liens

[PILOON]

I know this stuff happens.
A B21 c/w BH and FEL was offered for $7000 which I refused as I won't buy stolen goods.
The former owner declared it stolen after he finished his work and hid it for a few months to cool off so to speak.
Now it so happens that I know who actually owns it now and I would not wish to be in his shoes should he get caught with a 'hot' tractor.
Around here you need plates but he can't plate it due to SN tracing that would probably declare it as stolen, nor can he have dealer service it order parts etc etc as SN is always called for.
For me a few $$ savings is simply not worth the hassles nor my reputation.

 

[PILOON]

I know this stuff happens.
A B21 c/w BH and FEL was offered for $7000 which I refused as I won't buy stolen goods.
The former owner declared it stolen after he finished his work and hid it for a few months to cool off so to speak.
Now it so happens that I know who actually owns it now and I would not wish to be in his shoes should he get caught with a 'hot' tractor.
Around here you need plates but he can't plate it due to SN tracing that would probably declare it as stolen, nor can he have dealer service it order parts etc etc as SN is always called for.
For me a few $$ savings is simply not worth the hassles nor my reputation.

 

[rScotty]

rScotty blames the finance company for the problems of the OP and then suggests that he further compound his problems by hiding the machine away until the heat clears.

The OP is acting in a responsible manner as far as we know from the posts but rScotty is suggesting that he become a thief and attempt to hide the goods. For what reason? They know ho has the machine and he wouldn't gain anything at this point doing that. rScoty, seeks to project his dishonesty onto the OP..

Yes, I have heard that argument before. It is common to the existing loan industry and to the legal industry which defends it. Any chance you are connected to either of those? And I'll agree it is an argument with the merit of having existed for a long time. But societies do change. Technology is changing ours rather rapidly even as we post.

From a more grassroots public perspective, there are times when existing laws & regulations are simply no longer relevant to a new situation. The original poster (OP) brought up a good example of that very thing. And it is part of why we elect legislatures. When an interpretation needs modification, existing laws need to be examined and possibly changed. As the OP points out, the current loan/lien/collateral/ownership problem is not treating him fairly - and this is partly because of a by a socieal & technological revolution that wasn't even on the horizon when those old fashioned lien and collateral relationships were developed. History shows that non-violent obstructionism is one way to bring public attention to laws that have become unfairly burdensome. When it works, it is a good way to start the governmental process.

The downside is that any changes tend to be resented and resisted by vested financial interests.
All part of the process....
rScotty

 

[TomSeller]

rScotty blames the finance company for the problems of the OP and then suggests that he further compound his problems by hiding the machine away until the heat clears.

The OP is acting in a responsible manner as far as we know from the posts but rScotty is suggesting that he become a thief and attempt to hide the goods. For what reason? They know ho has the machine and he wouldn't gain anything at this point doing that. rScoty, seeks to project his dishonesty onto the OP.

.

All he was saying is that the buyer should make sure that the finance company had their paperwork in order before they are allowed to take it. That is all.

 

[Sprinklerman]

Kinda makes you afraid to buy something used . My questions would be , how can you believe the finance company simply since they say so ? Did the original purchaser report it stolen? If so they would have been paid by insurance.
How do you know the finance company wasnt paid in full and it is a paper work mistake? I wouldnt give the machine up until a judge decides true ownership . But I would do it in a legal way

 

[aczlan]

Kinda makes you afraid to buy something used . My questions would be , how can you believe the finance company simply since they say so ? Did the original purchaser report it stolen? If so they would have been paid by insurance.
How do you know the finance company wasnt paid in full and it is a paper work mistake? I wouldnt give the machine up until a judge decides true ownership . But I would do it in a legal way

I agree, are you certain that they didn't mess up the paperwork and mark it defaulted when it was paid in full?

Aaron Z

 

[Sprinklerman]

I got interested in this thread , in doing some reading it seems to me that you would almost need to search all 50 states to see if there is a ucc filing .

 

[two_bit_score]

Kinda makes you afraid to buy something used . My questions would be , how can you believe the finance company simply since they say so ? Did the original purchaser report it stolen? If so they would have been paid by insurance.
How do you know the finance company wasnt paid in full and it is a paper work mistake? I wouldnt give the machine up until a judge decides true ownership . But I would do it in a legal way

Reasonable questions. Probably all answerable in favor of the JD Finance Company but you never know until you ask. There absolutely are legal ways to resolve issues like this.


TBS

 

[John Fitzgerald]

Years ago, Ford Motor Credit tried to say I was in default on a pickup truck, and they were mentioning repo. I wasn't in default at all, and was actually paid ahead, and had the cancelled checks with their endorsements to prove it. When they saw their mistake, they were apologizing by letter. The current owner should make sure the paperwork is right. The tractor may have been paid off, and they don't have the paperwork.

 

[TomSeller]

Years ago, Ford Motor Credit tried to say I was in default on a pickup truck, and they were mentioning repo. I wasn't in default at all, and was actually paid ahead, and had the cancelled checks with their endorsements to prove it. When they saw their mistake, they were apologizing by letter. The current owner should make sure the paperwork is right. The tractor may have been paid off, and they don't have the paperwork.

Great input !!

 

[TheMan419]

Yes, I have heard that argument before. It is common to the existing loan industry and to the legal industry which defends it. Any chance you are connected to either of those? And I'll agree it is an argument with the merit of having existed for a long time. But societies do change. Technology is changing ours rather rapidly even as we post.

From a more grassroots public perspective, there are times when existing laws & regulations are simply no longer relevant to a new situation. The original poster (OP) brought up a good example of that very thing. And it is part of why we elect legislatures. When an interpretation needs modification, existing laws need to be examined and possibly changed. As the OP points out, the current loan/lien/collateral/ownership problem is not treating him fairly - and this is partly because of a by a socieal & technological revolution that wasn't even on the horizon when those old fashioned lien and collateral relationships were developed. History shows that non-violent obstructionism is one way to bring public attention to laws that have become unfairly burdensome. When it works, it is a good way to start the governmental process.

The downside is that any changes tend to be resented and resisted by vested financial interests.
All part of the process....
rScotty

How is the current system unfair? Yes the OP got screwed and I feel bad for him.

However that is not the fault of the "system" or the finance company. The law says if you finance something and want to put a lien on it you file a UCC-1. JD Finance did just that. As a buyer you need to search title/lien records if you want to make sure you get clean title.

In the auto industry we do that by the BMV keeping title and lien records. In the real estate market we do that by the recorder's office (or registrar of deeds) keeping these records.

For other miscellaneous goods we do it by a UCC-1 filing.

It used to be that you would file that UCC-1 in the COUNTY where the person lived when they bought the goods. That made them nearly impossible to find. When Chapter 9 of the UCC was updated (I think we are on 9.2 now?) the filing became with the secretary of state in the state where the person lives. So easier to find.

Now I fully admit that the average joe is not going to know how to search the UCC data base. However what method are you proposing? Register a tractor with the BMV? Fine. Now what about those that finance other non-motorized things? Are we going to have a registrar of couch liens?

 

[atsah]

The only way to avoid this disaster is asking the seller to give you a copy of the machine note paid in full and then calling to make sure it's free and clear. If the seller says he paid cash for it then he should have that paperwork as well. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it period.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

It's hard to believe someone would do that to anyone. .

???

What world do you live in? This and worse happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every day.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

In my opinion, the people making the loan should be the ones responsible for protecting their own collateral.

They are. It's called repossession of their property. Yes, it's their property. It is not the OP's property. He has no legal or moral right to it, any more than if he had bought a stolen TV. Once the theft is discovered, the property goes back to its rightful owner. That's what happens when you buy stolen property, which this was.


It's a perfectly sensible and fair system, which, like every other possible system, is not capable of protecting every person from the criminal actions of some. The last guy in the chain is often the innocent loser, if the bad guy can't be found and made to pay up.

That's how life is in the real world.

 

[atsah]

???

What world do you live in? This and worse happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every day.

This is the second stupid post regarding the same thing, another keyboard cowboy just looking for trouble, get a life.

 

[TimberHole]

How is the current system unfair? Yes the OP got screwed and I feel bad for him.

However that is not the fault of the "system" or the finance company. The law says if you finance something and want to put a lien on it you file a UCC-1. JD Finance did just that. As a buyer you need to search title/lien records if you want to make sure you get clean title.

In the auto industry we do that by the BMV keeping title and lien records. In the real estate market we do that by the recorder's office (or registrar of deeds) keeping these records.

For other miscellaneous goods we do it by a UCC-1 filing.

It used to be that you would file that UCC-1 in the COUNTY where the person lived when they bought the goods. That made them nearly impossible to find. When Chapter 9 of the UCC was updated (I think we are on 9.2 now?) the filing became with the secretary of state in the state where the person lives. So easier to find.

Now I fully admit that the average joe is not going to know how to search the UCC data base. However what method are you proposing? Register a tractor with the BMV? Fine. Now what about those that finance other non-motorized things? Are we going to have a registrar of couch liens?

So you're saying if they didn't file a UCC-1 or if there was an error in the filing they would have no claim?

 

[TimberHole]

The only way to avoid this disaster is asking the seller to give you a copy of the machine note paid in full and then calling to make sure it's free and clear. If the seller says he paid cash for it then he should have that paperwork as well. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it period.

Doesn't seem like that would be adequate either. What if he paid off the first note and the used the tractor for collateral at a later date? I'm beginning to wonder if the current system provides means for a buyer to protect themselves. It shouldn't be this hard for an honest buyer to verify there are no outstanding Liens!

 

[Sprinklerman]

Doesn't seem like that would be adequate either. What if he paid off the first note and the used the tractor for collateral at a later date? I'm beginning to wonder if the current system provides means for a buyer to protect themselves. It shouldn't be this hard for an honest buyer to verify there are no outstanding Liens!

No , it doesnt , I read about blanket liens , and something called perfection . Its a bit to wrap your head around

 

[CincyFlyer]

So you're saying if they didn't file a UCC-1 or if there was an error in the filing they would have no claim?

That's likely not true, either. But it's much easier to collect (or repossess) with the proper paperwork; heck, sometimes the local sheriff will even help you! But at one point the buyer signed a note, and that's all that's really needed.
s

 

[two_bit_score]

In my opinion, the people making the loan should be the ones responsible for protecting their own collateral. It shouldn't be up to some unsuspecting buyer to protect the finance company against some loan that they shouldn't have made and that a subsequent buyer has search out or lose out years later.

This is an example of a type of misplaced responsibility that could end up damaging our the whole concept of private ownership.
Hopefully this will get straightened out.
rScotty

The finance company took responsibility and tracked down the dead beat who sold it to the OP and then located the tractor which was in possession of the OP. I would say that is taking responsibility for protecting their own property.


All of your posts on this subject sound like sour grapes toward the finance company for simply wanting their legally owned property back.

I just wonder how many times the repo man has been to your house. Probably more than once to have left you with such a bad taste.


.