Thanks very much for the answer. I assumed that it would have to go through the judiciary, but I am surprised to see it's not the case.
It does make sense, especially if it's not abusive (e.g. one month behind equals reposession)
It does make sense, especially if it's not abusive (e.g. one month behind equals reposession)
Repossession of any kind (car, house, etc...) is typically an option of last resort for the bank after the debtor refuses to work with them or enter into other agreements that could help. They really just want to keep collecting payments from you.
The court typically only gets involved if the lender has reason to believe you might do something malicious and can convince the court to execute an immediate right to seize the vehicle (quickly after default). A court can also order a person to return the vehicle, if they've managed to successfully evade the repossession action by hiding it. This is a good thing so long as it's reasonably balance (ie the consumer doesn't get their vehicle repo'd on day one of being late), so our court system isn't filled up with car loans.