Interesting title problem, need some opinions

[Guest]

so I'm considering buying another race bike and getting back on the track. I find a viable Suzuki 600 at a decent price. With racebikes you have to be willing accept that you may wad the bike into a ball of metal, rubber, and plastic and then be able walk away from it without any remorse. The bike fits the criteria.

So I'm talking by phone to the owner. Bike is being sold with a bill of sale only. I ask about the status of the title, and it comes out that he is the 2nd owner. Bought it from the original owner who purchased the bike via a bank loan. Original owner lowsided the bike and tore the fairings all up, and then sold it to 2nd owner with bill of sale only and money still due on the bank loan. Bank filed a lien on the bike.

Who owns the bike? It would seem that the bank does given the lien against the bike. But money has changed hands, yet the original owner is still liable for the bank note and the outstanding balance of the loan. Is this akin to buying stolen goods? I'm probably going to walk away from this, plenty of race bikes out there - but the lien/liability/ownership question has been rattling around in my head and I'm not clear on the precedence.

To help seal the decision, apparently in CA if you have a bike in the open bed of your truck and get pulled over they can run the tags on the bike (but not if bike is in an enclosed trailer), I'd guess that the tags would come back with a bank lien and law enforcement would seize the bike. I'm willing to total the bike on the track and walk away from it, but not losing the bike in a seizure. Defrauding anyone isn't really my thing either, and I appreciate the current "owner" being up front about the title. I've bought more than a few bikes in really weird situations before, but this deal kinda resets the bar a bit.

[eil]

I'm going to be of zero help here because I don't know CA law, but in Michigan, title issues really only matter if you plan to register the bike (i.e., get a license plate). Although I wonder what would happen if the original owner paid off the lien and then went through the courts to try to get the bike back...

My situation is different than yours, but my rule of thumb is still this: The title is the thing that proves ownership. If you don't have the title, you don't own the bike.

[Steve]

I would PASS.

.

[FLHGSRay]

In Missouri, that is considered an invalid sale. You have no right to the bike, even if you paid for it. In my opinion, that is as it should be. It belongs to the bank.

[hjfisk]

It would belong to the bank , and if for some reason they found out you had it, they would have legal right to it. I see this happen a few years ago at the track. A fellow racer had a loan on a bike , sold to another racer without title. Somehow bank found out the bike was at the track and a sent repo men to the track, and they took said bike from 2nd owner. Then the track implemented, that any bike that was going to be raced , the owner had to show proof of ownership, by title if 15 years or younger .

[Charlie G]

Unless the lender/ lien holder signs off on the title, it's not his to sell. I wouldn't buy it. I've got enough problems.

cg

[SqDancerLynn1]

YES not his to sell !!! DON'T do it not in Ca. They will F you over any way they can.. Want to NON OPP your bike ?? You have to pay them a $25 fee every year !!!
Drop your insurance ? put the bike in storage you will get a nasty letter from DMV

[Nessism]

In CA you can't even move a bike in a truck without proper documentation. For example, Plan non Op vehicles can't be moved out of their storage location until the registration is made current, or you get DMV permission to move it. You might be able to resolve the issue with the bank and seller together, but I wouldn't buy the thing unless you have all the information as to the costs going in.

[rustybronco]

In CA you can't even move a bike in a truck without proper documentation.

Welcome to the home of the police state!

[TooManyToys]

CA needs money. And lots of it.

[Nessism]

CA needs money. And lots of it.

...to pay off the employee unions.

[Charlie G]

Some people create their own problems when they go to DMV. I just transferred two bikes that were non-opted into my name. One, which was given to me was $15.00. The other, which I paid $285.00 for, was $36.00 (15+21 sales tax). I presented my filled out non-opted forms during the transactions and when I get them back on the road, I'll fill out the forms and pay my fees. There is no annual non-opted fee. Pretty easy in my little town.

cg

[miked]

In CA you can't even move a bike in a truck without proper documentation. For example, Plan non Op vehicles can't be moved out of their storage location until the registration is made current, or you get DMV permission to move it. You might be able to resolve the issue with the bank and seller together, but I wouldn't buy the thing unless you have all the information as to the costs going in.

Yea, I've heard this too. But what about GP style bikes, like a TZ250 that have minimal identification and nothing at all looking like a VIN stamped on the frame?

[Nessism]

Yea, I've heard this too. But what about GP style bikes, like a TZ250 that have minimal identification and nothing at all looking like a VIN stamped on the frame?

Sorry, but I don't know.

[850 Combat]

My brother licensed a Yamaha TD350 road racer for the street in CA. That was a while ago though. I registered a Triumph with a Trackmaster frame. I etched the engine numbers on to the gusset by the steering head. No problem.

As to this bike, The bank paid for it, the bank has not been paid, and the bank has not sold it. It isn't that complicated to figure out who owns it.