News2 mins ago
Legal rights to gifts.
My ex father in law bought me a car eight years ago which was bought and registered in my name as a gift. I divorced from his son three years ago and took the car with me . Now after so many years he is threatening to take me to court saying that he bought it for family use and wants the money back for it, even though my husband never used the car as he couldn't drive and I have sole custody of my daughter. Does he have any legal rights ?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Tarah123. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If he went to court he would have to prove that there was an agreement in place that meant he got the car back in certain circumstances and even then, one that could not be rebutted.
He may be able to show that the car was only registered on your name as you were the only driver but, even if that was his intention, why has he waited so long to get it back and how would he construe family use?
When was it bought as opposed to the birth of your daughter? Can you show it was bought to help with looking after her as opposed to just driving his son about?
He could have registered it in his name and given you permission to drive it but he didn't.
With depreciation, would he really get that much money back? Is there any reason he is specifically after the money now you could show like a debt which needs paying or a personal reason?
Whatever happens, I hope you can sort it amicably and it doesn't have any impact on your daughter and her relationship with that side of the family.
He may be able to show that the car was only registered on your name as you were the only driver but, even if that was his intention, why has he waited so long to get it back and how would he construe family use?
When was it bought as opposed to the birth of your daughter? Can you show it was bought to help with looking after her as opposed to just driving his son about?
He could have registered it in his name and given you permission to drive it but he didn't.
With depreciation, would he really get that much money back? Is there any reason he is specifically after the money now you could show like a debt which needs paying or a personal reason?
Whatever happens, I hope you can sort it amicably and it doesn't have any impact on your daughter and her relationship with that side of the family.
What weighs so heavily against your ex-father in law is the delay.He's done nothing in three years.We may guess that he's now short of money (aren't we all? Credit crunch and all that! ) and is desperately looking for places to get cash.You and the car are the obvious target. The 'family' he claims to have bought the car for ceased to exist as that family some three years ago.If it truly was bought 'for the family' he'd have acted as soon as that family was no more, because the circumstances dictated then that his rights were immediately activated under the conditions of the ' conditional gift'
His other problem is that, strictly on what you say, he's claiming the purchase money, not the car.So he's saying that he loaned the money for the purchase of the car , the title to it being yours (he 'wants the money back for it').Nobody's going to agree with that claim (it's inconsistent, in logic and common sense, with the idea that the car was the subject and for a particular use).The best he could hope for is to argue that the car is still his,you being put as registered keeper, in which case he's waited for it to depreciate over three years instead of getting it back as soon as possible.That, in itself, again weighs heavily against him.It calls for an explanation for delay on his part which he'd need to prove was right.(My guess that he's short of cash seems extremely likely, in comparison )
Try to agree amicably, if you will, but on the face of it he's on to a dead loser.His account, in the absence of documentary evidence that the car was accepted on the terms he claims, looks 100 per cent certain to fail.The words 'get' and 'lost' apply, though hardly forensic, hardly legal language!
His other problem is that, strictly on what you say, he's claiming the purchase money, not the car.So he's saying that he loaned the money for the purchase of the car , the title to it being yours (he 'wants the money back for it').Nobody's going to agree with that claim (it's inconsistent, in logic and common sense, with the idea that the car was the subject and for a particular use).The best he could hope for is to argue that the car is still his,you being put as registered keeper, in which case he's waited for it to depreciate over three years instead of getting it back as soon as possible.That, in itself, again weighs heavily against him.It calls for an explanation for delay on his part which he'd need to prove was right.(My guess that he's short of cash seems extremely likely, in comparison )
Try to agree amicably, if you will, but on the face of it he's on to a dead loser.His account, in the absence of documentary evidence that the car was accepted on the terms he claims, looks 100 per cent certain to fail.The words 'get' and 'lost' apply, though hardly forensic, hardly legal language!
1 to 3 of 3
