Friend A and Friend B are walking down the street when a Stranger walks up to them. This Stranger hands the friends the keys to a brand new car and signs the car over to both of them so that they own it equally. Friend A already owns a car and does not need another one. Friend B has no car and is in need of a car. The friends agree that while they both own the car that Friend B gets use of the car. At the end of the year Friend B tells Friend A "The taxes and title on the car are $200. So you owe half of that, $100, as half owner of the car." How should Friend A respond to that?
Friend A should respond by politely reminding Friend B that Friend B has gotten to use the car exclusively so it's not really fair if Friend A has to pay anything at all. While they both technically own the car, I would think that since Friend A had the courtesy to allow Friend B to use the car, the least Friend B could do is pay the taxes and title. Just my opinion though.
Why does Friend A want to own this car if he doesn't want to pay for it? Why not let Friend B have it.
Because the car was gifted to both of them and Friend B did not have the money to pay for half of the car to buy out Friend A. Friend B said that they might pay them out at a later date or gift the car to Friend A at some point in the future.
Friend A agrees to pay that sum and then sign the car over to Friend B to avoid paying when He/She doesn't use it. It would only be fair to pay your half if you legally own it.
Friend A pays his half as insurance against his own car breaking down. If he should refuse to pay, then he relinquishes his right to demand the use of the car in the event his own breaks down or is otherwise unavailable. If he refuses to pay, then friend B should demand that the car be formally gifted to him, thereby releasing friend A from his obligation to pay.
That silly on Friend B's part, though I suppose it's legit. But Friend A would try to argue that they don't really make use of the car, thus Friend B should be responsible for such fees. Subsequent to that conversation, no matter the outcome, Friend A should also try to extricate themselves from that contract.
Then Friend B must then pay A half the value of the car which they do not have, hence one getting the use of the car but having to pay the taxes, and tag.
Friend A didn't use the car, Friend A doesn't need to pay for it! Friend B should be able to realise that Friend A had no relation to the car and making said friend pay for it is just rude.
Friend A should refuse because they do not get equal usage of the car. However, the tricky thing is what are the consequences if Friend B decides to drive it without getting the tax and title paid. If there are consequences, then Friend A should find a way of removing their name from ownership of the car and let Friend B deal with it.
It means B is a dick. Expecting A to pay for a benefit he hasn't received (not only that, but generously given to B) only because of apparent legal obligation would be foul behavior. B should be a friend and cover the costs for A, since the latter has not enjoyed use of the car. At that point, if I were A, I'd relinquish my half of ownership of the car to B and say something like "drive it as far away from me as the gas tank will let you."
It's a complicated situation. If both parties own the car collectively, then what should have happened was a conversation up front about what the responsibilities of each are. Arguably, each should in some way benefit from the gift that was given to them collectively. if B is going to have exclusive use of the car, then A ought to benefit in some way, unless A simply wants to gift his or her half of the car to B. So one way to approach that is, then B should probably pay reasonably for its upkeep, which includes taxes, registration, fuel, maintenance, since A isn't getting any use of the car. Remember too that, with rare exceptions, cars are depreciating assets (they lose value each year) and so the gift A and B were given will lose value each year. Accordingly, if B's getting value and A is not, then whatever the depreciation of the car is, B could pay half of that to A, and they could split the maintenance and upkeep costs. Another way to look at it is what the cost of the car if it weren't operated would be. Probably no insurance and very little maintenance and upkeep would be required if it's simply garaged, so in that scenario, B could pay for maintenance and upkeep, but A could contribute a small amount equal to half of what the maintenance/upkeep would be if the car went unused, but arguably B still ought to compensate A in some way for use of the car or at least for part of the value of depreciation. The bottom line is, this is the sort of thing that really needs to be discussed up front, because it is never as simple as it first seems, and by discussing it, there's no dispute later. At this point, the best you can do is have a conversation and approach it not from who can afford to pay, but from what's fair to both. At the end of that conversation, if A wants to donate to B whatever value B has gotten for using the car, that's a possibility too. But it doesn't seem reasonable that A should have to pay for upkeep on a car that's a direct result of B's sole use of the car, without getting something in return.
