Is it legal to go take my license plates off a car I sold, without realizing I should keep my plates? I sold a car a year ago in TX and didn't realize that I should take the plates off. The buyer has taken full advantage of this and is racking up lots of tolls in my name. Fortunately I'm able to get the tolls dismissed by showing the bill of sale and vehicle transfer form I filed, but they say they won't stop sending me bills until the guy registers the car in his name, so I have the repeated hassle of going to contest these bills. It's annoying enough I'm tempted to try to find the car somewhere I believe he frequents and just take the plates. I don't know if that would be considered stealing, since I was supposed to remove them anyway, but something tells me this would be a bad idea. I've had all kinds of ideas, for instance, I found that I still have a non-sentry key, so I could theroetically remove the plates but hide them inside the vehicle, which couldn't possibly be considered stealing but would motivate him to register it. The main thing I wonder is if he could sue me for some kind of monetary damages arising from missing something important because he sees that he suddenly has no plates and doesn't want to risk getting pulled over. Or gets pulled over on his way to something important, etc.
License plates in Texas are governed by the Texas TRANSPORTATION CODE, TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, SUBTITLE A. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES, CHAPTER 504 LICENSE PLATES Texas code section 504.901. TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF LICENSE PLATES (subsections (b) and (c)) provide that (b) On the sale or transfer of a motor vehicle to a person who does not hold a general distinguishing number issued under Chapter 503, [i.e. not a dealer] the seller may remove each license plate issued for the motor vehicle. The license plates may be transferred to another vehicle titled in the seller's name if the seller obtains: (1) the department's approval of an application to transfer the license plates; and (2) a new registration insignia for the motor vehicle. (c) A license plate removed from a motor vehicle that is not transferred to another motor vehicle must be disposed of in a manner specified by the department. It seems that the seller is not required to remove the plates when selling the vehicle Section 504.010 ISSUANCE AND PLACEMENT OF LICENSE PLATE. provides that: (a) On payment of the prescribed fee, an applicant for motor vehicle registration shall be issued a license plate or set of plates This seems to tie the plates to the registration, which means to the person registering them as well as to a particular vehicle. Section 504.943. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE provides that: (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway, during a registration period, a motor vehicle that does not display two license plates that: (1) have been assigned by the department for the period; and (2) comply with department rules regarding the placement of license plates. Section. 504.944. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITH WRONG LICENSE PLATE.provides that: A person commits an offense if the person operates, or as the owner permits another to operate, on a public highway a motor vehicle that has attached to it a number plate or registration insignia issued for a different vehicle. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200. It would seem that under 504.943 or 504.944 (and the related 504.945) the person who bought is committing a misdemeanor every time that the person drives it on public roads or streets. The seller could inform the buyer of this and request the buyer to get new plates, or report the buyer to the police as having improper plates, which would allow them to stop the buyer for having improper plates. Use of certified mail would preserve a record of the notification of the buyer. Note that notification is in no way required before reporting to the police, but might induce the buyer to get new plates on his or her own. Secretly removing the buyer's license plate would probably not be theft, as it seems that the plates actually remain the property of the state, but would at the least involve trespass. It seems unwise at best.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction I demand you give me your hat! You're not going to, are you? The point of that is that you are not obliged to do anything just because someone demands that you do. Now, if I had a court order that required you to give me your hat ... It appears that there is some confusion over who owns some land in Nebraska. This is a problem; it is not your problem. From my understanding which is entirely based on this: A warranty deed is a type of deed where the grantor (seller) guarantees that he or she holds clear title to a piece of real estate and has a right to sell it to the grantee (buyer). you would be extremely unwise to sign such a deed since it is in no way clear that you (or anyone) does have clear title. Now I take it that you are not interested in owning land in Nebraska and even less interested in getting into a legal battle over it. If that is the case then I suggest that you consult a local lawyer and ask for his advice on the following plan of action: You and your wife will renounce any claim that you may have if: You do not guarantee that you have any claim or title, The person to whom you are making this grant indemnifies you against any legal action that may result, They will prepare the documents, Your lawyer will review them, They will reimburse you for your lawyer's fees. Come back and tell us how this works out. Edit to address subsequent questions Can you be responsible for costs? Well, anything is possible but it would be extremely unlikely. If there was any wrongdoing it was many years ago by someone else! If you approach this in a reasonable way and attempt to assist in reaching a resolution (so long as it doesn't cost you time or money) then it is highly unlikely a court would award costs against you. What about background checks? This would be a civil case. It would not appear in your criminal history. While it is a matter of public record all it really means is that you and someone else had a dispute that required a court to settle; happens all the time.
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
The booklet from the condominium management could legally be seen as a part of the lease, and you should have been aware cars can be towed without notice, and have in fact agreed to that by living there. The fact that the tow company entered your car really isn't relevant; they are tasked with removing the car, and by law, they must do everything they can in order to tow the car while not causing damage. They will be insured and bonded for damage during the tow and liability for storage at their lot; but in order to safely tow the car, they must have access to the parking brake, the gear shifter (if manual), the steering wheel (to straighten the tires, if needed, which could be a problem if the steering wheel is locked), etc. They can legally enter the car to ensure a safe tow if the car is unlocked, or use a "slim jim" or other tool to unlock the door, disable the alarm if needed, etc. If the tow company damaged the car while towing, or you find property is missing from inside the car when the care is returned, your issue is with the two company and not the condominium management. See Virginia Code § 46.2-118. Prohibited acts by tow truck drivers and towing and recovery operators
When the buyer hears &quot;to avoid sales tax&quot; and hears the seller describing as a gift something that s/he knows was nothing of the sort, a reasonable buyer would know that this was at best suspicious, and would find out if this was legal. But assuming that the buyer accepted the seller's suggestion ignorantly and in good faith, the buyer can file a report of the transaction and pay any tax that should have been paid. The exact way of doing this will vary based on the laws of the buyer's jurisdiction (state-level if in the US) which is not given in the question. Such a report and payment might not prevent the local tax authorities from assessing an additional penalty. Criminal charges seem unlikely, but would be possible. If the seller was a used car dealer, the authorities might want the buyer to testify against the seller. They buyer might be wise to consult a lawyer with expertise in sales tax issues in the buyer's jurisdiction. Such a lawyer could advise on exactly what the buyer's legal obligation was, and how to avoid or minimize penalties or other consequences.
tl;dr: No, the dealership generally won't be able to recover the car if its act of parting with the car involved &quot;entrusting&quot; it to someone. That said, it can pursue Doe for fraud. U.S. Background First off, when the dealership gets swindled the situation is distinctly different from one where the car is stolen from the dealership. If stolen, we'd expect the dealership to be able to recover the car, as in O'Keeffe v. Snyder, 416 A.2d 862, 83 N.J. 478 (1980). If swindled, we'd expect the dealership to be out of luck, as in Phelps v. McQuade, 220 N.Y. 232 (N.Y. 1917). Why the different result? It comes down to the idea that when the car gets moved on to an unsuspecting buyer, either the innocent buyer or the dealership is going to get hurt by the bad act. This is because only one party (buyer or dealer) is going to get to keep the car, and the other is going to be upset. The court has to essentially choose who is going to get hurt. The way it does this is by looking at how the car left the dealer's lot. In cases of swindling, the dealer at least had some say in the matter: it &quot;entrusted&quot; the car to the swindler by what's called a &quot;voidable&quot; title. This is enshrined in the UCC: § 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; &quot;Entrusting&quot;. (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though (a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or (c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a &quot;cash sale&quot;, or (d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. (2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyerin ordinary course of business. (3) &quot;Entrusting&quot; includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goodshave been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law. There's an old saying: &quot;title, like a stream, only rises as high as its source.&quot; In the case of a theft, the thief didn't have title in the first place and thus can't transfer it. So we'd expect the dealer to get the car back (buyer gets hurt) In your case, the swindler's bogus check falls under UCC §2-403(1)(b). Thus the swindler gets a voidable title and then has the power to transfer the car to an unsuspecting buyer. So we'd expect the buyer to keep the car (dealer gets hurt). Note: the title is &quot;voidable&quot; because, if the dealer realizes the check is dishonored, it can void the title.
If they have no legal grounds then it would be trespass to chattels However, they do have legal grounds. Following the procedure laid out in the relevant Act makes the car refuse under the Act notwithstanding your opinion. Move it or lose it. Or seek an injunction preventing the council removing the vehicle- this will likely fail.
This is not a place for specific legal advice, but you shouldn't be afraid of the small claims court; I'm doing that myself and it really is a low-risk and straightforward way to get money that is owed to you. Step 1: Get the boiler repaired or replaced as necessary. Keep the receipts. Don't be tempted to get an upgrade or anything else to push expenses that are legitimately yours on to the other party; find out what the cheapest thing is that you can reasonably do to fix the problem and then do that. Step 2: Write a letter to the seller in which you set out the facts of the case and demand the cost of the repairs. Also include any other expenses you have had to incur, like money for your time off work while the repair is done. End it with "If you do not agree to pay this money within one month then I will take action in the county court to recover the money". Send it by recorded delivery and include a copy of the repair receipt (NOT the original). Step 3: If you do not get your money then go here and follow the instructions. You have to pay an up-front fee to the court which gets added on to the amount you are claiming. That is the only money you are putting at risk if you lose. The whole thing is as informal and straightforward as possible, and is purposely designed so that you don't need a lawyer, nor can you or the other side claim for the cost of a lawyer if you win. This is why your lawyer is pushing you to do this by yourself: he knows that his fees would be out of proportion to the amount in question, and you wouldn't be able to get that money back even if you won. The only other wrinkle is if the other party has moved far away: in general if a hearing is needed then it will be held near them rather than near you, so you might have to travel.