|
General » rec.autos.driving » Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad
| Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794309] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 01:43 |
|
I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
presence of the clerk who will process her application
for title and registration.
--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794310 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 01:52 |
|
Charles Packer <mailbox [at] cpacker.org> writes:
>However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
>for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
>presence of the clerk who will process her application
>for title and registration.
Why not?
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794311 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 01:58 |
|
In article <fp2np6$pge$5 [at] jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us>, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> Charles Packer <mailbox [at] cpacker.org> writes:
>>However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
>>for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
>>presence of the clerk who will process her application
>>for title and registration.
>
> Why not?
Because government employees are drones and there may be something in
their programming that says that's wrong. Plus they are often drones who
enjoy using the little bit of power the state gives them to make other
people's lives miserable.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794314 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 03:07 |
|
On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
> presence of the clerk who will process her application
> for title and registration.
>
> --
> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
> mailboxATcpacker.org
I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an "open
title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the buyer's.
The buyer is supposed to fill out their info. before the seller does.
The reason for this is, of course, that the state wants to make sure
they get their cut of the sales tax on every transaction. Otherwise,
say, you find a neat old car in an old lady's garage that you have no
interest in personally, but she offers it to you for a good price.
You then have her fill out the title but you don't put your
information in. Then you put an ad in your local newspaper and sell
it to a stranger for a fair price, making a few bucks on the deal.
The state is now not happy with you because legally you should have
paid sales tax when you bought the car from the old lady but you did
not.
Of course, transactions like this happen all the time, but still...
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794316 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 03:48 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794317 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 04:03 |
|
In article <dmu9r3tpfh01njghok57d29e2he73j42hp [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
> I bought a pickup truck last year in Utah. I noted that the title said
> it had been previously titled in Idaho. Nothing was ever said that
> their was a title in Utah.
> I never saw the utah title.
> What I got instead was a bill of sale showing I was the owner.
> That was good enough to get a trip permit for it.
>
> What if I collect vehicles and none of them ever leave the property?
> Am I required to have a title? That would depend entirely upon
> jurisdiction.
Yeah, but it may not have anything to do with the law. My experience has
been that the local authorities don't care about the law only that they
can forcibly extract money by making it up as they go along. Under the law
vehicles that never leave one's property don't need plates in IL or the
towns I own property in. However each will come on to private property and
ticket vehicles for lacking license plates and city stickers. The
adminstrative court doesn't care about the law.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794324 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 04:57 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794332 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:24 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794334 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:31 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794337 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:38 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794338 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:40 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794342 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:54 |
|
>> When I gave my old van to the junk man, I gave him the title to the
>> van. He said they just turned them into Madison (wi). So is he
>> violating the law for not having the title to a vehicle? Hell if I
>> know, Hell if I care. The state says the vehicle is mine. That's good
>> enough for me.
>
>Again, you're showing you don't know what a clean title is.
>
>How, when, and where did the state say the vehicle is yours? And what
>happens if someone else produces a title for the vehicle that you claim
>is yours and you claim you bought from a junk man?
I would point out that not all states title all vehicles. For example, Maine
only titles vehicles for 15 years. After 15 years the registration is
considered proof of ownership. The state will not (cannot - the records are
deleted every year) give you a certificate of title for a vehicle older than
15 years.
Boggles my mind that some states will make you jump through hoops to get a
title to an old heap. I don't need a piece of paper proving ownership of my
$2500 computer, why should I need something special for a $2500 car?
Kevin Rhodes
Westbrook, Maine
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794343 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:56 |
|
In article <u05ar3l2mvkn92f2up5fqojsl46arp4jg6 [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:03:15 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <dmu9r3tpfh01njghok57d29e2he73j42hp [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>>
>>> I bought a pickup truck last year in Utah. I noted that the title said
>>> it had been previously titled in Idaho. Nothing was ever said that
>>> their was a title in Utah.
>>> I never saw the utah title.
>>> What I got instead was a bill of sale showing I was the owner.
>>> That was good enough to get a trip permit for it.
>>>
>>> What if I collect vehicles and none of them ever leave the property?
>>> Am I required to have a title? That would depend entirely upon
>>> jurisdiction.
>>
>>Yeah, but it may not have anything to do with the law. My experience has
>>been that the local authorities don't care about the law only that they
>>can forcibly extract money by making it up as they go along. Under the law
>>vehicles that never leave one's property don't need plates in IL or the
>>towns I own property in. However each will come on to private property and
>>ticket vehicles for lacking license plates and city stickers. The
>>adminstrative court doesn't care about the law.
>>
>>
>
> Challenge the tickets. If the court says you pay, appeal. The higher
> court will remind the lower court of their errors and dismiss the
> case.
They weren't for my car, just a car I was keeping in my driveway for a
family member. But adminstrative court is different, it's not a real court
so it would be a costly appeal in real court to get anywhere. It's a
rigged game. If the tickets were against me I would have gone further, but
like I said, it wasnt my car.
> And the next time they enter your property uninvited?
> "Where's your search warrant? No warrant, your tresspassing and you
> will be charged."
Cowards did it when I wasn't there.
> But is your private property a residence or a business?
> There could be a big big difference on this issue.
residence.
> "Oh you want me to have plates eh? How about that big dealer down the
> street? Does he have plates on all of his cars?"
Most of the car dealers left town for the automall down the road 2nd town
over.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794345 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 06:07 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794346 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 06:08 |
|
In article <47b51b31$0$1108$4c368faf [at] roadrunner.com>, Kevin Rhodes wrote:
> Boggles my mind that some states will make you jump through hoops to get a
> title to an old heap. I don't need a piece of paper proving ownership of my
> $2500 computer, why should I need something special for a $2500 car?
Some things aren't about money. There's government's other motivation.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794347 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 06:29 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794348 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 06:36 |
|
In article <jg8ar3p0du83nmbkajufufif5b0rp7a7hc [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:03:15 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <dmu9r3tpfh01njghok57d29e2he73j42hp [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>>
>>> I bought a pickup truck last year in Utah. I noted that the title said
>>> it had been previously titled in Idaho. Nothing was ever said that
>>> their was a title in Utah.
>>> I never saw the utah title.
>>> What I got instead was a bill of sale showing I was the owner.
>>> That was good enough to get a trip permit for it.
>>>
>>> What if I collect vehicles and none of them ever leave the property?
>>> Am I required to have a title? That would depend entirely upon
>>> jurisdiction.
>>
>>Yeah, but it may not have anything to do with the law. My experience has
>>been that the local authorities don't care about the law only that they
>>can forcibly extract money by making it up as they go along. Under the law
>>vehicles that never leave one's property don't need plates in IL or the
>>towns I own property in. However each will come on to private property and
>>ticket vehicles for lacking license plates and city stickers. The
>>adminstrative court doesn't care about the law.
>>
>>
>
> Just for kicks, I sent an email to the secretary of state of Illinois
> for the answer.
> I had a look through several statutes and couldn't find anything
> specific on this.
> Dealers are exempt. But they have to have special plates for a vehicle
> if it leaves the lot.
In my case they tried to cite under local ordinance. Although I could find
no state law that required plates except upon the highway.
I went to the local library and got the book and read the ordinances. All
required the vehicle to be used upon the roads of the city for the city
sticker, plates, etc. The other tickets were for inoperable and
adbandoned both of which were invalid given the definitions in the code
book. (the car was full operational, I would wash it from time to time
too, definitions required missing wheels, engine, etc) The judge refused to
read them declaring he knew 'the law'.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794351 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 07:22 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794365 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 12:36 |
|
On Feb 14, 7:52=A0pm, j... [at] kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
> Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> writes:
> >However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
> >for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
> >presence of the clerk who will process her application
> >for title and registration.
>
> Why not?
Their objection seemed to be the after-the-fact nature
of what we wanted to do. It was our intention to have
the car owned by both my stepdaughter and her boyfriend.
(Note: the advisability of this kind of ownership is
outside the scope of this thread! It's what we want
to do, period.) Her boyfriend had already put his name
down before we arrived at the DMV. When she then wrote
her name as the co-owner, the DMV official said she
would issue the new title only in the boyfriend's name.
We elected not to proceed, and, having "used up" the
personnel at that office of the DMV, I'm going to another
office today in a different part of the county. At
worst, I figure, they might have entered a remark in
their computer file about the incident, in which case
we're screwed. Stay tuned.
--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794469 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 22:58 |
|
On Feb 15, 6:36 am, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
> personnel at that office of the DMV, I'm going to another
> office today in a different part of the county. At
> worst, I figure, they might have entered a remark in
> their computer file about the incident, in which case
> we're screwed. Stay tuned.
I had no problem. Evidently nothing was in their computer
about restricting the new title to one owner. But as I
was standing in line, I noticed that it had been noted in
the margin of the application that it would be so
restricted. I crossed that out heavily. The gimlet-eyed
clerk looked at the paperwork intently, flipping from
the application to the title several times, but accepted
it without comment.
Of course, now I'll never know exactly why the original
functionary wouldn't accept the addition of the second
owner...but that's a small price to pay for getting the
job done.
--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794476 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 23:37 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
>> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
>> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
>> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
>> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
>> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
>> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
>> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
>> presence of the clerk who will process her application
>> for title and registration.
>>
>> --
>> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
>> mailboxATcpacker.org
>
> I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an "open
> title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the buyer's.
BULLSHIT!
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794477 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 23:39 |
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <dmu9r3tpfh01njghok57d29e2he73j42hp [at] 4ax.com>,
> richard <I.dont.care [at] do.you> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly what is a "title"?
>
> From what you say below, its obvious you don't know the answer to this
> question.
>
>> It is a legal document stating who owns the vehicle for tax records.
>
> It exists for tax records? Are you sure about this?
>
>> It certifies that the vehicle in question is that vehicle.
>
> There is (or was) a title issued for every vehicle in existence.
More BULLSHIT from Larry the legal imbecile.
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794490 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 02:14 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794491 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 02:16 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794609 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 01:12 |
|
On Feb 14, 4:43=A0pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
> presence of the clerk who will process her application
> for title and registration.
>
> --
> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
> mailboxATcpacker.org
In general, if you think that there is any chance of somethng being
wrong, get a "regiastation facailitator" (or whatever term there is
there) who is usually a former DMV employee who will point out to the
clerk the right section of the code to allow whatever you want to do.
These folks often come in very handy when working with a car which
hasn't been on the road for a while - like antique cars from other
states or nations. Valuation differences resolution savings often pay
for his services.
One spoke at a club meeting about the weird problems he has resolved.
You wouldn't believe it.....
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794620 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 03:25 |
|
Charles Packer <mailbox [at] cpacker.org> writes:
>Of course, now I'll never know exactly why the original
>functionary wouldn't accept the addition of the second
>owner...but that's a small price to pay for getting the
>job done.
Um, isn't it rather obvious?
The additional details you provided in
<f5f9450c-f1ab-46e0-aecd-720a8f291009 [at] u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
make it rather clear that the clerk at the first DMV office you visited
was CORRECT to refuse to register both names on the title.
Your stepdaughter took a title which was already fully filled out and
attempted to add her name to it. The clerk could not possibly know
whether the owner already listed on the title had approved that
addition. For all he knew, your stepdaughter could have been
attempting through subterfuge to steal ownership of the car from the
owner already listed on it.
Modifying a title which has already been filled out and signed is
probably illegal.
Crossing out a notation added to a title by a DMV clerk, with the
intent of tricking a different DMV clerk into registering the title
when the first one wouldn't, may very well also be illegal.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794737 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 15:23 |
|
On Feb 15, 5:37=A0pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
> >> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
> >> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
> >> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
> >> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
> >> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
> >> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
> >> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
> >> presence of the clerk who will process her application
> >> for title and registration.
>
> >> --
> >> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
> >> mailboxATcpacker.org
>
> > I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an "open
> > title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the buyer's.
>
> BULLSHIT!
Not BS, just fact.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=3D141584,0 0.html
scroll down to the definition of "open title."
Exact laws may very from state to state, but in general, it's a no-no.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794761 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 20:26 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:37 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
>>>> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
>>>> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
>>>> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
>>>> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
>>>> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
>>>> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
>>>> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
>>>> presence of the clerk who will process her application
>>>> for title and registration.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
>>>> mailboxATcpacker.org
>>
>>> I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an "open
>>> title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the buyer's.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> Not BS, just fact.
>
> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=141584,00. html
>
> scroll down to the definition of "open title."
>
> Exact laws may very from state to state, but in general, it's a no-no.
BULLSHIT!
>
> nate
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794762 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 20:26 |
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <7cbar3tf2vsk6oifb7o2uqd7oevv8cmjsa [at] 4ax.com>,
> richard <I.dont.care [at] do.you> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:54:58 GMT, Krhodes [at] maine.nospam.rr.com (Kevin
>> Rhodes) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> When I gave my old van to the junk man, I gave him the title to
>>>>> the van. He said they just turned them into Madison (wi). So is he
>>>>> violating the law for not having the title to a vehicle? Hell if I
>>>>> know, Hell if I care. The state says the vehicle is mine. That's
>>>>> good enough for me.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you're showing you don't know what a clean title is.
>>>>
>>>> How, when, and where did the state say the vehicle is yours? And
>>>> what happens if someone else produces a title for the vehicle that
>>>> you claim is yours and you claim you bought from a junk man?
>>>
>>> I would point out that not all states title all vehicles. For
>>> example, Maine only titles vehicles for 15 years. After 15 years
>>> the registration is considered proof of ownership. The state will
>>> not (cannot - the records are deleted every year) give you a
>>> certificate of title for a vehicle older than 15 years.
>>>
>>> Boggles my mind that some states will make you jump through hoops
>>> to get a title to an old heap. I don't need a piece of paper
>>> proving ownership of my $2500 computer, why should I need something
>>> special for a $2500 car?
>>>
>>> Kevin Rhodes
>>> Westbrook, Maine
>>
>> The only reason for the demands, is $$$$$$$$$.
>>
>> In cincinnati, the cops play a game for two weekends of the year.
>> Just to see how many tickets they can write, even if they have to
>> make up a law to do it, they will.
>> I got cited for no bumper on my, then 8 yr old pickup, which never
>> had a rear bumper on it to begin with. So I plead not guilty and
>> made the cop show up in court. Told the ADA that ohio law did not
>> require rear bumpers on pickups. Charges dropped.
>>
>> Of course, smart boy larry will come along and say I'm full of shit.
>
> If you know I'm going to say it, what's the point. You are, and you
> know it. Case closed.
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794767 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 20:51 |
|
On Feb 18, 2:26=A0pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 5:37 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
> >> N8N wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
> >>>> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
> >>>> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
> >>>> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
> >>>> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
> >>>> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
> >>>> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
> >>>> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
> >>>> presence of the clerk who will process her application
> >>>> for title and registration.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
> >>>> mailboxATcpacker.org
>
> >>> I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an "open
> >>> title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the buyer's.
>
> >> BULLSHIT!
>
> > Not BS, just fact.
>
> > http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=3D141584,0 0.html
>
> > scroll down to the definition of "open title."
>
> > Exact laws may very from state to state, but in general, it's a no-no.
>
> BULLSHIT!
>
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you had Tourette's, I thought you were
trying to disagree with me.
*plonk*
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Motor Vehicle Dept. drones: how to drive 'm mad [message #794974 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 00:33 |
|
N8N wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:26 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 5:37 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep... [at] jonez.net> wrote:
>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 14, 7:43 pm, Charles Packer <mail... [at] cpacker.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I buy a car for my stepdaughter. After striking a deal
>>>>>> with the seller and paying for it, he fills out the
>>>>>> seller part of the title. I leave the buyer part blank,
>>>>>> so that stepdaughter can put her name in as the owner.
>>>>>> On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with this.
>>>>>> However, I find out the hard way that it's NOT advisable
>>>>>> for stepdaughter to fill in her part at the DMV in the
>>>>>> presence of the clerk who will process her application
>>>>>> for title and registration.
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
>>>>>> mailboxATcpacker.org
>>
>>>>> I believe it is technically illegal in many states to have an
>>>>> "open title," that is, one that has the seller's info but not the
>>>>> buyer's.
>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!
>>
>>> Not BS, just fact.
>>
>>> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=141584,00. html
>>
>>> scroll down to the definition of "open title."
>>
>>> Exact laws may very from state to state, but in general, it's a
>>> no-no.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>>
>
> Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you had Tourette's, I thought you were
> trying to disagree with me.
>
> *plonk*
Run and hide, bullshitter.
>
> nate
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 15:21:59 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.19397 Sekunden |
