Bad News Georgia HMMWV Owners

[Robo McDuff]

I signed no hold harmless or any form of disclaimer when purchasing my 1123. In fact it came with a clear GA title to IronPlanet, signed over to me.

Just curious, it had a street title, ended up with Iron Planet and was sold to you. Does that mean that at the time of sale through IP, it was not a military vehicle anymore but a private vehicle or had the military titled it for whatever reason?

 

[doghead]

Off road use only.

Not road worthy as sold.

Which statement is made when sold?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[jeffy777]

I am 95% sure I never signed a Hold Harmless Agreement.

The reason for the different conditions seems to come down to who the originating branch is. The Army trucks and even some Air Force trucks seem to say ORUO and are 1985-1994 trucks. The Marine Corps M1123 trucks are 1998-2005ish and are not ORUO. Some people here have said that the DLA rules over Army and Air Force trucks, but it does not rules over the Marine Corps. I can't confirm or deny that.

Irregardless if you signed the hold harmless agreement or not. It is a hold harmless agreement. It is not a statement of use agreement or a future use agreement of some sort.The hold harmless simply means you can not sue them for the road worthiness of the vehicle. This is necessary, because most of the vehicles could not make it down a driveway safely. GP does not test the vehicle in anyway as to say anything other then they could move it or not and a large amount they could not even move. They are selling the military's garbage or salvage. The weird thing here is you got your license and title, Maverick. They told you they might come take yours back. If we kick the shins of the DMV they may make a ruling just to end dealing. (I don't think you are talking to the DMV, at least I hope) But I would tell anyone. Don't get upset the DMV says no. Just try again later or try something else.

 

[MaverickH1]

Just curious, it had a street title, ended up with Iron Planet and was sold to you. Does that mean that at the time of sale through IP, it was not a military vehicle anymore but a private vehicle or had the military titled it for whatever reason?

It didn't have a title when sold by GP, they obtained one and as an option for a little while gave it to us instead of the Bill of Sale or SF97 option. The SF97 from the Marine Corps is signed over directly to GovPlanet. The clear Georgia title is something that GovPlanet no longer does, as it costs them too much.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

[BLK HMMWV]

Did it come with a license plate and tags in Georgia. I think that is part of the problem as well.
Normally it is easy to transfer owner ship on a used car/ truck/ boat motorcycle whatever when it has a plate on it already.
DMV just collects money and transfers the name of the registered owner.
You bought a truck with a Georgia Title that wasn't ever registered and plated even in Georgia .
GP seems to keep moving from state to state on the titles .
I'd be interested in why they keep changing.
I don't think GP quit doing the Georgia titles because of the cost I think the DMV started to figure it out.
And now the other states GP is using for titles are starting to figure it out.

 

[MaverickH1]

Irregardless if you signed the hold harmless agreement or not. It is a hold harmless agreement. It is not a statement of use agreement or a future use agreement of some sort.The hold harmless simply means you can not sue them for the road worthiness of the vehicle. This is necessary, because most of the vehicles could not make it down a driveway safely. GP does not test the vehicle in anyway as to say anything other then they could move it or not and a large amount they could not even move. They are selling the military's garbage or salvage. The weird thing here is you got your license and title, Maverick. They told you they might come take yours back. If we kick the shins of the DMV they may make a ruling just to end dealing. (I don't think you are talking to the DMV, at least I hope) But I would tell anyone. Don't get upset the DMV says no. Just try again later or try something else.

I agree about the Hold Harmless Agreement. But it is nonetheless something they try to wave around and say "See, you signed this!". To which I can say "no I didn't".

I am still talking to the director of Vehicle Services at the DMV, and the commissioner is involved at this point.

They told me no. I was polite, but in my mind I said "these people are incompetent" and went to another DMV to get the tags and title. While I was there successfully getting the tags and title, I got a call from the other DMV again saying they were going to be revoking plates through headquarters in Richmond's titling supervisor's word. That put me into a temporary status of having this truck, and I wanted to get a clear answer one way or the other. I am not willing to put another dime into the truck if they could essentially take it away from me at any time. I've been in this situation before with a 1995 Plymouth Neon when I was in college, and they came after my car 7 months after I got it. I ended up having to tow it to Tennessee and sell it as scrap. I'm not playing that game again.

I'll PM you what I want to say next...

 

[ryanruck]

Lets keep it clear. First, I have nothing against trying it and fully understand the feelings involved (and the cash). Unfortunately, that is not relevant here.

For those who bid on a HMMVV, paid and signed the papers,

1) was it stated clearly that you bought the vehicle with a limited off-road use only?

2) Those who tried, when talking to the DMV, did you know that the bill of sale clearly said or would say "sold under off-road only conditions"?

3) If yes did you tell the DMV people clearly when talking with them that most if not all of these vehicles came with the "sold under off-road only conditions"?

If yes on two or three of the questions above, you took a gamble intended to go against a legal contract before signing it. Legally (in a perfect world), any case in court should be kicked out very quickly against you ( I am not completely unfamiliar with laws and court cases at least here in Europe where we love to go to court on principle or for the h**l of it).

If the sellers were not clear up front with the limited use only, then you have a case against the seller ... maybe, but not against any DMV. Dito if somebody did the trick before you and sold you a titled but "limited use only" HMMVV without telling you, you have a case against the seller but not against the DMV.

If you just mentioned to the DMV you have this nice vehicle that currently is not street legal but you would like to make it street legal without mentioning the signed contract conditions, you actually might be in problems with the intent to mislead the DMV. Maybe that is going a bit far but as DMV officer, if I got involved and this little sentence has been left out or at least not stated very clearly, I would be upset about the applicant and it would go against you in a court.

Again, and as said many times before here, for the law it is completely irrelevant whether or not the vehicle is actually road worthy or not, and whether or not some other people managed to get a paper-folded boat road worthy and titled so why not you.

The first question always will be: did you sign a paper stating the off-road-only status? If yes, bad luck, go home. If no, you might have a case against the seller or the DMV, but it will cost you waaaayyyyyy more than the $ 30 000 you have in it now. It will cost you real hard cash in legal costs, in-kind in the form of the endless hours and days you will spend on it, and in health and joy of life for you, your family, and your other close ones. You will get bitter and grey hairs before it is over.

Yes, sometimes life kicks you in the teeth you just had repaired for a fortune. I can fully understand those feelings, been there over and over again.

In the eyes of the NHTSA, any off road only branding is absolutely meaningless because there is no way for the seller to hold the buyer to that standard:

https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/94/nht94-1.78.html

If we conclude that a vehicle is manufactured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle.

Also stated in that letter, as you can see at the link, military vehicles are not required to conform to FMVSS:

However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS

Additionally, as Maverick posted there are letters from the NHTSA to AMG confirming, not once but twice, that the HMMWV is a "motor vehicle" in the eyes of the NHTSA: here and here.

So, anything beyond the fact that:

1) The HMMWV is a "motor vehicle" designed to operate primarily on roadways,
2) The HMMWV is exempt from FMVSS because it is a former military vehicle, and
3) The off road branding is meaningless to the NHTSA,

is a misinterpretation. Not to say that states aren't free to misinterpret or incorrectly rule and, in which case, they will need to be corrected through either legislation (preferably) or judicial action.

The law is on HMMWV owners' side but sometimes, government needs to be reminded that it too must follow the law.

ETA: The contractual obligations of the sale have zero bearing on compliance with state/federal law regarding the registration and operation of the vehicle on the road. As I mentioned in my last post, that is a matter of civil law. If GP really wanted to, I suppose they could bring suit against people for breach of contract for registering them for on road use but, a) there's no guarantee they'd win and b) even if they won, it still would have no bearing on whether the registrant was in compliance with local motor vehicle law.

GP making the buyer sign an agreement that the buyer will only operate the truck off road only carries the same weight as if GP made the buyer sign an agreement that they will only drive the truck while wearing a red squeaky nose and clown shoes. Can they do it, sure. If they buyer doesn't, would they be in breach of contract, possibly. Would the buyer be in violation of local motor vehicle law, almost certainly not.

 

[MaverickH1]

Did it come with a license plate and tags in Georgia. I think that is part of the problem as well.
Normally it is easy to transfer owner ship on a used car/ truck/ boat motorcycle whatever when it has a plate on it already.
DMV just collects money and transfers the name of the registered owner.
You bought a truck with a Georgia Title that wasn't ever registered and plated even in Georgia .
GP seems to keep moving from state to state on the titles .
I'd be interested in why they keep changing.
I don't think GP quit doing the Georgia titles because of the cost I think the DMV started to figure it out.
And now the other states GP is using for titles are starting to figure it out.

The vehicle(s) are located in Georgia, which is why I think they used Georgia. I could be wrong.

 

[Sintorion]

Sintorion, if the seller is selling you goods that do not fulfill the terms of sale, then they are the point of reclaim. If they sell you a car as "can be made street legal" when that car is not allowed to be brought on the road legally ever unless the law changes, then that person/company is selling you something under false pretense (knowingly or not). Since 1975, the USA has a general "Lemon Law" protecting citizens in ALL states for problems with faulty sales.

Also, GL is not just selling your old $ 500 junk car. They are in a contract with the federal government to sell military surplus. As such, I would assume that at least some of the sale conditions are handled on federal level, which overrules state level. Take the "do not sell to foreign entities". If I would follow your line, if I can get a title on the tank on my porch in state XXX, I can ignore the GL papers I signed and sell it to any person, foreigner or not I want because it is now my road worthy car. I am not sure but I imagine that you would get into problems.

You are confusing this issues. No one is blaming or making claim to DLA or GP that they have mis-represented their products. No one has any expectation that DLA or GP have any liability in this issue. No one questions the terms of the sale. They have protected themselves with the "hold harmless agreement" and other legalese.

The issue is between me and the state. They, much like you, mistakenly want to involve my transaction with the DLA/GP with their decision to allow me to allow me to register my vehicle. Anything stamped or stated by the seller is completely irrelevant. DLA falls under the Department of Defense not the Department of Transportation.

When you take the transaction out of the conversation it is simply "What do I need to do to make my vehicle street legal?" That is all that needs to be answered. This doesn't apply only to these vehicles, but any custom made or imported vehicle. States have provisions for vehicles assembled from parts or imported from other countries so this concept of registering non conforming vehicles isn't foreign.

Simply put, nothing between DLA/GP and I has anything to do with anything between me and the state unless the Federal govt passes some law that allows the DOD to dictate policy to state level DMVs.

 

[jeffy777]

I agree about the Hold Harmless Agreement. But it is nonetheless something they try to wave around and say "See, you signed this!". To which I can say "no I didn't".
I am still talking to the director of Vehicle Services at the DMV, and the commissioner is involved at this point.
They told me no. I was polite, but in my mind I said "these people are incompetent" and went to another DMV to get the tags and title. While I was there successfully getting the tags and title, I got a call from the other DMV again saying they were going to be revoking plates through headquarters in Richmond's titling supervisor's word. That put me into a temporary status of having this truck, and I wanted to get a clear answer one way or the other. I am not willing to put another dime into the truck if they could essentially take it away from me at any time. I've been in this situation before with a 1995 Plymouth Neon when I was in college, and they came after my car 7 months after I got it. I ended up having to tow it to Tennessee and sell it as scrap. I'm not playing that game again.
I'll PM you what I want to say next...

Well you have had bad luck. So a 1995 Plymouth Neon was in really bad shape and how did the DMV know that? An officer reported it right?

I understand your angst but pushing and pushing may just lose everything for everyone in VA. I would let them come to you. They will not. They are just too lazy normally. But the more and more you enlarge the circle your will find the one busybody who will enjoy making your life miserable and maybe everyone else's too. I could almost guarantee your road use of your truck. When I bought mine I made a plan and talked to my lawyers. We designed a plan that we I think 17 steps to. We got to step two and we were 'OK'. You will be OK too, as you are right now. The biggest issue here is the state wants revenue and tax and title and property taxes come with these vehicles, they won't want to end that unless your make them.

 

[Suprman]

Maybe I missed it here reading thru, but the humvee in question, was it road registered in GA with a title or sf-97 stamped off-road? Or was it purchased from a civilian and was already road titled in a state? I could see someone in dmv administration looking over the paperwork or during title issue looking over the paperwork and seeing the off-road stamp and then going from there.

 

[BLK HMMWV]

What was the original deal between GP and the federal government to allow them to change the demil requirements from must mutilate HMMWV's to can sell as scrap. Was it some kind of agreement that stated ok we will allow them to not have to be mutilated as long as they never are driven on the road? I'm guessing and only guessing here that that was the basics of the whole deal in getting the demil classification changed. Now that people are finding away around the system so to speak and more and more are starting to show up in DMV's all across the country . The questions are starting to pop up between DMV and other government entities both at the state and federal level trying to figure away to get a grip on it. It's like swatting at a hornets nest sooner or later your going to piss off the hornets.

 

[Csm Davis]

I would like to just say to my fellow Steel Soldiers please quit talking down or negative to our other brothers who are trying to enjoy their MV's legally. Take a breath and see where you can stand behind them. The final outcome of all of this should help all MV owners.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ddk2001]

Additionally, as Maverick posted there are letters from the NHTSA to AMG confirming, not once but twice, that the HMMWV is a "motor vehicle" in the eyes of the NHTSA: here and here.

You can add this to this list of wavering interpretation of "motor vehicle": https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/88/nht88-1.29.html

 

[BLK HMMWV]

When I see things like this I think you knew what was implied when you bought it but didn't think it applied to you.
Or at the very least set out to find away around the conditions of sale you signed.
When I bought mine I made a plan and talked to my lawyers. We designed a plan that we I think 17 steps to. We got to step two and we were 'OK'.

 

[MaverickH1]

Well you have had bad luck. So a 1995 Plymouth Neon was in really bad shape and how did the DMV know that? An officer reported it right?
I understand your angst but pushing and pushing may just lose everything for everyone in VA. I would let them come to you. They will not. They are just too lazy normally. But the more and more you enlarge the circle your will find the one busybody who will enjoy making your life miserable and maybe everyone else's too. I could almost guarantee your road use of your truck. When I bought mine I made a plan and talked to my lawyers. We designed a plan that we I think 17 steps to. We got to step two and we were 'OK'. You will be OK too, as you are right now. The biggest issue here is the state wants revenue and tax and title and property taxes come with these vehicles, they won't want to end that unless your make them.

The owner of the Neon didn't have a title, I asked the DMV if this was okay, and I was given things I could do to make it okay. So I did those things. I didn't have two pennies to rub together, full time in college in engineering, working full time, training for another job driving buses. The Neon had problems, I bought it and took my paperwork to the DMV and then started getting the different answers. I went to 6 different people at 4 different DMVs and got a different thing every time. When I asked to talk to the last person I talked to, I was told that even if that person titled it, the paperwork would end up causing there to be problems and the title would be revoked. I had to do a head gasket change, master cylinder change, bought new tires, and many more things to get that thing road worthy. And it was an awesome little car. All of the DMVs were full of crap. I never got to talk to the same person twice. I ended up towing it to my summer job in Tennessee hoping it'd be easier to title/register there with my brother, but also no there. So I sold it to a guy for $300 for scrap. It was in perfect shape with low miles :/

Now a very similar thing is happening. And I'm not having it because this is a vehicle I've wanted since I was 10 and its a huge sum of money to me.

This isn't just about the people who currently have HMMWVs. This is also about the people who have yet to buy them or are in the EUC wait. There are a few soon to be M1123 owners here in VA that want to get it on the road with no problems. If what you're saying is true, people who already have a HMMWV should be fine already. If what I'm saying and the DMV is saying is true, the printing presses were warming up to print the revocation letters. It's is POSSIBLE that the information I've brought to the DMV can change that. They admitted to me "this is new information" when I gave them my info.

There's really no way to know. I got the same flak when I tried to rezone from Residential to Agricultural on my land. I wanted the freedom to USE my land, and my neighbors were worried I'd get them all in trouble because they had built structures that were illegal unless they were zoned Agricultural (they weren't). I ended up getting successfully rezoned to Agricultural and the zoning department uncovered a huge mistake they made in zoning our whole area Residential. Could it have gone the other way? Sure, it's absolutely possible. But I don't like the notion that me trying to protect myself by using the law is a danger to all other owners.

Before I came along, the Virginia DMV was convinced that every HMMWV was sold as ORUO and was purely an off road vehicle. While I think that's changing... I don't have it in writing yet.

Maybe I missed it here reading thru, but the humvee in question, was it road registered in GA with a title or sf-97 stamped off-road? Or was it purchased from a civilian and was already road titled in a state? I could see someone in dmv administration looking over the paperwork or during title issue looking over the paperwork and seeing the off-road stamp and then going from there.

It was not registered in GA, it only had a clear GA title which was only acquired for me. Since VA was supposedly one of the states that didn't accept SF97s, I required the title in place of the SF97 before I purchased it. The SF97 was not stamped ORUO.

 

[Suprman]

I am talking about the original thread poster and his letter from GA.

 

[MaverickH1]

I am talking about the original thread poster and his letter from GA.

Oops.

 

[Suprman]

If you have one that came with on road documentation that could be a different issue than someone who submitted off road paperwork to get a road reg. Is your truck registered in GA or you had title only done there?

 

[porkysplace]

I agree about the Hold Harmless Agreement. But it is nonetheless something they try to wave around and say "See, you signed this!". To which I can say "no I didn't".

I am still talking to the director of Vehicle Services at the DMV, and the commissioner is involved at this point.

They told me no. I was polite, but in my mind I said "these people are incompetent" and went to another DMV to get the tags and title. While I was there successfully getting the tags and title, I got a call from the other DMV again saying they were going to be revoking plates through headquarters in Richmond's titling supervisor's word. That put me into a temporary status of having this truck, and I wanted to get a clear answer one way or the other. I am not willing to put another dime into the truck if they could essentially take it away from me at any time. I've been in this situation before with a 1995 Plymouth Neon when I was in college, and they came after my car 7 months after I got it. I ended up having to tow it to Tennessee and sell it as scrap. I'm not playing that game again.

I'll PM you what I want to say next...

Your assuming the ones that refuse to title and plate it are incompetent , whereas it could very well be the ones that did title and plate it are the incompetent ones.