> This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. I anticipated this response, but apparently I didn't make it clear

> This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. I anticipated this response, but apparently I didn't make it clear enough: The husband forfeited a certain amount of freedom of action through the behavior that earned him the restraining order. At this point in the divorce proceedings, where continued use of the car has been granted to one of the spouses pending a final resolution, and there is also a restraining order in effect on the other, there is no justification for the other spouse having a right to track the vehicle. If it had been stolen (which is not the case) and he was unable to track it himself, that would just be a consequence hehad brought on himself through his bad behavior. If Mercedes did not have any interest in tracking the car, then that just removes one possible justification for its inaction. > A restraining order says nothing about transferring the car title. And this issue is nothing to do with transferring the car title.