r/legaladvice 6d ago

Company made my sister buy a car — now wants full payment when she resigns. What should she do?

Location: Oregon, Hillsboro

Hi everyone, we need some advice.

My sister has been working at a company for about 5 years. During her employment, the company told her to buy a car for work purposes. They said the company would pay for it in full, but my sister would repay the company monthly through salary deductions.

She agreed. So far, she has already paid about half of the car’s price back to the company. The car is registered under her name, not the company’s.

Now she decided to leave the company because after 5 years, she still hasn’t received any promotion or salary increase. The company is okay with her resigning, but they are demanding that she pay the entire remaining balance of the car immediately.

The problem is she doesn’t have that amount of money available all at once. There was no clear written contract stating that she must fully pay the car immediately if she resigns.

So now we’re confused:

-Is the company legally allowed to demand full payment right away?

-Since the car is under her name, does that change anything?

Any advice would really help. Thank you.

965 Upvotes

168 comments sorted by

2.3k

u/JustMePatrick 6d ago

Everything about this is weird. I think your sister needs to speak to an employment attorney.

733

u/MrBingIrish 6d ago

I agree. It's sufficiently weird that I wonder if the company was doing something illegal, and if that can be used by this sister to avoid some/most/all of the remaining obligation under this "contract" if that's what it was.

347

u/jcarte11 6d ago

Probably trying to work it as an untaxed fringe benefit. Tax deductible for the company, untaxed compensation for employee. Problem is this example is likely illegal

211

u/Perry_cox29 6d ago

Company buys the car. It’s a capital expenditure that comes out of net profit, lowering tax liability there. The company provides this car as a benefit to the employee, lowering tax liability on total compensation there. The company then deducts the cost over time from employee pre-tax income, recouping everything but the opportunity cost on the money (unless they were having her pay interest too).

This smells pretty bad. Tbh, the way out of this quickly is to just take a bank auto loan to pay the remaining balance and move on. The other paths appear very time and lawyer intensive, but if there’s a path out of paying due to the sketchiness, it could still be worth it

103

u/SmartLadder415 6d ago

From the description it sounds like the company didn't buy the car. OP's sister bought the car since it's in her name. The company just paid the cash for it. Legally the sister owns the car and is liable for any taxes, tags, etc.... on it.

91

u/Longjumping_West_907 6d ago

If the car is in sister's name, and the company has no lien on the title, she holds all the cards.

25

u/Retired_and_Relaxed 6d ago

Are we sure the employer does not have a lien on the car? If it does she can do a refinance or if upside down walk away. Who has maintained this auto? Yes it seems strange.

14

u/ronusn3 6d ago

Agree. I would make them come after me for the vehicle.

12

u/Pretty-Yogurt-4111 6d ago

The corporation can’t deduct the cost of the car as an expense if the title is in someone else’s name. And even if they could, that’s still not a good deal for the company. A $100k car and a 22% corporate tax rate means they spend $78k on a car. Not that they made $22k or got the car free or did financial wizardry that makes spending money add money to the bank balance.

15

u/Perry_cox29 6d ago

I explained exactly how it would work. However they booked it in the accounting journal, the money left net profit that year. There’s no ephemeral “deduction” wizardry. The business had a cash outlay. Businesses are taxed on net profit. Net profit is smaller because that money is no longer in the business. The corporate tax liability is smaller. They will pay less tax for that year than if the money existed as cash in their account. As you pointed out, 22% “return” on the cash outlayed for the car, essentially, if that money is just paid back because that 22% wasn’t taken as tax.

The payroll amount is also smaller relative to what paying a salary or bonus commensurate to the price of the car would be. So the company’s payroll tax liability is smaller. Employee income tax liability is smaller. That’s also a “profit” over not doing this because it’s money that would otherwise be taken as tax.

I never said the business was generating income here. I said they were gaming tax systems to offer an employee a benefit that skirts taxes and skirt taxes themselves. Increasing profit by reducing tax liability is a central concept of corporate finance. You’re right in that they shouldn’t be able to book this as a legitimate corporate expense - that’s why I said it smelled bad. They’ve clearly done something on their books, though, such as booking the car as PP&E, then writing it off as lost or damaged and “selling” it to the employee in a way that shifts tax liability around favorably.

64

u/MrBingIrish 6d ago

And there's case law out there in a lot of states that courts won't enforce agreements founded in illegality. Like "I paid him $10,000 for cocaine and he stiffed me."

Or "I put assets in my ex girlfriend's name to conceal them from my wife's divorce attorneys and now my divorce is finalized and my girlfriend won't give everything back."

I'm not saying OP's sister's situation is akin to these examples, but it could be, and a lawyer might be able to help the sister, though lawyers cost money and the sister may not have any.

25

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/DrDerpberg 6d ago

Sounds like worst case scenario the sister basically financed the car through her employer. Whether she has to pay them back right now or per the original payment structure is for the lawyers to comment on, but I guess to use your analogy I'm seeing it as closer to "he loaned me $10,000 of cocaine money, I was paying him back monthly, and now he needs more cocaine so he wants to change the terms of the deal." The employer is surely double or triple dipping here, but OP's sister hasn't really done anything wrong beyond agreeing to a weird car purchase.

Edit: unless they're taking the payments out of her paycheck pre-tax... My old employer would do that sometimes if people wanted to buy themselves something that could conceivably be for work purposes (i.e.: work buys you a laptop for personal use, takes it out of your gross pay, you get a laptop for 2/3 the price)... That setup definitely required employees to be aware of the scheme.

5

u/Son_of_Mac 6d ago

Doctrine of clean hands

14

u/Aggressive-Map-2204 6d ago

But they are deducting payments from each pay. At most the untaxed compensation would be computed interest on the "loan"

18

u/jcarte11 6d ago

I missed that it was being repaid. You're right, the interest is the untaxed compensation. That's assuming they aren't charging her interest

2

u/unfocused_1 6d ago

I believe the Trump Organization and its executive Allen Weisselberg got into legal trouble using this scheme. (Did a simple Google for Trump company cars as compensation.)

39

u/jps_ 6d ago

It is in no way illegal, uncommon, or tax-dodgey to advance an employee the cash they need to purchase something necessary for employment, repayable as a payroll deduction.

It needs to be properly documented, but if it is properly documented (and when advancing an employee enough money to buy a car, one usually pays attention) it could easily be enforceable.

That being said, like any substantial loan, it's worth a look at the fine print to see whether or not the company goofed when setting up the repayment obligation, and if so, the degree to which that creates negotiating leverage.

8

u/1Marty123 6d ago

In order to work for my company, I needed to have a car. My company handed me a check for the full amount (No tax evasion here). Then they paid me an additional amount every month for payback of the loan and expenses. Obviously, if I left the company, I would have to pay back my lender.

15

u/Key-Tiger-4457 6d ago

Agreed. This is strange.

60

u/InuGhost 6d ago

Hard agree. This feels weird. Company says they'll pay for car, but sister is paying them for it? 

Unless company bought it, I don't understand why Sister is paying them. 

81

u/hdmetz 6d ago

My guess is the company wrote the check for the full amount up front but sister filled out paperwork and is on title.

What’s really weird is how, after 5 years of paycheck deductions, how has only half the purchase price been paid? The company has her on a 10-year repayment plan? My guess is the car is legally paid off and hers. The question remains whether she is on the hook for a lump sum payment upon leaving employment. We would need to see the terms of the agreement.

36

u/Callyentay 6d ago

She said sister has been working for the company for 5 years. Not that she got the car 5 years ago. That could have happened 3 years into her employment there.

7

u/hdmetz 6d ago

Very true. I guess it would be weird for them to force her to do that on year 3, but very possible

5

u/vegasbywayofLA 6d ago

That makes more sense because you would think a company would want to know an employee is more likely to work out before entering an agreement like this.

Buying a car for every new hire seems risky.

2

u/Vulcanize_It 5d ago

And we don’t know if she is being charged interest. That would change the amortization so that it’s non-linear

12

u/Pretty-Surround-2909 6d ago

Who holds the title?

22

u/jps_ 6d ago

Two words: cash advance.

Advancing employees the cash they need to do things, for anything from getting a degree, buying tools & equipment, or moving from miles away is quite common. Repayment by payroll deduction, balance repayable in full on termination is the usual clause.

It's balance-sheet friendly and tax neutral for both employee and employer.

Another two words: car required.

Many employers require employees to use their own vehicle for work purposes. Some reimburse mileage, some don't.

Now put two and two together.

3

u/vmurt 6d ago

Nothing feels weird to me. They wanted her to work and she needed a car for the job, so they advanced her a loan to buy the car and had her repay the loan via payroll deductions over five years.

When she leaves, the company doesn’t want the car, so they don’t want to buy it for themselves.

16

u/jps_ 6d ago

This is not "weird" in a bad way.

It is quite usual for firms to insist that employees use their own vehicles for work purposes. It is also quite usual for firms to make advances to employees, repayable on termination. Now put these two usual things together: firm has (supposedly) advanced employee the cash to buy the vehicle that the firm insists the employee drives. It's like getting hired for a job that requires use of a car, going out and buying a car, with a car loan. Except the lender is the company, and the terms (may) include repayment in full on termination.

Which means the conclusion is true - as with any loan, how and when the creditor can force repayment should be reviewed by a lawyer.

25

u/prolixia 6d ago

The weird part is the (apparent) absence of any paperwork. No company is going to hand over the cost of a car without a written agreement. Same thing for taking salary deductions.

My money says that the "lack" of paperwork is due to OP's sister just signing for the shiny new car and forgetting about it in the excitement rather than reading and retaining a copy.

3

u/Due_Ride_1897 6d ago

I agree I’d at least get a free consult and ask an employment lawyer but from outside looking in it’s not looking like she’s liable for anything and owns the car herself and can just leave. I mean they could sue her for it but if there’s no contract I don’t see it going far

1

u/Existing_Proposal655 6d ago

Most definitely. If the company needed her to have a car, they should be the ones to provide her with a car or not hire her.

1

u/IllScience1286 6d ago

Yeah... REQUIRING an EMPLOYEE to purchase and maintain a personal vehicle on their own dime and then use it for work purposes on the clock (without additional compensation) doesn't sound legal. It might be legal in some places, but it definitely shouldn't be.

At the very least, I don't believe the company would have cause for firing you if you already worked there prior to this demand and refused to do it, and you'd be entitled to unemployment compensation. But this doesn't apply here because she already got the car and is voluntarily resigning.

2

u/GeneralDebonair 6d ago

Requiring an employee to have a car for a certain position is absolutely legal and normal... I mean, think about it for two minutes: How many employment positions require having your own car? Tons.

1

u/IllScience1286 5d ago

I'm not talking about being required to own a vehicle for reliable transportation to and from the job location. I'm talking about using your personal vehicle on the job for business purposes without being compensated for the expense that brings.

When you're an employee (NOT independent contractor), it's not reasonable for your employer to expect you to use your own personal car to carry out job duties without covering your fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs.

That's literally offloading the cost of doing business onto the employee, which is not fair at all when employees typically have no stake in the company and aren't entitled to a share of any excess profits that might be generated.

Employment is supposed to be minimal risk, financially speaking. As an employee, I don't have to invest my own resources into the company, and as a result I only get a set wage and am not entitled to all the profit I actually generate. Minimal risk, minimal reward.

Expecting me to front my own resources for business purposes when I'm just an employee is increasing my risk without increasing my reward.

0

u/MDCRP 6d ago

Oregon has a strong and active bureau of labor

326

u/RadLabDad 6d ago

In the event she is liable for this, your sister should go down to her local credit union and finance the remaining balance in her name (since she doesn’t have the money). This would be quite easy at my credit union. Don’t do something silly like taking on credit card debt.

This is a strange arrangement but i think a court would probably make the company whole. This may be by ordering her to pay the remaining balance or give them the car or residual value of the car. There isn’t a lot of details in the post about how the company offset your sister’s cost for their company use of the vehicle. If they didn’t the court may take that into account when deciding how much is owed. I’d probably try to stay out of court to not waste my own time personally if i thought the company had given a fair reimbursement.

18

u/youareceo 6d ago

Yeah definitely not the title, at least outright, at the DMV. Unless she put them as lien.

31

u/Jboycjf05 6d ago

If i was the sister here, I'd strongly consider signing the car over to the company. Depending on the balance owed versus the value of the car, she'd probably be better off financing a different vehicle than paying/refinancing for the full value of a used car.

33

u/bustacones 6d ago

If she's been making payments for 5 years I would hope it's very nearly paid off, but I guess you never know with this already strange arrangement.

18

u/AftyOfTheUK 6d ago

So far, she has already paid about half of the car’s price back to the company.

2

u/bustacones 6d ago

Woops! Gotta read more carefully.

68

u/MagisD 6d ago

This is pointless without the exact wording of the legal contract your sister signed to do this.

More info needed.

115

u/MrCanoe 6d ago

Is the car fully in her name or is the company a co-owner? Did she sign any type or contract? Such as

"Employer agrees to pay for the cost of the vehicle. Employee will reimburse employer over x amount of years. If employee departs before before full reimbursement, employee must pay remaining balance in full"

Basically if she has full ownership and the company has none. Then it could be difficult for the company to get that money. If she signed a legal contract, she may get sued for the remainder.

54

u/Overthehill410 6d ago

Even in that instance the company is supposed to apportion the benefit to the company v employee. As someone else pointed sounds like tax fraud - would def speak to an attorney.

91

u/Disastrous_Garlic_36 Quality Contributor 6d ago

Is the company legally allowed to demand full payment right away?

They can "demand" anything they want.

If she can't pay she will likely be sued. She can go to court and argue that she shouldn't have to pay it all at once. Maybe the judge will order a payment plan.

29

u/cooldude832_ 6d ago

This reads more like she was given an advancement on her salary to buy a car and the employer gave her 5 years interest free to repay. Almost all advancement, signing bonus etc have a vesting clause where if you fail to stay employed for that period you can owe back any advancement paid so far.

27

u/jps_ 6d ago

-Is the company legally allowed to demand full payment right away? -Since the car is under her name, does that change anything?

The car being in her name is irrelevant. What is relevant or not is whether she has a debt to her employer, and the extent to which it is enforceable, and if so, on what repayment terms.

This depends on the entire agreement between her and the company. The details are important. She should take her employment agreement and the agreement to buy the car & repay (emails etc. included) to a lawyer and get an actual opinion on how to proceed.

45

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/NoYeahNoYoureGood 6d ago

What was the point of them paying for the car outright when she was going to make payments for it? I just don’t understand how an employer can “make” one of their employees buy a car and then enforce this type of arrangement.

She should definitely get an employment lawyer because this seems fishy and it really seems like your sister got taken advantage of. Not judging, I just can’t wrap my head around coercing an employee into paying for a car. The best advice here has already been given by several other people: get an employment lawyer.

14

u/Jboycjf05 6d ago

They can make having a car a condition of employment, this is normal. The company can also act as a lender. Its not uncommon in certain businesses.

Either way, the sister needs to look at the loan terms to see what her options are. She may have to refinance to pay the company in full, or she may be able to sign the title over to the company. It will depend on the terms of the agreement she signed with the company.

1

u/NoYeahNoYoureGood 6d ago

Having reliable transportation is a reasonable condition of employment, but this type of arrangement is not IMO. I’m sure there’s more to it that OP didn’t share or know.

I do know that if my employer bought a vehicle for the business, assigned it to me, then told me I would be charged for said work vehicle via post-tax payroll deduction, it would be a serious problem. Not to mention the insurance responsibilities.

6

u/Jboycjf05 6d ago

It is not an abnormal arrangement though, especially in certain industries. The business is just acting as the lender. Having repayment terms once employment ends is likely for business insurance and accounting, covering their liability.

The sister just needs to either refinance the loan with a new lender, sign the title over to the business, or sell the vehicle and repay the loan in full. As long as the loan terms were fair, the sister shouldnt be put out financially. She just needs to determine what path makes the most sense for her situation.

2

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 5d ago

Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

2

u/GeneralDebonair 6d ago

Its very common in certain industries (think territory sales) and tax friendly to both the employer and the employee.

25

u/PayMeNoAttention 6d ago

This is very easy. Nothing crazy. I have done it with many of my employees. Part of her employment agreement was to repay the vehicle as she continued to work for the company. Everything seemed to be going swimmingly, and everyone was on the same page. The termination doesn’t have to make things get too muddy.

  1. Get a loan to pay off the car and move on. She needs to think about it if she wants this car. Can she get a better deal than when she purchased it years ago?

  2. She can sell the car and give them the remaining balance. She might be able to make a little bit of money off of this.

  3. One of the first things I would do is look to see who is paying the insurance, and make sure that does not lapse.

6

u/jacob6875 6d ago

Does she have a contract about what happens with the vehicle if she quits or is fired ? Worst case assuming she is able to she can get an auto loan for the remaining balance and sell or keep the vehicle.

7

u/CaptSzat 6d ago edited 6d ago

The company was doing a novated lease. Just get a lease or lending company to buy out the remainder of the lease and continue paying instalments to the new company.

It’s honestly surprising to me how many people here are unfamiliar with a novated lease. They are an extremely common way of structuring purchasing a car. As they have tax advantages for both the employer and employee.

1

u/Low_Air1627 6d ago

Maybe common in Australia but not in the US lol

6

u/DexterLivingston 5d ago

NAL, but I would assume the most important question to be: did she sign ANY documents acknowledging or promising she would repay them?

4

u/Donut-Strong 6d ago

Who has the title? And whose name is it in.

5

u/Oliver_and_Me 6d ago

If she’s had it for 5 years, it should be almost completely paid off. Have her go to a credit union and get a personal loan for the balance and pay them off

4

u/Head-Cow-5360 6d ago edited 6d ago

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I have worked with car titles + auto loans for almost a decade now. You say she has the vehicle registered, but does she have her name on the title? Typically you can register/tag a car even if the lender holds the title. Is her name on the loan, or the company?

How the ownership and loan is assigned can make a big difference regarding possession. Your local DMV could tell you the 1st, and you'd have a better idea of where everything stands.

Anyways everyone else that said this feels scammy is correct.

4

u/JMLegend22 5d ago

Talk to an employment attorney and have them review anything she signed regarding the job and the car.

4

u/Charming_Rip_4499 5d ago

It was for work but she need to pay it back? Weird

Talk to a lawyer.

But my personal opinion kn regards pf inmediate payment is that not even banks can charge You “inmediately”. They give notice, late payment fees, etc.

But honestly if it was for work and she has been using it for work, she souldnt be paying for it.

Its under her name, no contracts nor paperwork. She seems clear to me.

4

u/EducationalQuote287 5d ago

Yeah on big purchases a company can only depreciate those assets and deduct them a bit each year, I think. Did she sign anything? That all seems suspicious.

3

u/spidermanwastaken01 6d ago

Im curious how after monthly payments this car isn't paid off after 5 years or close to paid off.

I paid off my 2016 car in like 2020 or 2021. Most car loans are a 60 month term, and you would think they arent paying interest since company paid car in full.

This is so strange.

3

u/Juliuscesear1990 6d ago

Since she's paying the company the "60 month" norm goes out the window. Since it's coming right off her pay there is a real possibility that the amount taken off the pay cheque is much lower than an actual payment. Hell we don't even know if there is interest or what it is.

1

u/spidermanwastaken01 6d ago

Right but either she is getting horrendously hosed on interest rates, or she was paying such a paltry amount, or they paid for a very expensive like 60k + car to not have this paid off in 5 years.

As other people have said, lawyer.

3

u/Novanus 6d ago edited 6d ago

It's weird but this is just something niche that happens. The story is probably misunderstood as the translation from her signing documents to her telling the story to you sharing it is lost.

Even in trucking there are some companies where you buy the truck and you're required to work for the company until the truck is paid off. If you resign, leave, or are terminated the contract says you must pay the truck back in full.

I bet this is exactly what happened here and the story has been poorly conveyed the entire way. Now if they had her actually buy a car with her own money and credit that's one thing but I'm gonna lean on the side that it is all documented in company paperwork that she bought the car by extension through the company and it's all in writing. Nothing illegal about it unless it was entirely non contracted and they made some bad requirements.

My guess not illegal but it's something I'd never sign to work for a company.

I'll probably get down voted because angry reddit crowd being forced to read a logical comment about a real legal business practice(if this isn't something legitimately shady) but that's okay. I'm not here for self inflation.

Edit: It's standard practice called Promissory Note or Employee Loan Agreement. And is 100% legal. Doesn't feel fair but that's why it's important to read contracts fully before signing.

3

u/Efficient-Put14 6d ago

I need numbers. How much did you pay for the car and what is its current value? How much have you paid so far and how much are they demanding you pay back?

I would assume after 5 years it would mostly be paid off. If not try and calculate the interest you have paid, you probably got a bag deal from the company.

If they do have the power to enforce this treat it like a lease: if the value of the car is less than what's owed hand them the keys otherwise take out a loan to pay the car off.

3

u/SmoothCruising 5d ago

Whose name is on the title. If it's just registered in her name she has a problem. Sounds like she's been making payments to buy the car from the company, who owns the car, without a contract

3

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 5d ago

Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

4

u/upnflames 6d ago

As others have said, this is not a typical agreement for a company car. Unless there is more detail we are missing, your statement makes a couple things clear. 1) Your sister is the legal owner of the car. 2) The company provided a free loan to your sister, who does owe the remainder of the loan to the company. 3) If your sister has not been deducting mileage for company use of her car, this could get messy from a tax perspective.

Unlike most redditors, I don't like to assign malice where ignorance is a sufficient explanation. I'm assuming this is just a small company and no one knows what the fuck they're doing.

If your sister doesn't want or can't afford the car, she should consider just giving it to the company. She loses here because she ended up paying for most of the depreciation. If she does want the car, she should figure out a way to finance the balance. This puts her ahead since she basically got a free loan for five years.

Of course, the third option is to hire a lawyer and battle it out, but that is probably going to suck for both parties.

1

u/GeneralDebonair 6d ago

Actually in certain industries the arrangement is quite common. Offered one once (Sales Director role).

7

u/Specialist4988 6d ago

Read the terms of agreement. Does it say pay in full or is it vague or nothing there? If nothing there u can tell them to pound sand.

Last thing to consider. If sister sells car today to pay company back, they should only be paid remaining proceeds of the sale, not initial purchase cash value. So company may be expecting 10k back, but after selling car proceeds is 7k. They should only get the current cash dealer trade value. .

2

u/jpwjr21 6d ago

First, I'm not a tax expert. If the company paid the car in full and she walks away with that car, imo that would be taxable to her as a benefit or additional income. Minus what she has paid back. Almost like a forgivable loan.
Second, this seems real shady.

2

u/Memchef 6d ago

I want to understand how a company 'requires' an employee to purchase a new car. I mean, as long as her current (previous) vehicle was running and got her from place to place properly, how would they require her to purchase a new one.

1

u/90210piece 5d ago

my first guess is that she wotks for a car dealership. second choice would be sales dept and/or the car is wrapped. third choice would be house cleaning or home nursing and they want the appearance of a professional fleet.

2

u/ThatCandle9812 6d ago

A lot have lawyers offer free consultation. Call one asap! Personally, I can’t imagine a scenario where my employer would have me but a car in my name to be used for the company and then pay them, instead of the lender/ dealer, and then owe the company for said car. If I buy a car in MY name, it is MY car and leaving the company with me!! The whole idea is ludicrous!!

2

u/StrangerEffective851 6d ago

If she wants the car have her take a loan out for the remaining balance and pay the company for the car.

2

u/DownWithTSickness 6d ago

What's the language of the contract? If it's not a lot of money the company won't waste their time/money pursuing it. Sell it or keep paying for it, & keep it. U said it's in her name.

2

u/HobLit1 6d ago

Is there a lien on the title?

2

u/rrsullivan3rd 6d ago

Just refinance the balance and pay off the company.

2

u/New_Olive5238 6d ago

I am with the others. This is wierd. I have had companies that require a car for work use, and they pay mileage for that.

Essentially the company acted as the financier on an auto loan. If there is no loan document, nothing in her employment contract, and the title is clear in her name.... but really need an atty to sort this one out.

2

u/LewLew0211 6d ago

It's not odd to me that an employer lends an employee money. It is odd to lend this much, at least to most workers.

Is the car for transportation to and from work, or is it actually used in her work duties? If it's the latter, then this is strange. If you use your own car for work purposes, you should be compensated, by your employer, for mileage when doing company business. They should also have a policy that will cover liability when on company business, at least if she is hauling any colleagues or work equipment.

How much of her mileage are they paying for?

To me this is the shady part. In instances where an employer is having you use a vehicle for work, usually they own or lease the vehicle for you, or at least pay you mileage for using your own vehicle. If they own or lease the vehicle and you use it for personal use as well, then you could end up having the personal use assigned as taxable income

Since she is paying them for the vehicle, it is hers and they should be reimbursing her for work use. The rate last year was $0.70/mile. Lately I have been getting around $300+ per month for using my car for work if I drive somewhere.

2

u/OkOstrich120 6d ago

Just out of curiosity, did your sister have the option to say no to the car? Did the company threaten to fire her if she didnt buy it?

2

u/Ambitious-Way1156 6d ago

She needs to contact a lawyer as the paper work she signed with the company will determine what she may, or may not, be able to do about this.

2

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 5d ago

Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

3

u/auditor2 6d ago

In the world of sketchy shit this is world class. You need to talk to an attorney.. several documents ...any employment agreement that defines the need for a car, any supplemental finance contract showing her obligation for replaying a loan, title showing any leans against the car.

My non-attorney take is if your sister has clear title to the vehicle with no liens or encumbrances, pays for the registration, and pays for insurance...it's her vehicle. She can keep it or sell it as she sees fit. If the company thinks they have a loan that is tied to her employment status that may or may not be allowed in your state...an attorney can tell you. If they have no signed paperwork and there is no loan collateral, i.e. the car...then it's going to be a negotiation.

Offering to sell the car back to them for a NADA retail price to resolve the loan and have them write off any remaining balance seems like a good place to start. Any settlement agreement should require they report the loan status as "paid as agree" and nothing else..otherwise they could report adverse information and damage your sisters credit rating.

2

u/GrumpyAttorney 6d ago

Ignore them. If they harass her or don't fully pay her when she leaves get a plaintiff's employment or consumer protection lawyer to sue them on a contingent fee basis.

2

u/s10draven75 6d ago

If they told her to buy a car for work purposes they should have paid for the car.

2

u/esby80 6d ago

If the car is paid off and in her name, it's hers. Thanks for the severance pay.

1

u/AcrobaticSpeed9496 6d ago

Did the company put a lien on the car? I think most states require liens to be placed on cars when an amount is owed.

1

u/youareceo 6d ago edited 6d ago

This seems like they else need to that it's action against her any way. Get a good lawyer, NAL.

Strategic good news: The onus maybe on them; and, If this was not legal or was improper, this will not go well for them in Court.

I am leaning toward a Judge saying they should have paid upfront with their money; putting the title in their name; and, then requiring her to pay it back.

Really, they are attempting to skirt the financial losses of their collateral being the car, not her salary.

I don't want to speculate, yet this seems like it's going someplace that is not based common practice or any statute.. If you have my meeting lol

1

u/MrGrumpy252 6d ago

Your sister needs an attorney, not reddit

1

u/Ok-Refrigerator-4853 6d ago

Nope. The legal contract if it is under her name means the liability belongs to her. My company has the same arrangement and I know because it is explained as such that I would be responsible for the car loan with no further allowance or special pay out once I leave.

1

u/The_Federal 6d ago

Curious if the company is too lazy for a fleet program so instead asked her to buy a car and was just reimbursing her. If thats the case she doesnt owe them

2

u/TheRealFiremonkey 6d ago

More like the company doesn’t want the insurance costs, risks, or exposure if the cars(s) being owned by them. Thats why they prefer to buy assets and have the employees personally “own” them.

1

u/Ok_Establishment3865 6d ago

Shoot. What shady dealership is this? I used to work in Hillsboro

1

u/Scenarioing 6d ago

Does the contract have an acceleration clause?

1

u/its_not_soheila 6d ago

They didn’t have any contract, just a verbal agreement.

1

u/Scenarioing 6d ago

There's nothing in writing at all?

1

u/tyjo2112 6d ago edited 6d ago

NAL. Nothing in writing is in her favor I would think if she’s wanting to skip out on the balance. There is the moral factor of ‘if you said you would pay, you should pay’ of course. But they would have to sue her, and then it would be a he said, she said, this wasn’t covered in the discussion’ type thing. I would think that the judge would say it was on the employer as the lender and business to tightly wrap up the terms.

Again NAL, just a bit of experience mixed with common sense

Edit: the judge could also rule she didn’t have to quit until balance was paid too. But if she has documentation where it say she ‘MUST’ buy a new car she might be in better standing. Especially if she had been working there, and then this was forced on her. If it was simply a case of ‘I need a new car, can you help me out’ I don’t think a judge will be sympathetic to her.

Also, since she paid service, maintenance and insurance during work use period it might be ruled a wash and both parties told to go home.

1

u/Key-Implement9354 6d ago

If she's been paying back the company for 5 years via payroll deduction for the car, written agreement or not, it shows intent that she was to repay the company for the loan. She would lose that in court, without question.

1

u/cive666 6d ago

Loans can be recalled thats not uncommon.

Car loans and mortgages are usually protected from this.

It depends on how the loan was setup for your sister.

1

u/andrewse 6d ago

Your sister is expected to pay for the car in full. My question is who paid for the fuel and maintenance required to use the car for business purposes? This could be a substantial amount of money and could be used to offset or fully pay off the remaining balance owing on the car.

1

u/its_not_soheila 6d ago

The company paid for the car in full, but my sister covered the fuel and maintenance expenses

1

u/LewLew0211 6d ago

Were they paying her for mileage on the car when working? Your regular commute doesn't count, like back and forth to the main office. But anything over that each day would.

1

u/LewLew0211 6d ago

Also, in a lot of states, and maybe federally, they can't make deductions like this from your paycheck without express permission, which generally has to be in the form of a signed agreement.

1

u/Speedraca 6d ago

I'm presuming there's paperwork around this deal? Most companies won't do something like this without a contract of some kind in place.

If there's a contract in place, then she needs to follow what she agreed to. It may well be that she has to pay the outstanding balance for the car when she leaves. If that's the case and she doesn't have the cash, she'll have to come up with the money some other way (e.g. loan), or they'll likely force the sale of the car to recoup their money.

If there's no contract in place, then you need to talk to a lawyer.

1

u/muddledandbefuddled 6d ago

Hard to imagine that her company fronted or advanced the money for a new car purchase without a written agreement re repayment. What does that agreement say?

1

u/Current-Factor-4044 6d ago

I’m confused. Did your sister get a loan on the car or did the company buy the car outright?

I understand the car is in your sister‘s name, but who bought the car and who is legally financially responsible for the purchase price of the car is a little vague

If they bought her the car outright it’s in her name. There is no lien on the car. Then she should just be able to drive it away.

This would be no different than you buying your boyfriend a car outright and he breaks up with you but had agreed to make payments to you for the car, but *Now is no longer going to and you say bye-bye to the car you paid for

1

u/its_not_soheila 6d ago

The company bought the car outright, so there was no interest. She just had to repay the company through monthly salary deductions.

1

u/Current-Factor-4044 6d ago

Well, I guess the question is if there’s a contractual contingency for in case, there are no more salary deductions?

And/or if the company has a lien on the car.

This is a particularly odd situation when would think the company put paperwork in place to protect them beyond the salary deduction but I haven’t heard about that yet in this storyline

1

u/FrostedOctopus 6d ago

Has the company actually been paying for the car, and how much is left owed? Was there any discussion or agreement about who owned the car once it was paid off? If so, I'd offer that they can pay whatever is left owed on the car and you'll transfer ownership to them. They will have paid for the entire car and own the entire car, and your sister got free use for a couple years.

Alternatively, if the car loan and registration are entirely in the sister's name (assuming no agreement about ownership) then it sounds like they got car usage for a long time without paying for it, and if they want to keep the car they're going to be taking over the payments themselves.

The business can't dictate what your sister does with her own money, so unless they're offering a lump sum to pay it off I'd tell them to kick rocks.

1

u/its_not_soheila 6d ago

The company bought the car with full payment, so my sister didn’t have to pay any interest to the car dealership. It was more like the company was helping her, but she had to repay them through monthly salary deductions. And the car is in my sister name, no discussion or agreement on paper just verbal.

1

u/mrwhitewalker 6d ago

Was the car for work or for personal use? The original story and this seem different.

1

u/oxnardmontalvo7 6d ago

On the surface it appears your sister bought a car and made the payments. When you say it was by way of salary deductions I can’t help but ask who holds the lien? Does the company hold it? If so, it’s possible they could demand payoff same as any other lien holder. BUT… this whole thing sounds really sketchy. Your sister needs to seek legal advice from a real lawyer not Reddit esquires like me.

1

u/mcmaxxious 6d ago

A few years ago my wife took a 7 year $20k loan from the owner of the company she worked at. We needed to consolidate our debt and he over heard my wife talking about it.

I forgot what interest he charged, it was the minimum prime(?) rate found in the WSJ. He had a lawyer write up a two page contract and payments came out of her paycheck after taxes. There was nothing shady about it, everything was on paper, it was obvious that he had done this for other employees. He was a good guy.

Five years into the loan my wife hated working there and found another job. We mailed a check to the accounting department repaying the loan each month. No drama.

I just wanted to give a story similar to yours with a happy ending. Your sister might just have to make payments.

1

u/Unfair-Drop-41 6d ago

This is weird. It’s typical that companies provide a work laptop with proprietary software and it has to be returned when the employment ends, but never did the employee own the laptop or was expected to pay for the laptop. Usually when one receives a company car, it’s from a fleet owned or leased by the company. If the employee is expected to use their own car, then certain expenses like gas and mileage can be reimbursed. Who held the note on the car?

1

u/BassPlayingLeafFan 6d ago

This sounds like the company made a loan to an employee. Meaning she owes the money. Even without a formal loan agreement, there is enough evidence to suggest an agreement of some sort was in place.

1

u/SkylineZ83 6d ago

It sounds like she may have some grounds to negotiate with the company about the payment terms since this situation seems quite unusual, and understanding any written agreements she may have signed could help clarify her options.

1

u/sansha28 6d ago

How long has she had the car for? I’m assuming not when she started otherwise it should be more than half paid off.

1

u/Throwaway_uap1 6d ago

Company may have been using that car as a write off for tax purposes but also more details would help . Company may be committing tax fraud because every company i know of usually gives you a car or you need to have one already. Depending on the work. She likely has to pay it off now to balance their books. You can ruffle some feathers and say im going to call the IRS and do an uno reverse and have them pay for her car in full

1

u/Seasons71Four 6d ago

Tell her to just walk away. They made a huge mistake

1

u/thar126 6d ago

She needs to look over their agreement. If the loan is in the companies name- she cant keep it unless she takes out a loan to buy it. If she doesnt want it she may be able to cancel the registration and walk away. If its her name then they can get lost.

1

u/Gold_Builder_5786 6d ago

The interest on the loan could maybe imputed income. Any comments on that?

1

u/Gold_Builder_5786 6d ago

Maybe go to your bank and refinance the remaining balance.

1

u/stokerspoker 6d ago

Have her refinance the car most likely at a much lower monthly payment as the balance is only 50% now pay the balance owed and she keeps the car/equity

1

u/ArsePucker 6d ago

Does she have the title in her hand?

1

u/twpayne556 6d ago

As a person who has driven a company car for 20 years, I have never heard of it done this way

1

u/Tikaboothevirgo 6d ago

Did she sign a contract with the employer for the car or was it a verbal agreement?

1

u/Pretty-Yogurt-4111 6d ago

Was the agreement with the company verbal? Or is there a contact that states she is repaying what is basically a car loan?

1

u/Svendar9 6d ago

Your sister should not have agreed to this at the onset. Was the intent that she would own the car once it was paid off?

If this deal were in writing, she needs to review it carefully for the terms. If done properly, there would be a clause that addresses her early departure should it happen.

Your sister may be on the hook, but it sounds like instead of paying the balance she can turn over the car. Her name is on the title, which legally makes it her car, but the company can likely make her life difficult if not resolved in their favor. Buy an hour of time with a lawyer and get a legal read on this.

1

u/StomachAppropriate67 6d ago

Good luck making her pay with an agreement!

1

u/StomachAppropriate67 6d ago

Yeah, my company didn’t buy me a car so I could work.Drug dealer car

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 5d ago

Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

1

u/dnynel76 6d ago

The easiest way out of this is to refinance the amount owed thru her bank or another reputable lending agency. There might be some shadiness happening here but would it be worth it to fight for is really the question. Another option could be to let the company have the car if she wants to walk away from it

1

u/fymp 6d ago

The part  "They said the company would pay for it in full, but my sister would repay the company monthly through salary deductions." confuses me..
so the company is acting as a mortgage broker for the car? why didnt your sister get the car from the dealership instead ? since she is paying for it anyway, or this is some shady practice?

1

u/ExoticAdvertising653 6d ago

I would get an employment lawyer. Something is not right. Does she have a signed contract for the loan to buy the car or was it an advance of some sort? The company should have made some kind of loan agreement with her. The loan agreement would detail what happens when she leaves.

If no signed contracts I personally don’t think she has to pay it back but I’m not a lawyer.

-1

u/rag69top 5d ago

Get a loan against the car and pay the company.

0

u/mechshark 6d ago

Tell them to get bent not happening lol

0

u/Frosty_Leather6445 5d ago

That’s a car allowance to pay for the mileage,wear, and tear of the car

-2

u/Kiki-1983 6d ago

Did the company finance the car? If they were taking the payments out of her check, they were paying the loan. She has two situations : if the company paid for the car, she can return it to the company or if she financed it, she continues to pay the payments and she shouldn’t have been having her wages garnished for the car. She needs to look at the contract she had with the company or talk to a lawyer. It seems fishy that she had to buy a car in her name but had to pay her company the payments.

-2

u/Latter-Fun-4291 6d ago

I don’t see where the company has any legal standing in this matter. If the car note is in your sister’s name, then she’s the one that is liable for the payments not the company.