Leased car totaled. I'm in tough position

Ask the Hackrs
, ,
61

How am I saving on Taxes???

62

As a consumer I lost nothing? I lost ability to buy car $15K which is what VW and I agreed to. So I would disagree :slight_smile:

1 Like
63

That would be state dependent, but in many states you only pay sales tax on leased amount, rather than whole car price.

64

You rented that car, you never owned it. VW does not owe you a penny.

2 Likes
65

OP did you put money down as a capital cost reduction at signing? I think there are some strong arguments why the captive would owe you at minimum a prorated portion of this amount if they are getting overage payoff. If so I’d check with the state department of consumer affairs.

As a worst case hypothetical, let’s say you put $20k down and totaled the car the next month. Does the captive owe you money from the payoff? I’d love to see that play out in court even if the contract says the captive keeps overages. I don’t think the answer is as simple as “you don’t own the car.”

66

The person or entity paying the insurance should get the benefits of said insurance, including any excess above the balance owed.

If a finance co wants to play the “we owned the asset” card they should have paid for that insurance.

Can’t have it both ways.

But clearly there’s two sides of this argument where neither side will change their mind so let’s agree to disagree.

2 Likes
67

Is V short for VW :). Part of insurance settlement includes sales tax. How can VW keep the sales tax if they aren’t paying it? Insurance company includes sales tax because in theory when I receive funds I’m going to go buy another car for same amount and pay sales tax. VW isn’t buying another car. Are they entitled to sales tax too? Are they turning around and sending sales tax to the state?

68

TY, definitely not as simple as “you don’t own the car”.

1 Like
69

Absolutely agree and like to think of this as an open discussion as opposed to an argument :).

I’ll save the arguing for VW. Lol

70

Not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they have an axe to grind because they work for Audi, VW, etc.

71

So we fall into the same issue here as with 3rd party buyouts. The below-market value buy out amount is for the lessee and the lessee only. The insurance company is a 3rd party entity purchasing the vehicle.

More importantly though, the lessee is purchasing the insurance after agreeing that the lessor receives the overage. It’s an informed decision (well, assuming one actually reads their contract).

Now, we can debate over if anyone feels this is right and if it’s how things should be, but ultimately, everyone that’s found themself in this position took out insurance on the vehicle after agreeing that the overage goes to the lessor and is now frustrated the insurance they agreed goes to the lessor is going to the lessor.

1 Like
72

Most of people never thought about it, because having an overage was just not a thing.

Now they are having buyers remorse.

73

So, who’s fault is that that banks set RVs below the market to move metal? And when the market improves, they essentially say to the insurance and the lessee “forget about RV that we set, we want the current market value. Tough luck if you wanted to buy the car out at RV and have to pay more for the replacement now”.
I’m on the fence in this argument, BTW. It is really a gray area, until there is a precedent in court.

2 Likes
74

I think I’d have a bigger issue with someone like Toyota doing this than any of the companies that include a gap waiver in their lease.

With a gap waiver in the lease, they’re essentially saying “if you total our asset, we will take market value replacement from your insurance, no matter what that is, and you get to walk away”. Most of the time, that works out in the lessee’s favor. Currently, it doesn’t. It’s two sides of the same coin that’s part of renting someone else’s property.

75

Where I really have trouble with this is where money down as a capital cost reduction doesn’t seem to factor in to any overage payments. That is not how any other loan works when it comes to loan payoff balance. Of course in any other loan the amount you put down would affect the payoff amount, how is it legal for a lease to be any different?

The contract as written is only enforceable up until the point it’s litigated, and then state laws will have precedence over the contract language. Due to the small potatoes amounts of money in question, it would take a class action lawsuit or state regulatory/legal intervention to get this litigated for an actual answer.

1 Like
76

Right, but what about the lessee who’s actually the one who will have to replace his vehicle at market value? Banks do not “replace” their vehicles. “No matter what” is the GAP, no one forces them to include it, I’d think.

1 Like
77

They are getting every penny of market value for the assets they own. :man_shrugging:

If we take the “replace the lease at market value” concept to the extreme, should an insurance payout also supplement any incentives that were in place at the time of the original lease but aren’t there on the new one? Should it pay out the amount to go lease a brand new car or just a partial lease on a used car?

78

A lease isn’t a loan, it’s a rental contract.

79

Just the current value. If you paid $30K a year ago, then now you may have to pay $40K for the same exact replacement car. So the extra $10K from the insurance pay out should make you whole, instead of overpaying the bank just because they intentionally undervalued their asset.

1 Like
80

How often do banks actually make the RV too low? Yah, it may be happening right now, but certainly not intentionally. If anything, banks usually inflate the RV.

1 Like