You can beat a car thief to death if you want to.

In article .com>,
Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
>only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.

That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
> >only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.
>
> That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
> that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
> What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

So you are unfamiliar with the common concept of the car being the
collateral for the loan?

Harry K

In article . com>,
Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> Harry K > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
>> >only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.
>>
>> That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
>> that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
>> What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.

>So you are unfamiliar with the common concept of the car being the
>collateral for the loan?

I'm familiar with the concept. I wasn't familiar with the Western
states (including CA and WA) which have laws making a security
interest in a vehicle "legal ownership" of that vehicle. Sounds like
something a bank would come up with. The perfectly good term
"lienholder" had been around for years to describe the relationship
between the person with a security interest in a vehicle and that vehicle.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article .com>,
> >> Harry K > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
> >> >only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.
> >>
> >> That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
> >> that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
> >> What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.
>
> >So you are unfamiliar with the common concept of the car being the
> >collateral for the loan?
>
> I'm familiar with the concept. I wasn't familiar with the Western
> states (including CA and WA) which have laws making a security
> interest in a vehicle "legal ownership" of that vehicle. Sounds like
> something a bank would come up with. The perfectly good term
> "lienholder" had been around for years to describe the relationship
> between the person with a security interest in a vehicle and that vehicle.
>
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

You're shooting yourself in the foot there. The lien holder (per you
and in law) has a security interest in the vehicle and can repossess it
upon default. Same as with a house or any other loan you take out
under a lien on some type of property.

You must be the only person in the whol world who thinks you can own
something without paying for it.

Harry K

In article .com>,
Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> Harry K > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> >> In article .com>,
>> >> Harry K > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
>> >> >only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.
>> >>
>> >> That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
>> >> that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
>> >> What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.
>>
>> >So you are unfamiliar with the common concept of the car being the
>> >collateral for the loan?
>>
>> I'm familiar with the concept. I wasn't familiar with the Western
>> states (including CA and WA) which have laws making a security
>> interest in a vehicle "legal ownership" of that vehicle. Sounds like
>> something a bank would come up with. The perfectly good term
>> "lienholder" had been around for years to describe the relationship
>> between the person with a security interest in a vehicle and that vehicle.
>
>You're shooting yourself in the foot there. The lien holder (per you
>and in law) has a security interest in the vehicle and can repossess it
>upon default. Same as with a house or any other loan you take out
>under a lien on some type of property.

True. But that makes them a lienholder. Only in bank-owned states
like yours are they considered an "owner".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
> >> Harry K > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> >> In article .com>,
> >> >> Harry K > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You're beating a dead horse. A person who signs a note for anything
> >> >> >only -owns- that portion of the object that he has paid equity for.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's nonsense (at least, aside from in Washington State, which has
> >> >> that peculiar terminology of "Legal Owner" instead of "lienholder").
> >> >> What you've borrowed is _money_, not the vehicle.
> >>
> >> >So you are unfamiliar with the common concept of the car being the
> >> >collateral for the loan?
> >>
> >> I'm familiar with the concept. I wasn't familiar with the Western
> >> states (including CA and WA) which have laws making a security
> >> interest in a vehicle "legal ownership" of that vehicle. Sounds like
> >> something a bank would come up with. The perfectly good term
> >> "lienholder" had been around for years to describe the relationship
> >> between the person with a security interest in a vehicle and that vehicle.
> >
> >You're shooting yourself in the foot there. The lien holder (per you
> >and in law) has a security interest in the vehicle and can repossess it
> >upon default. Same as with a house or any other loan you take out
> >under a lien on some type of property.
>
> True. But that makes them a lienholder. Only in bank-owned states
> like yours are they considered an "owner".
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

Okay, I quit. I'll just log you down as trolling as no one could
possibly be that dumb.

Harry K