paperwork buying a boat?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:37 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge
paperwork buying a boat?
I live in LA and I'm buying a boat from a individual in MS. I've looked around trying to find out what all paperwork I will need to get my boat and trailer regestered in LA but haven't had much sucess. Anybody know anything about this stuff?
-
- Regular
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Madison
-
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: merigold
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:37 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge
Sandy,
Just need to contact the MS wildlife dept, i think they have a form you use to transfer the boat to LA. Then you just register it, like you would a new boat. You ever been to the John Ford Home?
Just need to contact the MS wildlife dept, i think they have a form you use to transfer the boat to LA. Then you just register it, like you would a new boat. You ever been to the John Ford Home?
Last edited by regishay on Wed May 04, 2005 8:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:37 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:37 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge
- Meeka
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1704
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Gulf Shores, Alabama
- Contact:
Be careful, as you can see below, scheeeit can happen.
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
JEFFREY JOHNSON PLAINTIFF
VS. NO. CO2004-21215
MICHAEL NEUGENT DEFENDANT
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
COMES NOW, Defendant, Michael Neugent, by and through undersigned counsel, with
this Response to the Complaint filed against him in the above styled and numbered cause, to-wit:
I.
Defendant moves for dismissal of the filed Complaint due to insufficiency of process and
lack of personal jurisdiction.
II.
Jackson County, Mississippi is an improper venue.
III.
The Complaint should be dismissed for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV.
ANSWER
The Defendant responds to the allegations of the Complaint, paragraph and paragraph, as follows:
I. Admitted.
II. Denied.
III. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph III of the Complaint, except that the
check was “for valuable considerationâ€.
IV. Defendant admits that his signature appears on the check in question, but denies
the remaining allegations of paragraph IV.
V. Denied.
VI. Admitted.
VII. Denied. Defendant affirmatively alleges that Section 11-7-12 of the Mississippi
Code is not applicable.
VII.(2) Denied.
Defendant denies the last unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint which begins “WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDEREDâ€
V.- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an affirmative defense, Defendant pleads that he attempted, based upon Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentations, to purchase a boat from Plaintiff, but the entire console of the boat came off, through no fault of Defendant, while the Defendant was transporting the boat to its intended berth. A photo taken at the scene is inserted below:
Defendant promptly notified Plaintiff of the problem, had the boat inspected by an expert and returned the boat to Plaintiff. In an attempt to mitigate his damages, Defendant stopped payment on his check.
VI.
If further investigation or discovery reveals that any counter-claim, not presented here against the Plaintiff, or cross-claim against a third party is appropriate, Defendant reserves the right amend this response.
VII.
COUNTERCLAIM- JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
And now, having fully responded to the Complaint filed against him, Defendant and now Counter-Claimant makes this Counterclaim, to-wit:
1. Counter-Claimant, Michael Neugent, is a adult resident citizen of Pike County,
Mississippi.
2. Plaintiff and now Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Johnson is an adult resident citizen
of Jackson County, Mississippi, who suffers under no legal disability.
3. On or about August 26, 2004, Counter-Defendant agreed to sell a sea-worthy boat
to Counter-Claimant for $8,000.00. Counter-Claimant paid for the boat with a personal check.
4. While traveling west to Houma, Louisiana, where the boat would be stored and
used, the entire console came off the boat, as evidenced by the photograph set forth above.
5. Counter-Claimant had the boat inspected, then revoked his acceptance. Then, in
an attempt to mitigate damages, he stopped payment on his check and returned the boat to Counter-Defendant.
6. In the course of negotiations prior to the purchase, Counter-Defendant made
certain false representations, with knowledge of their falsity, upon which Counter-Claimant relied on in purchasing the boat.
7. These intentional misrepresentations include, but are not limited to that there was
nothing wrong with the boat, that there were no problems with the boat, that there were no defects with the boat, that there was no history of significant problems or repairs to the boat, and that the boat was sea worthy and ready to fish and the boat was fit and suitable for Counter-Claimant’s intended use of the boat as an inshore and offshore fishing boat.
8. Counter-Claimant suffered damages on account of the Counter-Defendant’s
misrepresentations.
9. Counter-Defendant is guilty of intentional misrepresentations, fraudulent
inducement and fraud.
10. Alternatively, Counter-Defendant made the aforesaid misrepresentations
negligently.
11. Counter-Defendant also breached the implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose and breached his agreement to sell a vessel that was sea-worthy.
12. Counter-Claimant properly revoked his acceptance of the goods and returned the
boat to Counter-Defendant.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counter-Claimant is not indebted to Counter-Defendant, but instead has suffered damages as a result of the conduct of Counter-Defendant in an amount to be determined by a jury and is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
Respectfully submitted this the _____ day of February, 2005.
MICHAEL NEUGENT
BY: ROBISON & HARBOUR
____________________________________
OF COUNSEL
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
JEFFREY JOHNSON PLAINTIFF
VS. NO. CO2004-21215
MICHAEL NEUGENT DEFENDANT
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
COMES NOW, Defendant, Michael Neugent, by and through undersigned counsel, with
this Response to the Complaint filed against him in the above styled and numbered cause, to-wit:
I.
Defendant moves for dismissal of the filed Complaint due to insufficiency of process and
lack of personal jurisdiction.
II.
Jackson County, Mississippi is an improper venue.
III.
The Complaint should be dismissed for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV.
ANSWER
The Defendant responds to the allegations of the Complaint, paragraph and paragraph, as follows:
I. Admitted.
II. Denied.
III. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph III of the Complaint, except that the
check was “for valuable considerationâ€.
IV. Defendant admits that his signature appears on the check in question, but denies
the remaining allegations of paragraph IV.
V. Denied.
VI. Admitted.
VII. Denied. Defendant affirmatively alleges that Section 11-7-12 of the Mississippi
Code is not applicable.
VII.(2) Denied.
Defendant denies the last unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint which begins “WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDEREDâ€
V.- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an affirmative defense, Defendant pleads that he attempted, based upon Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentations, to purchase a boat from Plaintiff, but the entire console of the boat came off, through no fault of Defendant, while the Defendant was transporting the boat to its intended berth. A photo taken at the scene is inserted below:
Defendant promptly notified Plaintiff of the problem, had the boat inspected by an expert and returned the boat to Plaintiff. In an attempt to mitigate his damages, Defendant stopped payment on his check.
VI.
If further investigation or discovery reveals that any counter-claim, not presented here against the Plaintiff, or cross-claim against a third party is appropriate, Defendant reserves the right amend this response.
VII.
COUNTERCLAIM- JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
And now, having fully responded to the Complaint filed against him, Defendant and now Counter-Claimant makes this Counterclaim, to-wit:
1. Counter-Claimant, Michael Neugent, is a adult resident citizen of Pike County,
Mississippi.
2. Plaintiff and now Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Johnson is an adult resident citizen
of Jackson County, Mississippi, who suffers under no legal disability.
3. On or about August 26, 2004, Counter-Defendant agreed to sell a sea-worthy boat
to Counter-Claimant for $8,000.00. Counter-Claimant paid for the boat with a personal check.
4. While traveling west to Houma, Louisiana, where the boat would be stored and
used, the entire console came off the boat, as evidenced by the photograph set forth above.
5. Counter-Claimant had the boat inspected, then revoked his acceptance. Then, in
an attempt to mitigate damages, he stopped payment on his check and returned the boat to Counter-Defendant.
6. In the course of negotiations prior to the purchase, Counter-Defendant made
certain false representations, with knowledge of their falsity, upon which Counter-Claimant relied on in purchasing the boat.
7. These intentional misrepresentations include, but are not limited to that there was
nothing wrong with the boat, that there were no problems with the boat, that there were no defects with the boat, that there was no history of significant problems or repairs to the boat, and that the boat was sea worthy and ready to fish and the boat was fit and suitable for Counter-Claimant’s intended use of the boat as an inshore and offshore fishing boat.
8. Counter-Claimant suffered damages on account of the Counter-Defendant’s
misrepresentations.
9. Counter-Defendant is guilty of intentional misrepresentations, fraudulent
inducement and fraud.
10. Alternatively, Counter-Defendant made the aforesaid misrepresentations
negligently.
11. Counter-Defendant also breached the implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose and breached his agreement to sell a vessel that was sea-worthy.
12. Counter-Claimant properly revoked his acceptance of the goods and returned the
boat to Counter-Defendant.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counter-Claimant is not indebted to Counter-Defendant, but instead has suffered damages as a result of the conduct of Counter-Defendant in an amount to be determined by a jury and is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
Respectfully submitted this the _____ day of February, 2005.
MICHAEL NEUGENT
BY: ROBISON & HARBOUR
____________________________________
OF COUNSEL
HRCH Bwanna Sharkey JH
Wouldn't a condo at the beach be nice!!!?
Wouldn't a condo at the beach be nice!!!?
Ok, I read that and kept hearing the Charlie Brown teacher
"WHAAA WHAA WHAAAAAA WHAAA"
"WHAAA WHAA WHAAAAAA WHAAA"
Looking for 2 duck calls from Dominic Serio of Greenwood (ones for Novacaine)
"Most Chesapeakes, unless in agreement that it is his idea, will continually question the validity of what he is being asked to do" - Butch Goodwin
"Most Chesapeakes, unless in agreement that it is his idea, will continually question the validity of what he is being asked to do" - Butch Goodwin
-
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: merigold
SC
dont know if you got what you need or not, must have a bill of sale to register with wldlife fisheries and parks
if you would like a tag for the trailer then you will present the bill of sale to the courthouse pay any applicable sales tax and title the trailer
very few folks i know title the trailer, but hey... to each his own
pretty simple
the doc
dont know if you got what you need or not, must have a bill of sale to register with wldlife fisheries and parks
if you would like a tag for the trailer then you will present the bill of sale to the courthouse pay any applicable sales tax and title the trailer
very few folks i know title the trailer, but hey... to each his own
pretty simple
the doc
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 8 guests