Short story, I cosigned for someone that did not keep their promises. Is there any legal action I can take to force the sale of the car to get from under the note I co-signed? I'm in Washington state if that matters. Thank you.

If the other person refuses to re-finance the vehicle into their name, alone, then you can sue for Breach of Contract, Fraud, Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Partition of the Loan. Doing so will force the other party to either re-finance or sell the vehicle.

Of course, this is not a Small Claims court matter; so, I would suggest that you consult a local attorney.

Good luck, and don't ever do this again!

On a contract action? Really....

__________________
Find Legal Help - Find Legal Advice

Yes, really. If an independent action can be alleged and maintained; e.g., fraud in the inducement, fraud based upon intentional concealment, or misstatement of "material" facts, or fraud ab initio, and those facts can be proven, then the agreived party may obtain exemplary (punitive) damages, in addition to actual damages based upon the contract action.

Normally, under Code of Civil Procedure section 3294, you would be correct, "in the absence of independent tort, punitive damages may not be awarded for breach of contract even where the defendant's conduct in breaching the contract was wilful, fraudulent, or malicious." [Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503] Fraud is an independent tort based upon fraud or false representation.

In the original post, it appears that there is, at the very least, an independent cause of action for fraud in the inducement; i.e., a promise was made in order to obtain a co-signature, and then there was a failure to pay on the contract, causing the co-signer to suffer contractual damages. It may be a stretch, and it may not survive a demurrer and/or motion to strike, but it would be malpractice not to at least allege such independent tort

Has the original poster even claimed emotional distress, let alone the serious emotional distress necessary to support a "negligent infliction" claim, or the severe or extreme emotional distress necessary to support an "intentional infliction" claim?

What in the conduct described would have a snowball's chance of constituting conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, so as to support the "intentional infliction" claim?

I'm not questioning that you may bring any colorable claim; these just don't seem to have any merit based upon the facts presented. I guess I'm just conservative - I don't plead causes of action I know have zero chance of success.

__________________
Find Legal Help - Find Legal Advice

[quote=aaron]Has the original poster even claimed emotional distress, let alone the serious emotional distress necessary to support a "negligent infliction" claim, or the severe or extreme emotional distress necessary to support an "intentional infliction" claim?

*** The original poster has not claimed anything beyond a broken promise. Due to an inability to ask the correct questions, or all the questions, it's up to a successful attorney to look beyond the original question. A successful attorney will see other potential causes of action because each additional cause of action has the potential for making more money. An average attorney will not see the potentials beyond the original question. This is why, I imagine you made the statement, "On a contract action? Really...." because you didn't see the potential, would rather stop at what the client says, and not see the potential for other causes of action that could make a case more valuable. An average attorney would never see the potential for punitive damages in a contract cause of action.



What in the conduct described would have a snowball's chance of constituting conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, so as to support the "intentional infliction" claim?

*** That question was already answered. But, to recap, if a successful attorney can see beyond what a client is merely saying on the surface, then there's a chance that a successful attorney would see that there may be more; i.e., "an independent action that can be alleged and maintained; e.g., fraud in the inducement, fraud based upon intentional concealment, or misstatement of "material" facts, or fraud ab initio." An average attorney would never see this possibility. This is why, I presume, you made the statement, "On a contract action? Really...." This is one of the reasons why we have "discovery" so that a successful attorney could determine whether or not such a cause of action exists. But, if you don't make the allegations, then finding out later in discovery may be too late for these causes of action.


I'm not questioning that you may bring any colorable claim; these just don't seem to have any merit based upon the facts presented. I guess I'm just conservative - I don't plead causes of action I know have zero chance of success.

*** If you only look at the surface of what a client is saying (like our writer), then I can fully understand your position that "these just don't seem to have any merit based upon the facts presented." Like I said, the client may not know all, or the correct, questions to ask; i.e., "Is there any legal action I can." That's why a successful attorney would plead these other causes of action beyond breach of contract, instead of presuming that there is no possibility, whatsoever, of making a new independent cause of action; thus, making the case more valuable.

I'd rather make a "colorable" claim from the outset, rather than not bring them at all. Also, it's the successful attorney who sees these potential causes of action rather than not seeing them, or foreclosing them altogether, by saying, "On a contract action? Really...."

So, yes, really.

It's not the successful attorney who brings frivolous claims.

It's not the successful attorney who advises others to bring frivolous claims.

__________________
Find Legal Help - Find Legal Advice

Once again, you are correct; but no one is arguing that point. A successful attorney would never bring a frivolous cause of action. There is no doubt in that premise. Not every action on a contract could meet that standard. In fact, it is the rare contract matter that will rise to that higher level. My point, however, was that you dismissed the possibility, and potential, altogether by saying, "On a contract action? Really...." By that statement, however, you gave the writer the impression that there is no possibility of punitive damages in a contract action.

My next point was that a successful attorney will look beyond the mere statements of a client to determine if there's something more, something more valuable about their client's overall case, rather than foreclosing the possibility by saying, "On a contract action? Really...."

Instead of acknowledging the possibility, your argument was to dismiss the independent potential, entirely; i.e., to say, "On a contract action? Really...." I demonstrated that there was such a possibility. The difference being that it is possible to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse, and that's the difference between a successful attorney and an average attorney.

__________________
Find Legal Help - Find Legal Advice

I don't understand your pictogram. What does that mean in terms of law? I'm sure the writer would be interested also.