Bad News Georgia HMMWV Owners

[BLK HMMWV]

MaverickH1
Did your truck come from IP. It is interesting that most if not all of the 1123's coming out of Georgia on IP's website say they have a clean SF97. They also don't show the Box OFF-Road Use Only.
But on every HMMWV auction via IP it looks like everyone is required to sign a Hold Harmless Agreement form. Did you have too fill one of those out. Did you fill one out?
Under the Now therefore intending to be legally bound the buyer hereby Acknowledges and Agrees it is for Off Highway Use Only.
That seems pretty straight forward

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

I've read they changed the steering column to a Ford LTD column (I believe) - but have not seen other safety related changes. Yes- I've got 3-point belts at the corners and DOT lighting.

Most things out there refer to the AMG trucks, pre-H2, as the H1. But whatever. You cleary win the Internet tough guy award today.

I have owned a Hummer H1 since 2000, a98 to be exact, I have worked on in my shop every year mfg'd.
The 92 and 93 are closest to a hmmwv in almost every respect. Safety items are tail lights are reflective, Hmmwv's are not, nothing different on side impact that I have ever seen, in fact, they removed the C-beam behind the driver and passenger for more room, steering column is from a ford escort, the dash is padded, but barley. 99 was the first year of ABS, AKA..TT4...and garbage at that, batteries moved to engine area...there may be a few things I can't remember, but IIRC, The hummer was a truck, not a passger car, at that time it did not need to meet stringent passenger car crash testing, that is why they discontinued them after 2006,they would have needed airbags and a host of other crap AMG didn't want to bother with along with crash testing at 150k a pop.

 

[Ddk2001]

I have owned a Hummer H1 since 2000, a98 to be exact, I have worked on in my shop every year mfg'd.
The 92 and 93 are closest to a hmmwv in almost every respect. Safety items are tail lights are reflective, Hmmwv's are not, nothing different on side impact that I have ever seen, in fact, they removed the C-beam behind the driver and passenger for more room, steering column is from a ford escort, the dash is padded, but barley. 99 was the first year of ABS, AKA..TT4...and garbage at that, batteries moved to engine area...there may be a few things I can't remember, but IIRC, The hummer was a truck, not a passger car, at that time it did not need to meet stringent passenger car crash testing, that is why they discontinued them after 2006,they would have needed airbags and a host of other crap AMG didn't want to bother with along with crash testing at 150k a pop.

I've seen AMG's petition to NHTSA to waive the ABS mandate for 4WD vehicles. They complained they were having a hard time finding someone to design an ABS system for their full-time 4WD torque-biasing differentials - that they weren't selling enough units to justify development costs. In 1996 NHTSA said too bad. That's here - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-13/html/95-30375.htm

As for the reinforcement beam at the b-pillar - I saw a PDF of AMG's option to modify it to allow additional reclining of the front seats - but nothing to indicate additional side-impact crash reinforcement.

They solved the reflective tail light issues by just adding reflectors to the rear and sides of the truck. I've got marker lights and reflectors rear and sides.

Interesting exercise nonetheless. I agree with just needing recognition of the historical value of these - and would be fine with some reasonable requirement they stay true to their military heritage so I could occasionally take it out for a ride.

 

[Ddk2001]

Here's the modification of the reinforcement beam.

 

[RDUKW]

I have owned a Hummer H1 since 2000, a98 to be exact, I have worked on in my shop every year mfg'd.
The 92 and 93 are closest to a hmmwv in almost every respect. Safety items are tail lights are reflective, Hmmwv's are not, nothing different on side impact that I have ever seen, in fact, they removed the C-beam behind the driver and passenger for more room, steering column is from a ford escort, the dash is padded, but barley. 99 was the first year of ABS, AKA..TT4...and garbage at that, batteries moved to engine area...there may be a few things I can't remember, but IIRC, The hummer was a truck, not a passger car, at that time it did not need to meet stringent passenger car crash testing, that is why they discontinued them after 2006,they would have needed airbags and a host of other crap AMG didn't want to bother with along with crash testing at 150k a pop.

the civilian Hummers had bracing inside of there steel doors. The 92/93 Hummers also still had the c pillar behind the front seats, that got removed in 94, along with moving the batteries to the engine compartment. I had a 93 (same as 92 other then 92 was purchased direct from Am General) when they where new. There was numerous items changed for civilian use, not just tail lights. I'm in no way saying you can not bring a HMMWV to a hummer level as far as safety items go. The issue is the title got pulled because of the "offroad " stamp from how I read the letter. Going off on tangents comparing your HMMWV to another vehicle will get you no where. The problem is how to get the beurocrats to redefine the offroad only stamp

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

Here's the modification of the reinforcement beam.

View attachment 668677

that bracing is gone on 94 on up model year Hummer's....allowed for more leg room.
It's very well in the 92-93 that still had the B-beam.

 

[Robo McDuff]

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.

 

[springbok]

One question that I have is what role with GP play and how will it play out over some of the HUMVEEs that that we clearly know were bought there as "Off Road Only" and someone cleaned it up, painted it and then resold it THROUGH GP with a valid (ISH) Title.
Who will be responsible when the original buy gets the same letter and has to go to GP who then has to go to the final buyer and say "Opps, Sorry"

 

[jeffy777]

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?

Your argument is a good argument. But as you say you are not a lawyer. There is a couple of points you are missing. The document we signed does not say Off-road only and we cannot attempt or make it a normal road use vehicle. The document we signed is a hold harmless agreement to GP and a re-sales agreement so as to not sell to foreign entities and the such. The SF97 had off-road use only on it(No one signs that as condition of how you own your vehicle but that you own the vehicle). So where are we legally. The state of the vehicle is off-road use until and if a state agency decide to allows it on the road.

Simply put the Off-Road Use Only was not a demand of future use, if it was it would have been legally contracted as such, it is simply the state of the vehicle. You nor I have any legal problems requesting a vehicle that is deemed off-road to be made normal use. We just can be turned down, legally by a state. Furthermore any vehicle can be turned down in any state for any reason even though it was considered road worthy a month ago. The states' DMVs have some broad powers, but the are not that mean. Just come back to them an hour later and if it is reasonable they will give you tags and title.

My legal understanding from my lawyers: Dewy, Cheatum and Howe.

 

[MaverickH1]

MaverickH1
Did your truck come from IP. It is interesting that most if not all of the 1123's coming out of Georgia on IP's website say they have a clean SF97. They also don't show the Box OFF-Road Use Only.
But on every HMMWV auction via IP it looks like everyone is required to sign a Hold Harmless Agreement form. Did you have too fill one of those out. Did you fill one out?
Under the Now therefore intending to be legally bound the buyer hereby Acknowledges and Agrees it is for Off Highway Use Only.
That seems pretty straight forward

Yes, my truck was purchased directly from GovPlanet. No Hold Harmless Agreement was ever signed at all, and if they had tried to get me to sign one that said off road use only I would have scratched that part out and signed it. If that was not allowed, I would have not taken the truck. Every single document was combed to make sure nothing said "Off Road Use Only" before bidding, after bidding, and ever since.

It all started with "Clean SF97" as you stated. I called them and asked what that meant. They explained it would not say "Off Road Use Only". It did not have any Notices and Restrictions. Everything was good to go, supposedly.

Is it possible I DID sign it and missed it? I doubt it. There's not a lot of paperwork on these vehicles, and I combed everything. In fact, I remember reading Michigan's notice or something that showed the Hold Harmless Agreement letter while I was still waiting for my EUC to clear, and I remember writing up an e-mail to GovPlanet asking them if I would get a different letter for my M1123, but decided not to because I felt like I was annoying GovPlanet enough already. So I was aware of the wording and would have been ready to look for it if I was given anything to sign.

 

[Sintorion]

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.

Can you please explain what the person selling the vehicle has to do with registering it? Are you saying that they are experts? Does DLA or GP have anything at all to do with a state DMV? Using your flawed logic I could write "off road use" on a Honda civic and therefore no one would ever be able to register it. How about conversely, I go buy an excavator then write on the title "highway use only". Would that mean that I can get a tag for it because I wrote that on the title?

You clearly do not understand that the state laws have absolutely nothing to do with the acquisition transaction.

 

[MaverickH1]

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? No. In fact the opposite, it was stated clearly it was not restricted to 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"? I knew it would not say those things, and I knew the VA DMV required that when talking to them before the purchase/bid.

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"? Yes, I told them that many are being sold as "Off Road Use Only" and I was completely unsure why since the vehicle is clearly made for road use.

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. The only party that gave me false information is my DMV. Everything was done according to the DMV's instructions. I have no doubt a court would rule I went well beyond a reasonable effort to make sure I was good, here. They told me I had to have a clear title, which meant either an M1123 directly from GovPlanet or an Off Road Use Only (ORUO) truck that was successfully titled in another state. I went above and beyond and avoided the ORUO trucks. When I was looking at them on eBay, I actually went through GP's SOLD section and found the truck I was looking at. If it was sold as ORUO, I avoided it. It looked like I was never going to find anything, and then along came the stripped M1123s and it looked like the stars aligned.

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. It is relevant if the DMV is reaching for straws making up excuse after excuse why it's not road worthy instead of citing the VA Code for why. I'll leave it at that for now.

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.

Responses in green above. I'm not sure if you WERE directing it at me... but it seemed like you were.

 

[MaverickH1]

Can you please explain what the person selling the vehicle has to do with registering it? Are you saying that they are experts? Does DLA or GP have anything at all to do with a state DMV? Using your flawed logic I could write "off road use" on a Honda civic and therefore no one would ever be able to register it. How about conversely, I go buy an excavator then write on the title "highway use only". Would that mean that I can get a tag for it because I wrote that on the title?

You clearly do not understand that the state laws have absolutely nothing to do with the acquisition transaction.

The DMV would argue that the Federal Government said it was not worthy for road use, and they are the authority. If you have any questions, contact the NHTSA. <-- that's essentially what the letter I was forwarded says.

It's not just little Timmy with a Honda Civic saying so.

 

[BLK HMMWV]

Maverick
It is odd that 1123's coming from Georgia are the only HMMWV's with so called clean SF97's listed right on their site.
Why that is when all the others from other locations across the U.S. say different is interesting.
It's this form that I'm referring to .
http://www.govplanet.com/help/HMMWV_Hold_Harmless.pdf
It looks like no matter where you buy a HMMWV or what the SF97 says this is the form everyone has to fill out.
and if you did fill it out it looks pretty obvious to me you bought it as an off road only vehicle.

If you didn't sign it and your SF97 was a clean title then I don't know why they are giving you a hard time.

 

[jeffy777]

The DMV would argue that the Federal Government said it was not worthy for road use, and they are the authority. If you have any questions, contact the NHTSA. <-- that's essentially what the letter I was forwarded says.
It's not just little Timmy with a Honda Civic saying so.

You make a good argument for the DMV. And a counter to that would be my gosh and they let our troops ride in those vehicles, on these very same roads, how was that?

Both arguments use some reasoning. But if and until there are laws stating why and how a vehicle is roadworthy in a state the response is somewhat haphazard and causes this kind of discourse by people who have no power but to accept the view of the DMV.

 

[MaverickH1]

You make a good argument for the DMV. And a counter to that would be my gosh and they let our troops ride in those vehicles, on these very same roads, how was that?
Both arguments use some reasoning. But if and until there are laws stating why and how a vehicle is roadworthy in a state the response is somewhat haphazard and causes this kind of discourse by people who have no power but to accept the view of the DMV.

And they have already tried that by saying that Humvees are used by the military on the roads of VA, but only in a limited capacity so it's not a big deal. And then they said it was clearly designed as an off road vehicle.

To which I called BS, and supplied the letters from NHTSA to AM General in 1987 and 1988 where the NHTSA clearly states the HMMWV is designed for 60% road use. That is the last thing I sent to the DMV.

 

[MaverickH1]

Maverick
It is odd that 1123's coming from Georgia are the only HMMWV's with so called clean SF97's listed right on their site.
Why that is when all the others from other locations across the U.S. say different is interesting.
It's this form that I'm referring to .
http://www.govplanet.com/help/HMMWV_Hold_Harmless.pdf
It looks like no matter where you buy a HMMWV or what the SF97 says this is the form everyone has to fill out.
and if you did fill it out it looks pretty obvious to me you bought it as an off road only vehicle.
If you didn't sign it and your SF97 was a clean title then I don't know why they are giving you a hard time.

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.

 

[DanM7890]

This thread is going to keep going round and round. I don't have any value to add but interested how many people received this letter or if it's just one person. Also, in the state of GA you can get the instant title, is that what the OP did and therefore shouldn't have, when the corporate DMV should have had time to review the paperwork first before issuing the title.

 

[Robo McDuff]

Responses in green above. I'm not sure if you WERE directing it at me... but it seemed like you were.

Oh man, me and my big mouth, I had to open it again .

No, I was not attacking you or anybody; I was trying to help get things clear, which I think it did. It mentioned:if you have a YES on two or three of the questions, then ....

You made very clear that, in contrary, you have three documented NO answers. That changes or could change everything.

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.

MaverickH1 has a strong point because he obtained and signed all the papers WITHOUT the restriction. So either GL was wrong for this specific vehicle or the contract stands in which case a state normally should accept that. However, here comes the "rule" that states sometimes do what they want unless challenged.

 

[Lionel]

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.