Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

He can't sue you to recover possession, the legal time limit for doing so has expired. But he can repo the car if he can do so peacefully.

I'm not so sure I agree with Mr. Stone. The vehicle is registered in his name, so there is a presumption that he owns the vehicle. The fact that you are insured is irrelevant. You are required to be insured when driving in California. It sounds as though he can quite well claim that he lent you the car, and you refuse to return it, so I would not be surprised if he could sue you for possession.

Neither Mr. Stone nor Mr. Roach discusses the possibility that the Jeep was a gift. I'm not saying it was -- determining that would depend upon what was said at the time possession and use were handed over to you. However, unless the car was a gift, it is only a loan, and you'd need to return it.

Determining whether a gift was made requires determining what a "reasonable person" would have thought the supposed donor intended at the time the Jeep was turned over to you. If the words were something like "Here's a car for you!" that would probably amount to the giving of a gift, and you'd probably have the right to have your name on title. However, if what he said was more like "As long as we're good friends, use this to drive over and see me!" that would sound to the "reasonable person" observer more like a loan, which would not involve a turn-over of ownership as would a gift.

The retention of title in the possible donor's name may be evidence that he did not intend to make a gift, or however, it may simply have been that neither of you got around to taking care of this formality. It is certainly not helpful.

I think the notion (expressed in Mr. Stone's answer) that "the legal time limit has expired" is based upon the notion of adverse possession in the law of real estate. However, permission to use the property prevents the possession from being adverse. If you had taken the Jeep without Mr. X's knowledge, possibly the real-property rule would apply, but here you were given possession and use with his full knowledge and permission, so there is nothing "adverse" about your possession that would trigger this rule even if it applied to personal property like cars.