It seems to me that your question is whether the lender had the right to repossess and re-lease your car, which nobody can answer without knowing more information about the circumstances under which the car was repossessed; it has nothing to do with two loans on the car. Your lender, or its assignor (many motor vehicle loans are assigned by the original lenders to other companies) loaned you money, probably to purchase the car, and kept a security interest in the car to secure repayment of the loan. This is very much like a bank lending you money to buy a house, and keeping a security interest in the house (a mortgage) to secure repayment of that debt. The lender claims you didn't pay, and repossessed your car, just as a bank would foreclose on an unpaid mortgage. The lender then leased the car to someone else, just as the repossessed home would be sold to somebody else. So the questions are (a) were you in default on the car lease; (b) if so, did the lender have the right, under your financing agreement and Texas law (unfortunately I can't help you with either of them), to repossess the car; if so, did it have the right, again under your financing agreement and Texas law, to re-lease the car. Assuming the answer to all of the above is yes, it seems to me that there is still one more very important question - does the lender have to apply the money it receives from the second lessee to the balance of your loan, thus reducing or eliminating your debt? Again, you would have to check your financing agreement and Texas law, but the answer may be yes. After all, when a bank forecloses on a mortgage, the money from the foreclosure sale is applied to the mortgage debt (after first deducting fees and expenses of sale). The car was your property, not the lender's. It may well have the right to repossess the car and sell it in order to be repaid, but not, it seems to me, to get paid by both you and the new lessee. Moreover, after the lender is repaid, any additional money its gets for the car should be yours....
Read More