My client is a young doctor finishing her internship. Cash-for-clunkers comes along, so she trades in her, well, her clunker for a beautiful new Prius.
Debt piled up in all those years of becoming a healer. So my client’s credit is poor. Her dad co-signs for her. But even with Dad as co-cosigner, the interest rate is larcenous. So her brother fronts the money to buy the Prius.
But the dealership doesn’t change the paperwork from when Dad was the co-signer. So the DMV issues title in my client’s name and Dad’s.
Here’s the problem. Her dad’s a good guy, but many years ago he got buried under an unpaid tax bill. Long story, not relevant here. Now, the Board of Equalization seizes the Prius to pay down Dad’s unpaid taxes, because he’s on the title.
We tell our story to the Board of Equalization. They don’t move. So we go to court.
At the court hearing, the Board’s lawyer argues that the car is really Dad’s. Even though Dad is crippled and cannot drive. They argue that the money for the Prius came from Dad’ hidden trove, and that the brother was only a conduit. They just forget to prove that.
After the hearing, the judge returns the Prius to the young doctor. The judge points out that if dad really intended to conceal his ownership of the Prius, he would have kept his name off the title. That’s a pretty good argument, and one that I didn’t make at the hearing.
Which goes to show: if a judge (or a jury) wants to rule in your favor, they’ll come up with their own argument to do so.
you got that right.
ReplyDelete