Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Lawyer /= Banker. Different whole thing. A lawyer could argue to the court to have certain actions taken by either party regarding the car loan, but could never magically re-cast a car loan to have one fewer cosigner on it. Never in a million years. That takes refinancing. It's set up that way to make loans hard to get out of, which, if you're a bank, is exactly what you want.
|
Dude...I'm telling you, I have seen - it - happen. What's the big deal? In case you don't know, courts trump banks. They trump everything. Look at the first Bush election. And another thing, banks are always willing to negotiate if they have the right motivation.
But to help you feel better, in the case I referenced, if I recall correctly, the lawyer got the judge to force the couple to liquidate assets, including vehicles in joint ownership, thus eliminating the loans. If the OP had to cover a shortfall in the liquidated price from the loan balance it would have been much better to use his own cash or obtain an unsecured loan that was only in his name.
There is no way I would ever end a relationship with a spouse, business partner or otherwise and still have a joint asset I have any responsibility for still in my name. I have no control over what the other person does. If they were sued over an accident I would have liability. If they didn't pay their loan payment I would have responsibilitiy. If they didn't pay their insurance, taxes or licensing fees - yep, I would have liability. His lawyer knew that. It is just simply not a smart move, especially from a liability standpoint.
So, I won't debate you on what courts can and cannot order. But I will not let the joint ownership issue dangle.