TexasCHLforum.com

ninemm wrote:http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 1b022.html

Interesting side note to this talk of repos (and no, I had no idea this movie was coming out when I made my original post). Movie that is coming to theaters this week called "Repo Men" it is a Sci-Fi film about a futuristic business that sells organs and body parts to people (for medical necessity or non-medical vanity) on credit. When the recipient of the new body part doesn't pay on time, the main character goes out to "reposess" the body part

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, thought that was an interesting wrinkle to throw into this conversation. And it's sort of possible now. If you get a heart transplant and stop paying your bills, should the hospital/health insurance company be allowed to reclaim their "property" (your new heart)? After all, you didn't pay for it, therefore you are in effect stealing it, and the property is theirs after all since they loaned you the money to buy it which you haven't paid back per your agreement.

mctowalot wrote: Um, I think I might might not have comunicated my thoughts and opinions very well, or my post was misinterpeted. Gee wiz guys, I was just trying to share a little of the joy that is driving a wrecker with ya'll. I seem to recall A.R. inquiring about the removal of a vehicle without the "owner's consent" and while I my type of tows are not repos (hey that rhymes!) I thought there were some simularities shared and I would share a little peak into my world with you.
I've re-read my posts and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would get the idea that I needed to be scolded about the fact that I could not use force or intimitation or call someone a poopy-head or whatever.
What would I do if the owner jumped in the car or a human chain was formed you ask?
I'll do what I always do because this happens sometimes - well I've yet to see a human chain but the former occurs now and then. When the owner of a car I'm towing jumps in it, I a: bring my wrecker to a safe stop. b: order a pizza. c: call the cops and tell them I've got some idiot acting like a child. When the pizza arrives I offer some to the person acting like an idiot. When the cops arrive I offer them pizza too. The the Officer informs the person acting like an idiot that they can either pay me to drop the car or get out and allow me to do my job.
Did I mention that there are cut and dry laws and regulations I must follow? There are and I do.
I think I'm detecting a some anti-wrecker driver emotions here, or perhaps I'm misinterpiting what I'm reading as I was misinterpeted.
If that is this case, let me just say I am in complete agreement with the fact that I must follow the law and must play nice with all.
Now, about those filthy repo scoundrals! Just who do they think they are retrieving stolen property and returning it to it's rightfull owners/lein holders???!!!
Kill 'em and let the bank sort it out! (Just kidding- sort of)

mctowalot, I don't think anyone intended to scold you. Only to redirect toward the original thread about repo men, not merely towing because of illegal parking or whatever. I for one have no problem with what you do (though I do agree with post above that $400 for a tow and one night storage is quite literally highway robbery). And sounds like you follow all the laws too, so carry on - no problem from me.

My concern is about overzealous repo men. And from all I've learned in this thread, it seems the overzealous ones are likely already breaking some laws (or at least rules/policies) anyway.

I still disagree with this idea that it is OK for a repo man to step one foot onto my real property (driveway) in order to reclaim personal property (automobile), and believe that if a homeowner shot at a repo man who was doing this unannounced the homeowner would be cleared (at least if I was on the jury).

And to answer the above question about lawnmowers. Depends how well you know your neighbor. If you know him well enough to loan him your lawnmower, then you probably know him well enough to know whether it's OK with him for you to enter his property to reclaim your lawnmower. But if I didn't "know this" I certainly wouldn't trespass on someone else's real property to reclaim my personal property.

What truly amazes me is how so many on this forum so easily defend the rights of property owners to prevent trespass by a CHL with a 30.06, but don't also defend the rights of property owners to prevent trespass by overzealous repo men? I'll ask again, by failing to pay the note on a car, do you somehow give up the right to be free from trespass within the boundaries of your own property?

Maybe if a store owner owes us money we should be free to walk right past his 30.06 sign while carrying?

chabouk wrote:

mctowalot wrote:My initials are M.C., and I tow - a lot. Hence the screen name.
While I don't do any repo's (that I know of anyway) I do tow vehicles that are parked in reserved spots or parking lots or areas that require a permit of some sort to park in. Many times I am told I don't have the right to "take someone's property" ie: the vehicle that should not be parked from where I'm towing it from. So I hope in your eyes my type of towing fits in this thread.
In my gig, I'm actually "giving" my client the use of their property (the parking spot that they paid big bucks to have reserved for them) by removing someone else's property (their car that should not have parked in my clients parking space). Thankfully, the laws regarding all of this are laid out cut and dry as the tow lobby is alive and well in Texas.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a repo man or towing outfit has the legal right to take the property -- they do. This thread started about the legality of stopping someone from taking your property, even if it turns out to be a repo man with the legal authority to seize it.

You, like the repo man, have a civil law authority to seize and remove property. But you don't have any authority to seize or remove it by using force against a person. It's illegal for you to tow a vehicle with a person inside... what are you going to do if they hop in and lock the doors? It's not legal for you to physically restrain and move a person who is in the way, so what are you going to do if they pull a "we shall not be moved" human chain around the car and/or your truck?

You've got the legal authority to do your job, but you don't have any legal authority to initiate force against someone to do it. You can persuade, intimidate, deceive, trick, charm... but you can't legally use force.

And I'll add that I don't believe you have the legal authority to trespass upon someone else's private real property to tow or repo an automobile (obviously, if the car driven by person A is illegally parked on real property owned by person B, you're legal as long as you have the permission of person B).

The whole argument to me comes down to which "right" is more important:

The right of a lender to recoup his money by reclaiming personal property.

The right of "parties in possession" (i.e. owner/renter) of real property to be free from trespass by others onto said real property.

And to a lesser degree there is question of whether it's prudent to conduct snatch-n-grab repos on public or third-party private property when doing so can look very much like theft.

TAM, we are closer to agreeing than it seems. I too would not likely shoot at someone taking my car from my real property if they had not invaded my "castle" to do so. All depends on situation.

Also if I KNOW a bank is trying to repo my car and the person takng my car is obviously doing a repo and not a simple theft, I would not shoot.

But that gets me back to my over-riding point in all of this that the very nature of these "snatch-n-grab" repos leaves doubt whether it is truly a repo or an actual theft. Many folks are not nearly as restrained as you or I and will shoot, legally, to protect what they believe is their property (and it's a very grey area at what point it is no longer your property - again "possession is 9/10ths of the law").

Regardless of how inconvenient or how much extra expense it may be for the repossessing lender, all legal property repossessions should be done under the legal cover of a court of law or a law enforcement official - just like is already done with evictions and foreclosures on real property. The methods described in Karder's post above seem very appropriate to me.

These cowboy tactics of just taking property surreptitiously invite confrontation and worse.

The industry should be more heavily regulated.

Bart wrote:

Bart wrote:However, if the vehicle is paid off and you hold clear title, then the repo man is a car thief. Maybe because of his own negligence rather than intentionally, but in my mind he's still a thief. I would say you're not guilty and I would say he is guilty.

austinrealtor wrote:what if I paid cash for the used car and a repo man "legally" enters my real property to take the car? Am I still guilty?

What do you mean by "paid cash"? Do you have a clear title with no liens?

Not necessarily, and not likely for this situation I'm describing. I was referring to the situation referenced above where a person purchased a car and was making payments and it was reposessed based on an earlier unpaid lien. My point was, how is it then the responsibility of the current "owner" who either is making payments or paid 100% of the purchase price in cash to know that the person in his driveway forcibly removing his car is a repo man and not a thief?

Obviously, one would hope the repo man would knock on the door and explain the situation (which is apparently what happened in the real life case referenced above). But my concern in all of this hypothetical situation discussion is that it seems to be the unstated point of many that if you're not making your payments you should know that your car will likely be reposessed and then if it is reposessed you wouldn't be able to claim "but I thought he was a car thief" after you shoot at the repo man.

Since when does failure to pay a debt limit your ability to defend your home from an intruder? Even if I know I'm not paying my truck loan and know that the truck will likely be repossessed, would it not still be "reasonable" under the law for me to fear for my life if I found an intruder inside my garage? How do I know he's there to legally repossess my truck?

My point is it should never be the responsibility of any person on his own property (rented, mortgaged, or owned outright - doesn't matter if you're the legal party in possession of your house) to first distinguish whether an intruder is actually a repo man or a thief. My problem is with surreptitious, forced reposession. As long as repo man knocks on the door and says "Hi, I'm here to take back the car because you're not making your payments" then I think he has every right to take the car at that point and you have no right to resist.

For me this all fundamental and goes back to the core rights of the "Castle Doctrine". No matter what your reasons, if you intrude upon someone's "castle" without proper authority AND warning, you risk being met by a welcoming party of lead projectiles.

Bart wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:If I catch someone in my driveway (my real property) taking my car (my personal property) at night, knowing full well I am behind on payments, what happens if I shoot them?

If you don't own the vehicle (not paid off) then if I was on the jury I would say you're guilty. I would say not guilty if the repo man shot you in self defense.

However, if the vehicle is paid off and you hold clear title, then the repo man is a car thief. Maybe because of his own negligence rather than intentionally, but in my mind he's still a thief. I would say you're not guilty and I would say he is guilty.

So I as the "owner" (read my earlier post to see my opinion on whether or not you "own" property that you used a loan to purchase, and remember "possession is 9/10ths of the law") have the duty to distinguish between a car thief and a repo man who is on my real property attempting to take personal property? I don't think so. But if that is in fact true, what about situations as described by another poster above when a car is repoed because the previous liens weren't cleared? What if I KNOW that I am current on my payments, or for that matter what if I paid cash for the used car and a repo man "legally" enters my real property to take the car? Am I still guilty?

Again, my problem is not with legal reposession done the proper way, my problem is surreptitious reposession that cannot be easily distinguished from grand theft, especially when done by entering someone else's real property without specific permission. This is why I agree with one of the questions posed in the article linked in my original post: Why is this industry not regulated? I'm not one to advocate lightly for more government regulation, but the repo industry is just filled with tragedies waiting to happen it seems.

And I fully understand why the surreptitious repos happen - because lowlifes stop paying their note and then hide the car, are never home, etc. But such tactics to me are too close to taking the law into your own hands and even reminiscent of Guido-style loan sharking "pay us or we break your arm" - note I said "close to" not direct comparison.

A more civilized course of action would be to take these people to court to reposess the personal property, like is done with real property. But the lenders don't want to do this because it costs too much money to recover a relatively small amount like a car loan. To which I simply say "tough" ... think reposessing your defaulted loans is too much trouble, then don't make the loans. So many reposessed loans are made to people who shouldn't be given loans in the first place - kinda like what happened with the mortgage industry.

Anyway, I'll end my rambling rant here

Wow, great responses and truly fascinating discussion. AEA, I greatly appreciate your intimate knowledge of this business and it sounds like you "did it the right way" when you were involved.

So many responses so quickly, I'm going to try to post all my comments, responses, and follow up questions in this one reply, so bear with me. In a nutshell, I have a problem with anyone intruding/trespassing onto my legally possessed REAL PROPERTY for any purpose without out both LEGAL PERMISSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENT (not sure how often repo work is done without both, but I've heard of such situations as we all have):

AEA wrote:It's not "your" car until you complete the terms of the loan. You can call it "your" car, but you do not own it.

Same thing as your house. Really tickles me to watch HGTV and see new home buyers after closing say something like "I am now a home owner". In reality the Bank is the new home owner until it is paid off.

I am not a lawyer, of course, but I believe you're incorrect regarding personal property (car) and I know you're incorrect regarding real property (your house). That property is in fact YOURS, and can only be "reclaimed" from you if you don't fulfill your end of the legal contract (the loan). In terms of a home, the home is yours to do with as you please and no one may take it from you without due process of law. I think - but do not know - that the same applies to personal property. The "due process of law" being paramount in all cases.

If these properties truly were not yours, then the banks could just take them at any time for any reason and you couldn't even file a police report to report them stolen if some hoodlum took them because they're not really yours to begin with, right?

All of the above is of course contingent upon any clauses you may have agreed to in any legal contract/loan.

The Annoyed Man wrote: I don't know what the law would say, but here is what I would say...

When you borrow to buy a car, you have a contract with the lender. If you fail to maintain your part of the contract by failing to make the payments, then you are no longer the owner of the vehicle. The bank is. And you can't shoot somebody for coming on your property, like a driveway, to reclaim their property — of which you are illegally in possession.

TAM, I disagree with you in terms of legality (which you didn't claim in first place, so won't waste time with it) but also in non-legal terms or "common sense" or whatever. If you step one foot onto my real property without my permission and without a recognized alternative permission (court order, warrant etc), then you are gravely violating my rights and, depending on the aggressiveness of your trespass, threatening my property and possibly my life. I will respond with an aggressive defense of my property and my life, to the degree which I believe it is necessary stop your instrusion (note this may be as simple benign as me shouting "get of my property" - doesn't have to involve force or deadly force). If you enter my property without legitimate "permissions", you are a threat and will be treated as such. Whether or not I legally or illegally am in possession of your personal property when you do so is incidental.

In these circumstances, mediators of some sort (usually law enforcement) need to be used to keep the peace in such disputes ... sort of the whole point of my OP.

AEA wrote:I can almost guarantee you that if you shoot and kill a repo man during his legal repossession of the vehicle, you will be charged with murder and face the ramifications.

I would agree with this statement with the hugely important CAVEAT that the phrase "legal repossession" is fully explained and it does not conflict with the legal rights nor the unwritten inherent human rights of the person from whom the property is being repossesesd. I have no idea what is "legal" or "illegal" in terms of respossession, but regardless, if someone simply shows up unannounced on my real property and attempts to take my personal property without informing me immediately prior to doing so (meaning a knock on the door right then, not some note tacked on a door earlier or letter in the mail saying "we're gonna take back our car next week"), then I have every right (IANAL) to aggressively repel this person from my real property. I have this right because I DON'T KNOW the true intentions of this person who is trespassing on my property and attempting to take with force property in my possession.

This is why when real property is respossessed, it is done so in an orderly fashion with a court order and law enforcement personnel present.

AEA wrote:You might want to also consider that if you pull a gun on a repo man (without the intent to shoot) that he too might be armed and you may get shot yourself. In this case the repo man would be cleared of any wrong doing as he was acting in the legal performance of his duty and shot you because he was in fear of his life.

Any repo man who shoots another person on that person's real property is not going to be so easily cleared of any wrong doing (all of the above caveats of a "legal" and "announced" reposession notwithstanding).

AEA wrote:Hope this helps and you can see that escalating the situation is not the best thing to do for either party.

Again, all depends who is doing the escalating? Anyone walks onto my real property unannounced and without legitimate "permission" and begins to use force to remove anything is going to be met with strong resistance until such time as the intruder's intentions and legitimate "permission" are made abundantly clear.

AEA wrote:I am not up to date on USA laws for repo's but I can tell you this about Canada........

I can take the property from wherever it is. The "owner's" property, his brother's property, his friend's property or anywhere I find the item/car. The Repo paperwork is in fact a legal warrant to seize the item.

Even if it is hidden in a garage, as long as I have reasonable suspicion that the item is in the garage, I had the legal authority to break into the garage and take it. I only once had to do this and it wouldn't have happened unless I was certain the item was in the garage. It so happened there was a window in the garage that I could see the Snowmobile in the garage and just as we were about to break into it, the "owner" came out of the house and unlocked the garage for us.

If the above is legal in the US and especially in Texas I would LOVE to see it documented. And also know how and where I can "opt out" of such legal "permissions" (perhaps by never using credit to buy anything). And regardless of any legal warrant, I'll state again (and continue doing so) that if you enter my real property without legal permission AND without alerting me to your entry, I will repel your intrusion with deadly force.


****

And I'll just wrap this up by juxtaposing what I consider the "right" way to repossess property and the "wrong" way to repossess property (regardless of any law):

RIGHT WAY: Approach the personal property, and if it sits upon someone else's real property, make every effort to inform the "parties in possession" of the real property that you have the legal permission and intention to take the personal property. If you meet any resistance, retreat until such time as proper law enforcement authorities can be utilized to mediate the disagreement and ensure the repossession without further confrontation.

WRONG WAY: Approach the personal property sitting on someone else's real property surreptitiously, often under cover of darkness. Using force obtain entry and/or possession of the personal property and/or the real property. If confronted by the "parties in possession" of the real property, use force and/or deadly force to repel.

Noticed this story this morning: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And it got me to thinking of all the dangerous possibilities these repo men provoke with their actions. I am NOT defending those who don't pay their debts, and believe strongly that lenders have the legal right to reclaim property not paid for under terms of a loan. But, unlike real property which can be repossessed in a more "civilized" way utilizing the courts and law enforcement via eviction (rentals) or foreclosure (mortgages), personal property like cars and such is left to this shady world of repo men.

So how does all of this apply in Texas, with the Castle Doctrine etc.?

If I catch someone in my driveway (my real property) taking my car (my personal property) at night, knowing full well I am behind on payments, what happens if I shoot them?

If I catch someone inside my garage trying to reclaim my car or boat, or inside my home trying to reclaim a television etc., what happens if I shoot them?

If I catch someone in a public parking lot (Wal Mart for example), attempting to take my car (which I know I am behind on making payments) what happens if I shoot them? What if my child or my dog or other personal property which I own outright (my guns) are in this car when it is repossessed? What if I shoot the repo man under these conditions?

I'm of the belief that I won't likely shoot just to prevent theft of my personal property, but I might pull a gun to try to stop the theft - which can very quickly lead to my life being placed in immediate danger (the person taking my car tries to run me over when they see me pointing a gun at them ...) and to me defending my life with lethal force (shooting).

But, no matter what the circumstances, if someone is inside my home without my permission and has not LOUDLY announced that they are law enforcement serving a legal warrant I will shoot and I will continue to shoot until the person or persons is no longer an imminent threat to me and my family.

Anyway, opening the floor for discussion (would love to hear from someone who is or has been a repo man at some point) ....