I am being silly. There is no loan....yet.
What? Yes, he had not yet closed on the loan when he added the bank to his title. And why would he put the bank on the title: because he wanted to save himself a trip to the DMV and a title fee, by doing everything in one trip.
Here, he tries to hand me his cell phone: I can just talk to the guy at the bank. I don't talk to anyone on the phone: no proofs of insurance taken over the phone, no releases of lien, no proofs of documents. I am just "silly" for distrusting the fact that I really have no idea of who I am talking to over the phone.
He even offered to pay for a whole new plate. Well, at this point, he is just throwing good money after bad, because we still will not remove her name without a release from the bank.
So he is off to the bank to get a letter allowing the change, and that means he will have racked up at least 3 trips and 2 title fees.
He wasn't ranting and raving, but he did have trouble understanding that he created this mess. He did try saying to me, "Well, why didn't the clerk require proof that the loan was closed?"
Seriously, dude, who places a lien on their own title when it doesn't belong there? Most people try to get them taken off as soon as possible, and a few try to get their titles issued without showing the lien that does belong. In my 12 1/2 years at the DMV, the number of people who did what you did are....zero! No one places a lien on their property unless they have to, not because they hope they will need it.
(1) The plate must already be in your name (either yours alone, or with someone else), or
(2) The other person's name must be added to the title of the new car.
He really wants to save the money by using a plate that is all paid up and the wife is there, saying it's okay with her, so the clerk puts both names on the title, along with the bank as lienholder. End BG.
He's back first thing this morning. The bank will not okay the car loan because wifey has crappy credit, and they will not let her sign on the loan, and they will not finance the loan if her name is on the title. So take her name off. Now he can do this, because the law says that her name only has to stay on long enough to transfer the plate, and then they can pay for another title to take her name off.
Oops, wait. There is one problem. Once you have a lien on a title, there are no changes in ownership of a car without written permission from the lienholder: no adding a name, no dropping a name, no transfers.
Well, until he pointed it out, we did not know we were being silly. Her name was put on there only to use the plate, so now take it off. I explain about how name changes are only allowed with permission of the bank, but I am being silly. There is no loan....yet.
What? Yes, he had not yet closed on the loan when he added the bank to his title. And why would he put the bank on the title: because he wanted to save himself a trip to the DMV and a title fee, by doing everything in one trip.
Here, he tries to hand me his cell phone: I can just talk to the guy at the bank. I don't talk to anyone on the phone: no proofs of insurance taken over the phone, no releases of lien, no proofs of documents. I am just "silly" for distrusting the fact that I really have no idea of who I am talking to over the phone.
He even offered to pay for a whole new plate. Well, at this point, he is just throwing good money after bad, because we still will not remove her name without a release from the bank.
So he is off to the bank to get a letter allowing the change, and that means he will have racked up at least 3 trips and 2 title fees.
He wasn't ranting and raving, but he did have trouble understanding that he created this mess. He did try saying to me, "Well, why didn't the clerk require proof that the loan was closed?"
Seriously, dude, who places a lien on their own title when it doesn't belong there? Most people try to get them taken off as soon as possible, and a few try to get their titles issued without showing the lien that does belong. In my 12 1/2 years at the DMV, the number of people who did what you did are....zero! No one places a lien on their property unless they have to, not because they hope they will need it.
He is my Black Dragon (and yes, a good one) strong, protective, the guardian. I am his Silver Dragon, always by his side, shining for him, cherishing him.
)
Comment