by craten.j.petty » Thu Apr 03, 2014 02:06 am
I filed a claim to have my car fixed and received a check from my insurance company to me and my lien holder. I took the car to get it fixed and took the check to the bank to cash it so I could pay and get my car. But for some odd reason my bank telling me they cant cash the check they have to cut me another check to the repair company from them so i can go that one to them. I cant see why they dont endorse my check and cash it so I can pick up my vehicle.. Also i dont owe them any money so it seems fishy to me I live in Missouri
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 02:14 pm Post Subject:
If you don't owe the bank any money then they should not be a lien holder (have a lien on the vehicle). So something is incorrect with your post.
If the bank is not a lien holder then you should have a payoff letter from them. Give that letter to your adjuster and have another check issued to just you. If the bank does not have a lien then they should have no problem just signing the check.
I suspect that you _do_ owe on the vehicle to the bank.
If you owe the repair company the money from the check and the check is payable to the repair company then I don't see why that is an issue either.
Something is not correct with your post.
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 04:05 am Post Subject:
So something is incorrect with your post.
Nothing wrong with the post. Instead, I think the OP may never have retitled the vehicle in his own name after paying off his loan.Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 06:05 am Post Subject:
"Also i dont owe them any money so it seems fishy to me I live in Missouri"
I am guessing the poster means that they are not behind in their payments.
OP, they want to make sure the money goes to fix the car. Not that they don't trust that if they cash the check and give you the money that you will do something else with it, but it is most likely their company policy.....or they don't trust you.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 04:59 pm Post Subject:
OP, they want to make sure the money goes to fix the car.
Normally, that would be true when there is a lienholder.But in this case, there is none. The check is incorrectly made out because the insurance company does not know that the lien has been released. The lender won't sign the check because they no longer have an interest in the vehicle. And it's possible that the OP doesn't either -- but the lender has no way of knowing, so it chooses not to be a party.
All the OP has to do is show the insurance company proof that the lien no longer exists, and the check will be reissued.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 08:04 pm Post Subject:
Nothing wrong with the post.
I filed a claim to have my car fixed and received a check from my insurance company to me and my lien holder.
Also i dont owe them any money
I've never heard of a company holding a lien when no money was owed to them. :)
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 08:14 pm Post Subject:
I've never heard of a company holding a lien when no money was owed to them.
As I said, the OP probably never retitled the vehicle after paying it off, and never notified the insurance company either that there is no longer a lienholder.Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:30 pm Post Subject:
My point was that the OP stated that the check was made to me and "my lien holder". If you own the car outright you don't call them your lien holder. That is why I suspect that they are saying they are not late on payments, not that they don't owe money on the vehicle.
And since the OP stated that she took it to her bank and they took the check and cut her a check payable to the repair shop, the bank and lien holder are most likely one in the same.
I guess my question would be...... if the OP is getting the money to pay the shop why does it matter if it was made out from the bank or from the insurance company? Unless the OP.....I don't want to directly imply anything.[/img]
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 03:28 am Post Subject:
Also i dont owe them any money
I read this the same way tcope did. Owe no money = no lienholder. But I can see where your interpretation might work, too. But if the "lender" wouldn't sign off on the check, I suspect they are no longer the lienholder.Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 04:52 am Post Subject:
I was posting along the lines of Das. I mentioned that something was wrong with the post as you can't owe nothing to a lien holder. You either have a lien holder and owe something or you don't have a lien holder. This is where the problem is... the poster stated there _was_ a lien holder and nothing was owed. We don't know which is incorrect.
Add your comment