Can You Register A Already Built Tri Sold As Parts

[Earl Edmonds]

I need some help before I get over my head. I have struck an agreement to purchase a Tri-Q but the current owner will not transfer N or any other part of the build process (HES WORRIED ABOUT LIABILITY). He wants it to go as parts even though it is a fully functional in the air Tri-q. What am I getting myself into?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

Earl Edmonds

[Waiter]

I've got horrible news for him, he will always be responsible, and after he dies, his estate will be responsible. Even the parts he sells you. If he has deep pockets, he will be named in any lawsuit that involves this aircraft.

 

(Keep this in mind when it comes time to sell. 1) Destroy the aircraft, with prominant witnesses, or 2) take your chances and donate it to a museum on condition it never flys)

 

If he wants to sell you parts, It seem that parts are a lot less expensive than a flying airplane.

 

If you do not qualify for the 51% rule, Its still Experimental, but falls under Restricted or Exhibition class.

 

Make a call to your local FSDO and see how they can handle it.

 

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/

 

Remember, They're from the Government, and their here to help us.

 

Waiter

[Marc Zeitlin]

I've got horrible news for him, he will always be responsible, and after he dies, his estate will be responsible. Even the parts he sells you. If he has deep pockets, he will be named in any lawsuit that involves this aircraft.

While possibly theoretically true, no homebuilder has ever lost a lawsuit because of a homebuilt aircraft they have sold, to my knowledge. This is a minuscule risk.

 

(Keep this in mind when it comes time to sell. 1) Destroy the aircraft, with prominant witnesses, or 2) take your chances and donate it to a museum on condition it never flys)

That's just silly. Look at all the homebuilts that are sold left and right on a regular basis, and then reread my above statement.

 

If he wants to sell you parts, It seem that parts are a lot less expensive than a flying airplane.

I'll agree with that - you should get a sizable discount.

 

If you do not qualify for the 51% rule, Its still Experimental, but falls under Restricted or Exhibition class.

Huh? The plane is built, and already was certificated in the Experimental, Amateur Built category. All you need to show for re-registration is that it was built under the Experimental, Amateur Built rules (which it was, and which the FAA agreed to once, since it was already registered once). You can do this by showing the inspector the original builder's log and documents, just as was done before. YOU won't get the repairman's certificate, since you didn't build it, but that's hardly a big deal.

[Waiter]

Mark might be right about the risk of lawsuit (Maybe). But, as I'll point out again, this depends on how deep the manufactures pockets are. Mark and I probably wouldn't have to worry about it. I don't think you could get a Lawyer on retainer if he knew the only thing he was going to get out of me was 33% of a rusted out 1987 Chevy with 250,000 miles on it. However, Bill Gates!!!

 

Mark, I think the seller wanted to withhold all the certification paperwork, so this wouldn't be available. I guess I misinterpreted his question!

 

Waiter

[Wayne Hicks]

There are hold harmless agreements for the sale of items such as homebuilt aircraft. I ?think? the EAA website has a link somewhere to a suggested resale agreement. A quick review of the agreement by a lawyer should lessen the seller's fears of liability repercussions.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Mark, I think the seller wanted to withhold all the certification paperwork, so this wouldn't be available. I guess I misinterpreted his question!

I think as long as the buyer had the builder's log, so that he could prove that the aircraft was built for as Ex. Am-Built, then he'd be set to get it re-registered. He wouldn't need the original certification, as long as the aircraft has been DE-registered. It would be just like a brand new inspection - all you'd have to do is tell the inspector that someone else built the plane, and you aren't going to bother applying for the Repairman's certificate. It's the plane that gets the airworthiness certificate - not the builder. Waiter - YOU know that! :-).

 

As you said, it can't hurt to talk to the FSDO (as long as you don't give your name until they tell you what you want to hear :-) ).

 

As far as the hold-harmless agreements go, they do help, but they're not panacea's. You cannot sign away someone ELSE's right to sue (like your bereaved significant other :-) ).

[Waiter]

Yah, I was kind of thinking, if he showed up at the FAAs doorstep with nothing but a plane, no docs or anything, how could he get it licensed?

 

I've done ex military jets like this, and they usually wind up in either the exhibition or the restricted classes. Not a big deal, you present them with your maintenance plane, You negotiate Operating Limitations, then your good to go. I think you could certify a barn door in this catagory, if you can convince the FSDO it can become airborne.

 

The FSDO folks are normally good to work with, I always try and get them a ride in the planes, and stay on their good side.

 

Waiter

[CBarber]

Ok, I do not wish to get into a long discussion on asset protection, but it is an area I know more than a bit about (yeah, I really am a lawyer and this is one of my areas). Waiter, I could sue you right now because I didn't like your post.....don't worry, I won't AND I hope I would lose (if for no other reason than it being a chickensh*t lawsuite) If the liabilty is there, it is there. Do some adult planning and minimize the impact on you. You are correct, deep pockets are at risk, however, deep pockets also don't focus on the false economy of not planning to protect themselves.

 

As to hold harmless agreements.....they MAY be evidence that you knew what you were doing and you assumed the risk, however, you never know what a jury will do when they are looking at a poor widow who just lost her spouse and you look like a cavilier pilot/builder who built a "death trap. I do thinik the agreements are a good idea to show everybody was informed and still wanted to go on with the transaction. But they may are may not be valuble in court....they are evidence of..., not proof.

 

You are also correct that if all you have is a rusty ol' car, you are not an attractive target (so to speak). Also, many things may be excempt from a judgemnet. For example, in Texas, if the ol' car (or any car) was your only car.....you get to keep it. Also, in Texas, they CANNOT take you house (only the government or the mortage company(purchase money lender) can do that.....not a judgment creditor.

 

Look into some asset protection.....insureance is only a starting point. OWN NOTHING, CONTROL EVERYTHING. It is LEGAL, tested and used often by many, but many would rather bury their head and gripe about liabilty than find out the facts. NO, it is not all easy or nessesarily cheap, neither is building/flying a plane. Don't step over a dollar to pick up a dime. Find out what may be right for you.

 

But, more than anything, balance the risk....yeah, it could happen, but it PROBABLY will not. Don't stop kissing girls because one may have bad breath.....even really bad breath. As was stated, I do not think any home builder has ever been successfully sued (or even filed on????) but the topic sure seems to get a lot of attention (undue attention, IMHO). You don't even have to be liable to be held liable.....read the case about the instrument company who was able to prove their instruments did not fail, but were still held liable. (don't recall the details, sorry). So worry about how good the plane will fly, not about being sued. BTW, this is important, any planning you do must be done BEFORE you know of a problem...so procrastinate later. (if the Doctor already dropped the baby, even if you don't know of any injury, it is too late to plan for that incident)

 

So, as are many things in life, dont' MAJOR in minor things.

 

Yeah, I know, it is the guy you are buying from, and it could be a problem, but in my personal opinion, this issue is given WAAAAAAAY to much weight.....cutting up and destoying an airplane.......

 

Oh, Disclaimer time:not legal advice, consult your own asset protection/estate planning attorny in your state for your personal needs, no attorney/client relationship has been developed (talking at a cocktail party actually had a lawyer held responsible for a case.....I am not being responsible for any of y'alls legal issues I know, you didn't ask me to <g>), yadda yadda yadda. legalese, blah blah blah etc, etc.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

[Waiter]

Cris, I was just kidding about the Chevy, Its really in my daughters name

 

Really, It is about Asset protection. I went thru this a couple years ago, I own absolutely nothing. (I don't even own the airplane I 'm fixing), The biggest factor in proceeding with the asset protection planning was the liability I incure when I fly, especially when I have Passangers.

 

Maybe not necessary for everyone, but certianly worth looking into. Thanks

 

My attorney indicated that would be the number one option, destroy the plane, if it doesn't exist, there is no liability. That right there should tell you all about attorneys (Present company excepted, of course)

 

NO WAY, They are going to bury me in that thing.

 

SO, Where we at trying to get an airworthiness certificate with no paperwork????

 

Waiter

[Nathan Gifford]

You may want to video tape the transaction too. You can then demonstrate, along with the documents, that you did not misrepresent the transaction and that buyer knew full well what s/he was getting into.

[CBarber]

Not a bad idea, but be careful that you don't mess it up (no accusation on y'all). I only state this because video can show what you don't want shown. People think doing a video Will (as in Last Will and Testiment) is a great idea....however, it is now often avoided because of the real possiblity a jury may not agree that mom really was compitent when she signed.

 

Sorry, even though I am also working as a cop, I am still a pracitcing attorney and it is difficult to overcome the compulsion to mention stuff like this.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

[Nathan Gifford]

Good points Chris. Its real important not to give you adversary anything to run with. One take, no edits, keep it short and to the point.