Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Unfortunately, the decisions in SCC are so bad that almost everyone has a chance to win. Appealing the decision to Superior Court often results in a rubber stamping of the SCC decision.

That she is not suing for the value of the car suggests that she may be admitting you had the right to repossess, as otherwise she should be suing for the value of the vehicle and a rental car. The issue of how good your records are may not come up, so do not mention it. Oral agreements have the same weight as written ones, they are just harder to prove. Point out that you lost money on the deal but felt yo had no choice since she had no income and was movling of of state and would not tell you where. If you knew of her prior history before you repossesssed the car and it was part of the reason you did so, you can bring it up.

She has to have made a demand on your before filing suit, but the judge/commissioner may not care. If you ask her, then you might feel better if the judgment is in her favor but for less money. Argue that at most she ils entitled to be put back into the position she was before the contract, which would be the return of the money she paid you, but that the car rental would have happened if she had not bought the car from you so that expense was not a proximate cause of the repossession. It is best to give the judge a typed copy of your argument as you probably will not be able to make all of it but can refer the judge to it. The disadvantage is tha you have to give it to her at the start of your hearing also.

[not proof read]