We have another repo man taking a car with a child inside. The latest case occurred in San Jose where Isabel Leuvano was just 17 days late on her payments and parked the running car in the driveway of her ex-husband to pick up her daughter.
Police finally tracked down the child at Luna’s office — not realizing it was a repossession until 30 minutes after the start of an all-out search.
Not only does there appear to be no charges planned for Luna, but he is demanding a $285 late payment plus an additional $300 to cover the cost of the repossession. Police say that they are unaware of any law being broken. Let’s see, a man takes a car with the child inside and speeds off over a curve. At some point, he had to realize that there was a boy in the car but continued on his way. That would seem awfully close to kidnapping or in the very least child endangerment.
We have seen a steady stream of these abusive repo cases (here), which continue because police opt not to charge the culprits. Luna could have blocked the car and called police if she would not surrender the car.
There also would seem a basis for a civil lawsuit against Luna for negligent infliction of emotional distress and other claims.
For the full story, click here.
So many things wrong in this article! What’s wrong with people!?!? I thought the adults were supposed to be the responsible ones? If you have a child to care for and you cannot afford your car than you’ve got problems. Your car getting taken is nobody’s fault but your own, so start living within your means for Heaven’s Sake! If it’s a unforeseen financial crisis, than be smart and enlist the help of a professional to help out. Or you can ignore the situation and let total strangers drive off with your child. Here is some related info I found useful: http://creditletters.eu.pn/help-my-car-was-repoed/
2*D,
The repo man didn’t know the child was inside when he repossessed the vehicle. Should a repo man be expected to inspect the vehicle before he takes it? Is reposession a job in which it would be considered safe for the repo man to spend more time at the location that is absolutely necessary?
Enough of this “she made a bad decision” crap. Try telling it like it is. She broke the freaking law, and was extremely lucky that it was the repo man, and not a thief that took her car.
“Taking the car with the child in it is frankly a much worse decision than anything she did”
Go talk to the legislators. The repo man didn’t break any law. The mother did. End of story.
So, Duh, were you buy any chance the repo man here? Let’s be honest here: any repo man who repossesses a car with a child inside should be forced into some other line of work. It doesn’t matter how far behind she was on her payments or whether or not she made a bad decision in leaving the child in the car. Taking the car with the child in it is frankly a much worse decision than anything she did, and nothing she did changes that.
People that get their car repossessed lie. This woman says that she was 17 days late. The car lot says she was a month behind. I tend to believe the dealer. The woman makes it sound as though she was just outside the car, but she couldn’t describe who took her car. It’s obvious that she endangered her child, not out of necessity, but out of laziness.
You want empathy? What about the dealer? What about the dealer who has to pay his bills? Should he be told to be in default with his creditors, so that this woman doesn’t have to? A buy-here, pay-here lot is not a place where people with good credit generally go to buy cars. They almost expect buyers to default on their payment. When they do, they pick up the car. Unlike new car dealers, these BHPH lots permit the buyer to get current, and return the car so the cycle can repeat itself. A new car dealer will pick up the car and auction it off at a private auction for a very low price, leaving the buyer holding the bag for the difference.
I have more empathy for the child than I do the woman. The woman is lucky. She learned a valuable lesson, and her child is now home safe. What if it wasn’t the repo man, but instead a car thief who took her car?
“For those who so blithely condemn her for not being able to keep up her payments, there is the implication that that is somehow dishonorable.”
It is dishonorable. She had just come from dinner and getting a hair cut. Skip the hair cut, make dinner at home, and abide by the terms of the contract. That’s what honorable people do.
Many years ago, I had a car repossessed. I know what it’s like. I also performed a few repossessions for a BHPH lot. So I know what that’s like too. And I once went three days without food, because I only had enough money to get food for my dog. The dog was a responsibility that I had taken on. If anyone was to suffer, it was to be me.
There is a complete lack of empathy here that I find cold and heartless. Yes the woman was stupid to leave a child of that age in a car, but among many of the working poor in America necessity trumps
clear thinking. For those who so blithely condemn her for not being able to keep up her payments, there is the implication that that is somehow dishonorable. Financial dealings in the US have nothing to do with honor and haven’t for decades. See the major investment banks for ample proof. In these day of usurious credit card practices, mixed with a society whose commercial propaganda screams for people to consume or be thought of as trash, many people have acted foolishly and caught up in a net.
That the payday loan industry has grown so much in recent years is an indicator of this. It used to be known as “shylocking” and used to be against the law. As someone who has completely supported himself since age 18, often worked two jobs and at times had to choose between being late on a bill, or buying antibiotics for my child (you know the choice)I know what it is like to work hard and yet not have quite enough to take care of my family. I guess for many of the other commenter’s here they’ve never had that problem, so they can blithely cast aspersions on this woman for being 17 days late on her car payment. Moral rectitude yes, but human sympathy and compassion sadly lacking.
Oklahoma,
Ms. Luna didn’t just make a bad decision; she broke the law. To place blame on the repo man would be like charging him with abuse of a corpse when a dead body turns up in the trunk of a car that he repo’d.
How was this repo man to know that a child was in the back seat when he took posession of the vehicle? Repo men don’t usually inventory the vehicle until it is in their posession. They don’t have that luxury because people don’t react kindly to those taking their car. They spot the vehicle and take it when the opportunity presents itself.
This was a night-time repo. He probably didn’t know about the child until he returned to the dealership.
No it is not a good idea to leave a child unattended in a vehicle for any amount of time. But come on people! This repo man kidnapped that child. If there were no laws broken they need to change the law. Ms. Luna made a bad decision to leave the child unattended but this should not excuse the actions of the repo man.
I agree with Sally, I would not leave a child in the back seat of my car unless they were 7 or 8 and I was only going to gone for a few minutes and I would take the keys and lock the doors. I would also have to be in visual contact with the car the entire time.
Unable to pay bills is not an excuse for being stupid.
Human adults arguing over money.
vs.
Protecting a child via common sense much less the law.
Two yrs old is NOT an infant. He’s a toddler, now a 3 yr old according to the news story. Shame on her for leaving her child inside a running vehicle completely unattended. It’s not that difficult to undo a carseat buckle and carry the child inside while picking up the other child. Children that age are completely capable of undoing their buckles and getting into the front seat. What if that had happended?
Great point bringing up Kaitlyns Law!
She bought a car at a buy here, pay here lot and she knew what she was getting into when she signed the contract, you pay or your car is repossessed.
Like Bud said in the movie, “A repo man is always infants”.
Or something like that.
Kaitlyn’s Law
http://www.ci.laguna-niguel.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=527
I guess the repo man did not speak the same language.
“Let’s see, a man takes a car with the child inside and speeds off over a curve. At some point, he had to realize that there was a boy in the car but continued on his way. That would seem awfully close to kidnapping or in the very least child endangerment.”
What about charging the woman with child endangerment for leaving the child in a running car while she goes inside?
From a 2003 Santa Clara article:
“Caregivers who leave children unattended in cars face a variety of legal consequences. It is an infraction, punishable by a fine and participation in a community education program, to leave a child six years or younger unsupervised in a car when there is a significant risk to the child’s health and safety or when the engine is left running or the keys are left in the ignition. A caregiver may also be charged with misdemeanor child endangerment, punishable by up to a year in county jail, for placing a child in a situation where the child’s person or health may be endangered. If the circumstances are likely to result in great bodily harm or death, the crime may be elevated to a felony punishable by up to six years in state prison. If a child dies as a result of being left unattended in a car, the caregiver may be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter and face up to four years in prison.
Child endangerment is criminal. Never leave a child unattended in a car.”
http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/da/agencyarticle?path=%2Fv7%2FDistrict%20Attorney%2C%20Office%20of%20the%20(DEP)%2FNews%20and%20Events%2FPublic%20Service%20Announcements%20and%20Advisories&contentId=66d3cb38aeb34010VgnVCM10000048dc4a92____