My ex sold our car that still had money owed
It is a legal issue for two reasons. In the United States if both names were on the title both people would have had to sign the paperwork in order to transfer the title. If the car was collateral for the loan, then the bank would have had to be involved in the transaction. The portion of the check need to repay the loan would have had to have been made out to the bank. If the car was sold to a dealership, then paperwork must have been forged. If the car was sold to a person then it is possible that they were too naive to know what paperwork was required, but it is likely still fraud. You need legal advice to protect your money, and your credit score. They should also be able to tell you who needs to be contacted: DMV, the police, the dealership, the bank. This is not a finance issue, it is a legal one.  You need to talk to a lawyer. To save your credit you can pay off the bank now and fight out the details with your ex later.  The bank is still owed their money.
As a parent, I call bullshit on this. I may or may not retire rich, but my kids will have more opportunity than I did, and they will have the benefit of learning what I have learned about entrepreneurship, what my wife has learned about medicine, about what we both have learned about health, debt, relationships, sleep, cooking, self reliance, and so on.  We are the first generation in each of our families to be upper middle class, none of our parents had college degrees.  Our kids go to better schools than we did, and will have more opportunities than we did. If they take advantage of them, they will be more successful than we are.  This is not luck. This is by design, because we don't think of the well-being of our kids and future grand kids and future great grandkids in terms of our current income or our own lifetimes. We don't buy the most expensive cars or houses or clothes we can. We save, invest, pay down debt incurred from mortgage and student loans before we knew better, put money into a future for our children.  Us focusing our entire lives from the day we graduated from high school with no money and no job up until now, and into the future, has been and will be geared toward making sure my future family has it better than I did or my parents did.  Sure, we are lucky enough to have been born now in America and not to have been tragically murdered or disabled, and lucky enough to have had roads and access to public school, but to say my family is simply lucky is horseshit.   We are very fortunate and it is important to be grateful for the luck we have had, but decades of focus and sacrifice and dedication with a specific focus on increasing income and saving cannot be dismissed, and a dynastic focus on generational wealth building simply cannot be called only luck. "Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does   that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000   less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage.   If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes.  If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What   does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home   as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well.   When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down.   When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying   $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years.   A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting.  The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners." "I think everything in your case is just simply missing one important rule of how credit works. Essentially, your MIL cannot get a loan. You can. You are making her a large loan that she cannot get for herself. That is all. That is the essence of what this deal is. It is not without interest - she makes a financial contribution toward your son, you get the deal in 2 years assuming she doesn't default (she will), etc. Imagine it this way: you are sitting in the dealership with the dealer and your MIL. She wants a loan to pay for the car. The dealership says, ""you are way not credit worthy."" So your MIL says, ""why doesn't my son-in-law take out the loan instead?"" Now the dealership says, sure, that's fine. From the dealer's standpoint, every other part of your arrangement is irrelevant - boring, even. The only magic trick is in who takes the loan out, no other difference. You're letting your MIL pull a car out of her sleeve like a magician, and in taking the deal you're believing her.  This sentence: I am pretty sure that the ex-MIL will not let me down (I've loaned her large sums of money before and she always promptly repaid).  is everything. You're making a rather large bet that the things that can go wrong in two years - including any situation involving your wife's welfare - are rather miniscule. And furthermore, that the few times she's paid you back - that did NOT convince banks and dealer she is more creditworthy - justifies her good creditworthiness. Is the interest worth it? Do you really believe that your MIL needs to wring a car out of you before she would consider contributing to her grandson's well-being (which is, essentially, the interest)? But wait, it's NOT everything. Her daughter (my ex-wife) would drive it for 2 years and then turn the car over to our son. Even if your MIL is creditworthy, the woman you described as follows: Her daughter, though, is a loose cannon. Will be holding and returning the collateral in this deal. Things she can do include: So I'm arguing two points: Obviously my opinion on this is clear. I hope I did a decent job of explaining where the components of this deal (credit, interest, collateral) play out in the eyes of a dealer or bank, and get lost in the mechanics of the rules you worked out with your family." You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago.  She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed.  Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession.  She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up.  (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.)  In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year.  The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car.  In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc.  Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these.  Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount)  At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state.  Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect.   Find out what that period of time is in your state.  If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts.  However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy. "She may be right.  If she gets the usual thing of half the family assets gained during marriage, she's also entitled to half the car.   Well, not quite. Imagine you had sold the car at the time of divorce.  You would have gotten some cash for it (this is typically shown in the Blue Book). And then you would have had to pay off the loan.  So the cash value at that time, minus the loan owed at that time,  was the equity in the car at that time.  That would be a family asset and she'd have been entitled to half of it.  A lot of auto loans are a ripoff, so this might not be much money. Or could be zero.  Or could even be negative - it's common to owe more on a car than it's worth, especially the first year after you buy it.  In which case she owes you LOL.   The judge already dealt with this, and he did it by saying ""you two get together and try to work it out"", and come back to me with a proposed settlement.""  If you are at loggerheads, you can go back to the judge, but he may not give an answer you like." Update: here is a message the seller just sent me. Does this make sense?  I spoke with my bank again and they explained it a little better for me. I guess how it works is they will print out something for you that is called an affidavit in lieu of title that states they are no longer the lein holder and to release it to you. You then take that to the dol and they get it put in your name. He says that's how they do it all the time. When we get to the bank, the teller just verifies the check and I deposit it and they release the funds to pay off the account and that's when you would get the paperwork. You would be there for the whole process so nothing is sketchy. Sorry it's such a pain, I didn't understand how that worked. We've never sold a car with a loan on it before. You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy.   I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”.   It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors. "I don't know of any way to ""transfer"" a debt to another person without their consent or the lender's consent.  You are responsible for the loan, and you need to either pay it or give up the asset that it's tied to (the car). At least you weren't just a cosigner with no title to the car - then you'd be in worse shape.  If you don't want your credit tarnished, I would start (or keep) making the payments, knowing that you are getting the equity that results from the principal you're paying (you're only out the interest portion). If it were me, here are the things I would do:"