§ 100. Construction and operation—As evidence of..., 60 C.J.S. Motor...

60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 100

Corpus Juris Secundum | November 2022 Update

Motor Vehicles
Joseph Bassano, J.D., John Bourdeau, J.D., James Buchwalter, J.D., Paul M. Coltoff, J.D., John J. Dvorske, J.D., Edward K. Esping, J.D.,
Michael N. Giuliano, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Amy G. Gore, J.D., Jill Gustafson, J.D., Glenda K. Harnad, J.D., Janice Holben, J.D., John
Kimpflen, J.D., Stephen Lease, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Anne E. Melley, J.D., Mary Babb Morris, J.D., Tom Muskus, J.D., Jeanne M.
Naffky, J.D., Karl Oakes, J.D., Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Susan L. Thomas, J.D., Timothy E. Travers J.D.

III. Control and Regulation; Contracts

B. Particular Regulations

3. Transfer and Sale

b. Construction, Operation, and Effect

(4) Certificate of Title

(a) In General

§ 100. Construction and operation—As evidence of

ownership or title
Topic Summary | References | Correlation Table

West's Key Number Digest

• West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 20

Although under some statutes a certificate of title determines ownership of a motor vehicle and is the sole or exclusive
evidence of title, ordinarily, a certificate of title is not a warrant of ownership, and does not convey title or determine or
affect ownership, but is merely evidence in establishing title, which may be rebutted by other evidence.

A certificate of title to a motor vehicle is not title itself 1 although, under some statutes, it is a necessary incident to the ownership
of a used motor vehicle. 2 Except as provided otherwise by statute, a certificate of title is not a warrant of ownership or muniment
of title 3 and does not convey title, 4 or determine absolute ownership, 5 or alter or affect actual ownership. 6 In the absence
of a statute providing otherwise, while a certificate of title is not in itself conclusive proof of title in him or her who is therein
designated as owner, 7 or exclusive proof of ownership, 8 it may be a sign of ownership 9 or relevant evidence in establishing
such title. 10

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

§ 100. Construction and operation—As evidence of..., 60 C.J.S. Motor...

Thus, an initial presumption of ownership arises from a certificate of title, 11 but such presumption may be rebutted by other
competent evidence, 12 such as by evidence of actual ownership 13 or that another is the true owner of the vehicle. 14

The court may recognize an out-of-state certificate of title and attach evidentiary value thereto. 15 Where a statute is intended
to provide a method whereby notice of a lien may be given but is not intended to provide that the certificate will determine
the absolute ownership of the vehicle, the validity of the rights of all persons claiming ownership, as distinguished from those
who claim a lien, must depend on their compliance with the requirements of the general law on the subject of the ownership
of chattels. 16

Under some statutes, a certificate of title determines ownership of a motor vehicle. 17 Thus, under some statutes, the certificate
is the sole or exclusive evidence of title or ownership, 18 or constitutes the primary and controlling evidence of title after an
automobile has been sold for the first time, 19 and an individual holding a proper certificate of title is conclusively presumed
to be the owner of the vehicle described therein. 20 Where there are two claimants to a motor vehicle, the one who has a duly
issued certificate of title will be protected against the rival claimant. 21

Where a statute so provides, no court will recognize the right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any motor vehicle
unless evidenced by a certificate of title or manufacturer's or importer's certificate, 22 and ownership of a motor vehicle is proved
only by producing a certificate of title. 23 Under such statute, except where ownership is admitted, 24 any other evidence of
ownership is insufficient to sustain a verdict or judgment where title must be proved as a condition precedent for the validity
of the verdict or judgment. 25 Under such statute, evidence is inadmissible to dispute the title of one to whom a certificate of
title is issued unless the evidence establishes fraud making the certificate voidable. 26 A certificate in the hands of a person
fraudulently acquiring it may be ignored when it was not the intention of the owner to have a certificate delivered to take effect
as a transfer of title, but where the owner intended to convey title, the holder of the certificate must be considered as the owner
of the vehicle even though the holder had agreed to reconvey. 27 One who takes a seller's title during pendency of litigation to
determine the seller's right to possession and title of the vehicle is bound by a determination that the seller did not have title. 28

Possession of motor vehicle or mobile home.

Mere possession of a motor vehicle is only facial evidence of title 29 and presumptive proof that the possession is rightful, 30
and the doctrine of "buyer beware" prevails notwithstanding possession. 31 Even where a statute generally prohibits a court
from recognizing any right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any mobile home unless evidenced by a certificate of
title, there may be an exception in the narrow category of cases when third parties have relied upon the apparent authority of
someone in possession of the mobile home to deliver good title; in cases of this sort, such as entrustment cases, the titleholder,
typically the finance company that facilitated and benefited from its relationship with the mobile home dealer, cannot later take
advantage of purchasers that did not obtain the title certificate. 32

Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Footnotes

1 Ark.—Masterson v. Tomlinson, 244 Ark. 208, 424 S.W.2d 380 (1968).

2 Ariz.—General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 95 Ariz. 347, 390 P.2d 843 (1964) stating Pennsylvania
law.

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

§ 100. Construction and operation—As evidence of..., 60 C.J.S. Motor...

3 Ky.—McKenzie v. Oliver, 571 S.W.2d 102, 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).

4 Ind.—Champa v. Consolidated Finance Corp., 231 Ind. 580, 110 N.E.2d 289, 36 A.L.R.2d 185 (1953).

5 Ala.—Congress Finance Corp. v. Funderburk, 416 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

6 Colo.—Colorado Auto & Truck Wreckers Ass'n v. Department of Revenue, 618 P.2d 646 (Colo. 1980).

7 W. Va.—State ex rel. Castle v. Perry, 201 W. Va. 90, 491 S.E.2d 760 (1997).

8 Ohio—Joiner v. Illuminating Co., 55 Ohio App. 2d 187, 9 Ohio Op. 3d 340, 380 N.E.2d 361 (8th Dist.
Cuyahoga County 1978).

9 Mich.—Larson v. Van Horn, 110 Mich. App. 369, 313 N.W.2d 288, 32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1646 (1981).

10 W. Va.—State ex rel. Castle v. Perry, 201 W. Va. 90, 491 S.E.2d 760 (1997).

11 Iowa—Schultz v. Security Nat. Bank, 583 N.W.2d 886, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 586 (Iowa 1998).

Certificate of registration as evidence of title, generally, see § 294.

12 Ala.—Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 668 So. 2d 539 (Ala. 1995).

13 W. Va.—Johnson v. Continental Cas. Co., 157 W. Va. 572, 201 S.E.2d 292 (1973).

14 Ariz.—Wallace Imports, Inc. v. Howe, 138 Ariz. 217, 673 P.2d 961 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1983).

15 Ohio—Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gall, 15 Ohio St. 2d 261, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 448, 240 N.E.2d 502 (1968).

16 Fla.—Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Austin, 298 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1974).

17 Mont.—Kovacich v. Norgaard, 221 Mont. 26, 716 P.2d 633 (1986).

18 Ohio—State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Valentine, 29 Ohio App. 2d 174, 58 Ohio Op. 2d 238, 279
N.E.2d 630 (10th Dist. Franklin County 1971).

19 Okla.—Bob Harper Finance Co. v. Goodall, 1953 OK 334, 266 P.2d 627 (Okla. 1953), discussing Texas
law.

20 Cal.—Ferraro v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 8 Cal. App. 3d 339, 87 Cal. Rptr. 226 (1st Dist. 1970).

21 Tex.—Drake Ins. Co. v. King, 606 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1980).

Tort law and liability insurance coverage

For purposes of tort law and liability insurance coverage, no ownership passes to the purchaser of a motor
vehicle which requires registration until the duly assigned certificate of title is delivered to the transferee.

N.C.—Singletary, III v. P & A Investments, Inc., 712 S.E.2d 681, 74 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 830 (N.C.
Ct. App. 2011).

22 U.S.— In re Caddarette, 362 B.R. 829 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006).

Mobile homes
U.S.—In re Orange Rose, LLC, 446 B.R. 543 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011).

23 Tex.—Drake Ins. Co. v. King, 606 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1980).

24 Ohio—Moore v. Workman, 28 Ohio App. 2d 303, 57 Ohio Op. 2d 474, 277 N.E.2d 445 (10th Dist.
Franklin County 1971).

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

§ 100. Construction and operation—As evidence of..., 60 C.J.S. Motor...

25 Ohio—Levin v. Nielsen, 37 Ohio App. 2d 29, 66 Ohio Op. 2d 52, 306 N.E.2d 173 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga
County 1973).

26 Ohio—In re Case's Estate, 161 Ohio St. 288, 53 Ohio Op. 172, 118 N.E.2d 836 (1954).

27 Ohio—Kattwinkel v. Kattwinkel, 80 Ohio App. 397, 36 Ohio Op. 94, 48 Ohio L. Abs. 169, 74 N.E.2d
418 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1947).

28 Purchaser's title no better than seller's

Ga.—Blakely & Son, Ltd. v. Humphreys, 148 Ga. App. 281, 250 S.E.2d 826 (1978).

29 Ohio—Zoloto v. Scott, 111 Ohio App. 372, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 402, 160 N.E.2d 318 (1st Dist. Butler County
1959).

Presumption of title based on possession, generally, see C.J.S., Property § 70.

30 Ohio—Zoloto v. Scott, 111 Ohio App. 372, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 402, 160 N.E.2d 318 (1st Dist. Butler County
1959).

31 Nev.—Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 76 Nev. 345, 353 P.2d 905 (1960).

32 U.S.—In re Orange Rose, LLC, 446 B.R. 543 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011) (applying Fla. law).

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government

Works.

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4