Bankruptcy car question please

alastairq

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

so are you saying if you sold a car before going bankrupt to say finance your day to day living costs is not allowed ,!! RUBBISH

From your previous post, you suggest simply transferring ownership of the car to a friend.

The 'disposal of assets' you seem to find incorrect refers to asset disposal, prior to a bankruptcy, for less than the asset value[significantly less, especially]....which appears to be what you advocated in your earlier post?

For a transfer of ownership to not fall foul of the BR rules, so close to a petition, the OP would have to show that a proper market value in cash was exchanged.

ie, the OP has received the value of the car.

What the money is subsequently spent on..[providing it was spent as you suggest] will attract little attention from the OR.


Not what you suggested in your earlier post at all.

Ellejmorgan

mum2one wrote: »

even thou u used the money to buy the car it would be classed as a personal loan not a car loan, - as for the value of the car have a look at local papers, and do internet searches for cars of similar age, milegae etc this would give u a rough ide of what the car is worth. At a guess if the car is 2004 model at a guess it would be around the 1k mark, x

Bit more i'd say i've got a 2003 [53] reg KA it's worth £1300 and a manual, this is automatic and they are worth a bit more and it has low mileage, i'd guess £1800 private but this is just a guess..

It's never worth getting credit for a car ever as they depriciate too quickly...

bankhater_1965

alastairq wrote: »

From your previous post, you suggest simply transferring ownership of the car to a friend.

The 'disposal of assets' you seem to find incorrect refers to asset disposal, prior to a bankruptcy, for less than the asset value[significantly less, especially]....which appears to be what you advocated in your earlier post?

For a transfer of ownership to not fall foul of the BR rules, so close to a petition, the OP would have to show that a proper market value in cash was exchanged.

ie, the OP has received the value of the car.

What the money is subsequently spent on..[providing it was spent as you suggest] will attract little attention from the OR.


Not what you suggested in your earlier post at all.

yes your perfectly correct , 2 diff reasons to sell or tranfer , i guess the selling to fund day to day would not be a problem , but as you correctly say the other would be seen as disposel of goods prior to going bankrupt

alastairq

2 diff reasons to sell or tranfer , i guess the selling to fund day to day would not be a problem ,

to emphasise, the asset must not be sold for less than the market value....

debtinfo

back to the original question, if the bankrupt was given the money and he went to the garage and bought the car then it is his asset and he simply has an unsecured loan to the person that gave him the money

Mouse1812

If your mil bought the car (and didn’t give it to you) then it is hers and the OR will have no say in the matter.

Don't mix your messages, the car either belongs to your mil, or to your husband. The OR has no choice on this, give them the choice and they will take it. Tell them it is mil's car and mil confirms it is her car (producing loan documentation to support and hopefully a purchase invoice) game over for OR. Dither on the facts and OR will take it.

Last year the OR sold some shares which were in my name which I told them were held in trust for my wife. After she complained and proved they were hers they paid her back. Moral of the story: be clear and consistent with your evidence.

It does not matter if your husband physically bought the car if he was buying it for (on behalf of) your mil. In the same way it did not matter that the shares were issued in my name by mistake. The result was I held the shares on a “constructive trust” for my wife. Your husband could likewise be holding the car on trust for your mil.

Whilst you must tell the truth - be sure you know what the truth is before you say anything.

Mouse1812

debtinfo wrote: »

back to the original question, if the bankrupt was given the money and he went to the garage and bought the car then it is his asset and he simply has an unsecured loan to the person that gave him the money

Depends upon what terms he was "given" the money - "here go buy me a car (which you can use)" in contrast to "here go buy yourself a car".

debtinfo

not really, the purchasor is the owner until there is documentary evidence that the asset has been given to another person or the purchase agreement says that it is on behalf of someone else.

Mouse1812

I'll have to disagree with that on a point of law

There is no requirement for "documentary" evidence other than for contracts involving land.

debtinfo

quite right,but without it any court has to assume that the property remains at the last point there is documentary evidence for unless there is strong evidence otherwise

in this case where there is a sale document to the bankrupt and it is registered and insured in the bankrupts name and used by the bankrupt then whilst none of those things are binding if there was no other evidence of ownership by the none bankrupt person a judge would most likely decide that on the balance of probabilities that it belonged to the bankrupt