I was divorced in March ’09, and my ex-wife was awarded our car (it is still in both our names – the judge gave her 12 months to find a new loan). In May ‘09, my ex-wife was arrested; she falls under the habitual offender rules, and will likely go to DOC for several years. In the meantime she had been allowing her boyfriend to drive the car. In June ’09 he was arrested for burglary, and the car was towed. I spoke with the detective in charge of his case, and was told that because the car was used in a crime, and is being used as evidence in the case, it cannot be released. I was also told that the case is a complex one, and would likely stretch out for a lengthy period of time, potentially upward of a year.

In the meantime the finance company has been plaguing me with collection calls, and my credit is being ruined! I always had a perfect credit history with this finance company before the car was awarded to my ex-wife – since then she has not made a single payment, nor can she as she is incarcerated, and I can’t even request that the finance company repossess the vehicle as it is being held for evidence. Nor can I insist that the car be put in her name only (the finance company understandably has refused that option). She is not even in violation of the divorce decree until the 12-month period has expired. What are my options? Is there a rule somewhere that states that vehicle payments are suspended while a vehicle is being held as evidence?

Thanks!!

Show the collection agency the court order and then provide them with the detective's name & number and tell them what you told us. Since the court awarded her the car and instructed her to find a new loan, technically it's out of your hands. I am unsure if they can hold it against you though.

Have you brought this to the attention of your divorce lawyer (if you had one)?

Show the collection agency the court order and then provide them with the detective's name & number and tell them what you told us. Since the court awarded her the car and instructed her to find a new loan, technically it's out of your hands. I am unsure if they can hold it against you though.

Have you brought this to the attention of your divorce lawyer (if you had one)?

Neither of us had a lawyer. We drew up all the paperwork ourselves and there were no disagreements. I've already handed over the divorce paperwork to the finance company, but their attitude was a shrug and a "sucks to be you" attitude, and "now you owe us $2,100 in back payments, and if we have to we'll take you to court for it." I was the primary signer on this vehicle and she was the co-signer. They just don't care what the situation is, they want their money.

I've researched the Colorado Revised Statutes to try and discover any recourse, but no cigar. I've browsed through the Rules of Evidence as well, but I can't find what I'm looking for. I'm still fairly convinced there must be something on the books that would cause them to stop punishing my credit and keep them from harassing me, but I can't find it. They've stayed within the guidelines of the FDCPA, so no cigar there either. Title 18 (Criminal Code), Title 42 (Vehicular Code) and UCCC didn't turn anything up - it's all written fairly plainly, so I'm sure I'm not missing anything. Am I looking in the wrong places?

Show the collection agency the court order and then provide them with the detective's name & number and tell them what you told us. Since the court awarded her the car and instructed her to find a new loan, technically it's out of your hands. I am unsure if they can hold it against you though.

Have you brought this to the attention of your divorce lawyer (if you had one)?
No. He needs to be making the payments if he wants to save his credit rating.

In 12 months, if OP's wife has not done as ordered, then she can be held in contempt of the court order. However, the finance company is not a party to the divorce, therefore the court order for OP and his wife means nothing to the finance company.

The finance company can choose to work with OP, but is not legally required to do so.

OP, you need to pay the car payment.

No. He needs to be making the payments if he wants to save his credit rating.

In 12 months, if OP's wife has not done as ordered, then she can be held in contempt of the court order. However, the finance company is not a party to the divorce, therefore the court order for OP and his wife means nothing to the finance company.

The finance company can choose to work with OP, but is not legally required to do so.

OP, you need to pay the car payment.

When the car was seized from her boyfriend and held as evidence, didn't this change the dynamics of things, though? Normally this would be a secured loan, with the car itself as collateral. In any other situation I would ask the finance company to repossess the car and work on repairing my credit later. However, there is no longer any collateral. They couldn't take the car back if they wanted to. According to our contract, reposession of the vehicle was an option that was available to both of us. Now that it is no longer an option, there must be some other option that takes its place, i.e. suspension of payments until the vehicle is released.

What if my car had been stolen and was being used to transport a barrel of crystal meth when it was recovered? The car would have been entered into evidence, and the situation would be the same, though I suspect that as a victim I would be allowed some form of relief. It's not as though I have the car, or even disposed of it. Can I file an injunction? Can I ask for relief from the sheriff's department? It seems like there must be some rule somewhere that would provide me some sort of protection when, through no fault of your own, a third party has possession of your vehicle, and it is unrecoverable.

Also, does anybody know how the fifth amendment plays into this? Doesn't it guarantee that no private property can be taken for public use without compensation?

Also, does anybody know how the fifth amendment plays into this? Doesn't it guarantee that no private property can be taken for public use without compensation?


FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation
______________________
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Also, does anybody know how the fifth amendment plays into this? Doesn't it guarantee that no private property can be taken for public use without compensation?
What the 5th amendment means is that the authorities could not take your car (or land, boat, house, whatever) and use it without compensation. In other words, the police (or whatever legal entity) can't come and take your car to conduct a stakeout. They can't come in and tell you you have to leave your home because they need the property without compensation. That has nothing to do with holding the car as evidence of the crime.

What the 5th amendment means is that the authorities could not take your car (or land, boat, house, whatever) and use it without compensation. In other words, the police (or whatever legal entity) can't come and take your car to conduct a stakeout. They can't come in and tell you you have to leave your home because they need the property without compensation. That has nothing to do with holding the car as evidence of the crime.

A car doesn't have to be driven to be used. I don't think this clause is restricted to stakeouts. Holding my car to use as evidence in a crime is using it in the interest of public welfare and protection - that's still using it without compensation, and removing a criminal from the population is a public use. I don't think the "taking clause" is meant to imply action alone, although seizing property and keeping it away from its owner is certainly an action, and so is storing it for potential future use. Taking property from its rightful owner and using it as evidence in a crime is still using it, and prosecuting a criminal is still an action for the benefit of the public, so the sheriff's department has taken my private property for public use without just compensation.

My question about the fifth amendment was just an aside. I guess I'm still wondering if there are any consumer protection laws in place which would grant the finance company the ability to suspend payments until this whole thing is sorted out - it's hard for me to believe that a private citizen would be forced to absorb a financial burden for the welfare of the public, yes, but even harder for me to believe that there isn't some sort of statutory relief available for my situation.

I will keep digging, but any help anyone can provide - even to point me in the right direction - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

A car doesn't have to be driven to be used. I don't think this clause is restricted to stakeouts. Holding my car to use as evidence in a crime is using it in the interest of public welfare and protection - that's still using it without compensation, and removing a criminal from the population is a public use. I don't think the "taking clause" is meant to imply action alone, although seizing property and keeping it away from its owner is certainly an action, and so is storing it for potential future use. Taking property from its rightful owner and using it as evidence in a crime is still using it, and prosecuting a criminal is still an action for the benefit of the public, so the sheriff's department has taken my private property for public use without just compensation.

My question about the fifth amendment was just an aside. I guess I'm still wondering if there are any consumer protection laws in place which would grant the finance company the ability to suspend payments until this whole thing is sorted out - it's hard for me to believe that a private citizen would be forced to absorb a financial burden for the welfare of the public, yes, but even harder for me to believe that there isn't some sort of statutory relief available for my situation.

I will keep digging, but any help anyone can provide - even to point me in the right direction - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Uh...your ex-wife is also an owner of the car and she allowed the car to be used in the commission of said crime, thus giving the authorities legal grounds to impound the car until the case comes to trial.

You can keep looking, but I did tell you what you need to do and what you can do if your ex doesn't have the car refinanced in the timeframe spelled out in the divorce decree.

A couple things:

I found some information that might be helpful in the UCCC (CO).

1. "The consumer shall not be liable for any finance charge incurred during the period the consumer is without use of the collateral."

and

2. Nothinng I have found can prohibit a consumer from voluntarily surrendering possession of goods that are collateral.

In the first case, if I am not liable for finance charges while my car is being held, I may be able to actually afford to cure the loan and then file a civil suit against my ex-wife for monetary damages incurred. As I can't even come close to being able to cure the loan WITH finance charges this may be an option.

In the second case, and less likely (although possible?) I may be able to "surrender" possession of the car, and stop back-payments from accruing. The finance company now has their collateral back, which would return to their physical possession once it is released.

It seems like a much easier and potentially more successful path than trying to cite the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II (Bill of Rights) Section 15, just compensation for evidentiary seizure of innocent property.

Am I on the right track here? Any advice is greatly appreciated!

Consult with an attorney……
If you have to pay for it, perhaps you will listen to their advice and stop with the how comes and the what ifs and the why knots. Their time is YOUR money, I‘ve found it helps one to.... focus.…. Der Doktor ist heraus!

_________________________
Free advice is like a public defender,
You get what you pay for.

My question about the fifth amendment was just an aside. I guess I'm still wondering if there are any consumer protection laws in place which would grant the finance company the ability to suspend payments until this whole thing is sorted out - it's hard for me to believe that a private citizen would be forced to absorb a financial burden for the welfare of the public, yes, but even harder for me to believe that there isn't some sort of statutory relief available for my situation.

Government wrongly does this all the time:

- A friend had a big hole in the side of his house that he had to pay to repair himself. Why? There was a gunfight out in the street. The police used a chainsaw to cut out the bullet holes from several buildings in the area, to take for ballistics use. Government reimbursement required that the owner leave the hole in the house until government got around to fixing it months later. This would damage the house when rain got in.

- Government seized a priceless antique that had been stolen as evidence. It was not returned to the rightful owner until the last of the appeals were exhausted. During the police custody, it was damaged. Government claimed immunity from suit.

- Government raided the wrong house because the anonymous tip had the street name spelled wrong. The owner was not reimbursed for the damage to the door, nor the holes in the walls where the police looked for drugs. The police told the owner to file with his insurance.

- After Hurricane Katrina, people were not allowed to go back to their properties to take the steps necessary to save their structures. As a result. many houses were needlessly damaged beyond repair by rot and mold.

- Due to an international treaty signed by President Clinton, people who had legally purchased certain kinds of property suddenly found their property to be illegal to possess, and that they would not be reimbursed for the purchase price when it was confiscated.

- People two blocks from me had to sue the government because the sewers backed up into their house. Government refused to pay for the damage, even though the real fault was in the sewer lines under the street. Government claimed immunity, and demanded that the homeowners use their insurance. But insurance would not pay for the music and instruments the owners lost, and the insurance company should not have to pay if government did the wrong. The court ruled against the government, because government had neglected maintenance on the sewers. But government is now appealing the ruling, still claiming government immunity.

- President Roosevelt signed a law making it illegal for private citizens to own gold. The gold was taken by government, and the owners were not compensated for what they had paid for their gold.

- Aren't taxes also "a private citizen being forced to absorb a financial burden for the welfare of the public"? It makes sense if the citizen actually receives benefits from the taxes (such as police and fire protection), but when the taxes are spent on the arts, sports, entertainment, recreation, venues for any of the above, decorative landscaping, fancy architecture, and other things that the legislators crave, but the average person does not need, the burden is placed on taxpayers for no good reason.

Also, does anybody know how the fifth amendment plays into this? Doesn't it guarantee that no private property can be taken for public use without compensation?

If you cannot figure out HOW the Fifth applies in your case, then it's apparently not applicable.

Divorces suck, I know. Getting busted sucks, too.

If you cannot figure out HOW the Fifth applies in your case, then it's apparently not applicable.

Divorces suck, I know. Getting busted sucks, too.

I think the fifth applies, but I think it's academic. I admit I was grasping at straws.

As far as getting busted - I've never been there. I'm convinced that my ex-wife and her boyfriend are both better off where they are, though.

I really appreciate everyone's remarks; even the abrasive ones - they are well received.

At this point, I'll bide my time, try to know a little bit about what I'm talking about, and approach it from a civil standpoint as needed, when apropos.

Thanks again!