Repo 7 years old

[Anonymous]

From what I understand with a repo, SOL starts at the date the sale was at auction. The auction creates the deficiency balance. Hense, the beginning of SOL.
. However, the DOFD would not change that is when you made your last payment and did not bring the account current which resulted in the repo.. Someone correct me if Im wrong

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

From what I understand with a repo, SOL starts at the date the sale was at auction. The auction creates the deficiency balance. Hense, the beginning of SOL.
. However, the DOFD would not change that is when you made your last payment and did not bring the account current which resulted in the repo.. Someone correct me if Im wrong

---

You're wrong.

@Anonymous starts from, legally speaking, the date the last action occurred. So let's say that the last payment made was July, and Aug went unpaid. 60 days later, the bank repo's the car and sells it @ auction 30 days later.

The DOLA would still be July (and that is the date the SoL would start from). The car being sold would not count as a payment made by the owner. Because the owner did not make that payment -- the bank had to employ "self-help."

[Anonymous]

so then why wouldnt the DOLA be the payment from the acution. wouldnt that last payment create the deficiency balance

[mberry117]

I'm only guessing here, but I would think the auction wouldn't be for the owner only because the owner no longer OWNS the car before that point.

Did that make sense?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

so then why wouldnt the DOLA be the payment from the acution. wouldnt that last payment create the deficiency balance

---

Because, quite simply, the consumer did NOT make that payment. In essence, the lender sold the repossessed property (and they're required to as a means of mitigating the debt and securing the value of their loss as much as possible).

The "ex-owner" of the vehicle did NOT make that payment.

[Anonymous]

---

@mberry117 wrote:

I'm only guessing here, but I would think the auction wouldn't be for the owner only because the owner no longer OWNS the car before that point.

Did that make sense?

---

Well, yes and no. At that point, we'd be discussing semantics. It would MORE be a case of the consumer NOT initiating that action.

Now if the consumer sold the car prior to having it repo'ed, and paid the bank a lump sum, that WOULD be an action initiated by the consumer.

The BANK selling the car is simply the bank helping itself. Though its more complicated than that, since obviously, they're required to in order to mitigate the consumer's debt on that vehicle.