Credit Union NOI and Claims I Hid Vehicle

[Binde]

California.

Hello,
My question is regarding a directly acquired vehicle loan from a federal credit union. Is the credit union required to follow NOI protocol as per CA state law, or are they exempt. Ex.: do they have the flexibility to not include my right to a 10-day extension, not list specific reasons for not reinstating the auto loan contract?

Last year, (approx. 9-10 months ago) I defaulted on the loan. It took me a month to bring the account current. In the meantime, the car was stored in the garage of the address provided on the loan contract. I was elsewhere working. A repo man came looking for the car and spoke to my mother who doesn't understand English. The repo man assumed my mom either said the car wasn't there or that she refuses to open the garage. In any case, I was able to bring the acct current and resumed payments in good standing.

Now, the bank is (verbally, not in writing) saying they are choosing to not reinstate because of this. Can they do that?

[jk]

well, even if they are required to abide by the rules you speak of, the fact that you were 20 days beyond the possible 10 day extension would remove the applicability of the rules.

as to why they would not reinstate the loan; I would suspect that as well, since you did not act within that 10 day period, they no longer have to give you any justification.

can you cite the specific section of the law you are speaking of?

[Binde]

Hmm, I think we're both confused slightly. The car was repo'd last week and the very next day I requested the 10-day extension. I still have until the end of July before it's sold at auction.

I'm referring to CA Financial Code Section 22329.

[jk]

Hmm, I think we're both confused slightly. The car was repo'd last week and the very next day I requested the 10-day extension. I still have until the end of July before it's sold at auction.

I'm referring to CA Financial Code Section 22329.

Yes, I am confused. By what right could they repo the car if the loan was current?
and why bother posting the story about what happened 10 months ago if there is no relevance to the situation?

If they accepted the payments to bring the loan current and continued to accept payments until now, why would they now repo the car?

[Binde]

I apologize. The confusion is all mine. I didn't explain myself properly at all.

Yes, 10 months ago I became current and resumed payments in current status.

Last month, however, I became 40 days late. They repo'd the car last week. I sent it the default amount and a day later, the repo fees etc. The repo fees I sent with a letter - I believe they rejected my repo fees cashier's checks and are mailing them back. But the default cashier's check was accepted.

They're using "we believe you hid the car last year" as an excuse to not grant me a reinstatement now (see civil code section 2983.3).

The car was never previously repossessed.

My question is: can the bank back-track in that way and use an excuse that does not apply to the current situation?

Also does civil codes sections: 2983.3 and 2983.2 apply to this bank since I personally acquired the loan?

[jk]

the 10 month ago incident:

did you have to reinstate the contract? was there a fee to do so?

even though you say this:

The car was never previously repossessed.

there was apparently an order to repo and it would have been had they found it, yes?

[Binde]

10 months ago, there was no reinstatement contract and no fee.

Yes, you're right. Even though the vehicle wasn't previously repossessed, there was a repo order. Yes, had they opened the garage, they would have found it.

When I spoke of the Notice of Intent not complying with CA law, I was actually referring to CA Financial Code 22328.

[jk]

the reason I asked is in one of the sections it spoke of not being able to reinstate a second time within a certain time period. If that applied, they would obviously have a right to refuse.

In this last code section cited, it clearly states:

(2) States either that there is a conditional right to reinstate
the loan until the expiration of 15 days from the date of giving or
mailing the notice and all the conditions precedent thereto or that
there is no right of reinstatement and provides a statement of
reasons therefor.

I haven't found anything, yet, that limits what justification they can use to refuse to reinstate, just that they must provide a reason, in writing.

I also see nothing disallowing your right to extension.

Now, what I do see is this:

Except as otherwise
provided in Section 2983.8 of the Civil Code, those persons shall be
liable for any deficiency after disposition of the repossessed or
surrendered motor vehicle only if the notice prescribed by this
section is given within 60 days of repossession or surrender and does
all of the following:

so, while I do not see that section allowing you any action to demand they follow the allowances or providing the terms in writing, what I see is if they fail to abide by that section is they cannot demand payment of any deficiency remaining after they auction the vehicle.

[Binde]

Hello,

Sorry I'm having trouble with attaching quotes but you said "I haven't found anything, yet, that limits what justification they can use to refuse to reinstate, just that they must provide a reason, in writing."
-- I believe this is covered in Financial Code Sections 22328 and 22329.

My main goal is to get the vehicle back. I might've overdosed on research, but I was under the assumption that if the credit union didn't follow CA Financial Code 22328, then they repossession would no longer be valid, especially if I've paid the default amount; and they'd have to return the vehicle.

And can they use their 10-month old claim of hiding the car against me now? The logic doesn't seem right. They had the opportunity 10 months ago to act on it-- if they really felt like I was hiding the car and they didn't act on it, how can they claim past issues? I clearly didn't hide the vehicle this time, obviously, as it was repo'd.

Would I be safe in getting an attorney? The credit union is very stern in not hearing my arguments and requests to reinstate.

[jk]

My main goal is to get the vehicle back. I might've overdosed on research, but I was under the assumption that if the credit union didn't follow CA Financial Code 22328, then they repossession would no longer be valid, especially if I've paid the default amount; and they'd have to return the vehicle.
.

I saw nothing that would require them to actually perform those actions listed, just that not acting as specified prevented them from seeking any deficiency after disposing the vehicle from you.