# FILED October 16, 19 97 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESS EE

EAST ERN S ECTI ON

FAI TH BALL ARD, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9705-CH-00189 ) Plaintif f-A ppella nt, ) AN DE RSO N C IRC UIT ) v. ) H ON . JA M ES B. S CO TT , JR ., ) J UDGE JOHN WETZEL, ) ) AF FI RMED AND Defendant-Appell ee. ) REMANDED

CHR ISTOPHE R VA N RIPER , STUAR T & V AN R IPER, Clint on, for Pl ainti ffAp pellan t. BILL W . PETTY, O’CO NNO R , PETTY , CHILD & BOSW ELL, Knoxville, for Defendant-Appell ee.

O P I N I O N Franks, J.

In thi s acti on to recove r a Corvette motor vehi cle, the Tri al Judge, after tri al, ruled t

hat the defendant was entitl ed to posse ssion of t he vehicl e and said: The Court finds
. . . the son . . . was t he person who was respons ible f or the dis appearance of pl ainti ff’s Corvette aut omobile. The vehicle was taken from the garage of t he plai ntiff, aft er being s tored in the garage becaus e the Corvette had been s ubstantiall y damaged due to a previ ous accide nt. Afte r the vehi cle had been removed from the garage, rest orati on began. The defendant desc ribes the vehi cle at the ti me of beginning restor ation as being a mer e hull. Plaintiff cl aimed the vehi cle was wrecked, but was wh ole. Pla intiff cla ims th at she d id no t imm ediate ly report the vehic le stolen, b ecau se he r son a ssured her tha t he w as ha ving the ve hicle restored for h er.2 This Court resolves all f actualissues in favor of t he defendant, Johnny Wetzel. In making this ruli ng, the Court finds that the defendant wa s a “go od f ai th pur cha se r f

orval ue” and th e au to hul l o nce re st or ed b eca me the proper

ty of the defendant

by “ac cessi on”. Any cause the pl ainti ff would have should be a ddressed a gainst her son. This case was t

ried bythe Judge s itting without a jury , and hi s findi ngs are revi ewed de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless t he evidence preponderat es otherwise. T. R.A.P. Rule 13( d). The evi dence does not preponderate against the Trial J udge’s determinations.

The Trial Ju dge c orrectly de termin ed tha t defe ndan t was a goo d faith purchaser for value. A good faith purchaser for value is “one who takes by purchase getti ng suffici ent consi derati on to support a simple c ontract , who is hones t in t he tran sac tion or p urc has e”. 7 7A C.J .S. Sales §233 (1994). T.C.A. §47-1- 201(32) defines “ purchase” a s “taki ng by sa le, discount , negotiati on, mortga ge, pl edge, l ien, issue o r reissue , gift, or an y other vo luntary tran saction creatin g an in terest in property. ” Defendant quali fies as a purchaser because he acqui red the c ar part s by sale and pa id valuable consi derati on.

Defendant als o acted i n good faith. T.C.A. §47- 1-201(19) de fines “go od f aith” as “ hon esty in f act in the c ond uct o r tran sac tion con cern ed.” Th eref ore , a buyer is n ot a go od f aith pu rchas er if he had n otice “ of fa cts that w ould put a reasonabl y prudent pers on on inquiry. ” Liles B ros. & S on v. W right, 638 S.W.2d 383 (Te nn. 1 982 ). In this case, defendant purchased the “hull” from Lam bert Auto Parts, whose regular

business is sel ling par

ts. Also, defendant rece ived a re ceipt from Lambert’s doc umenting the purchase of t he parts from a George Martin. Defendant took add itional steps to ensure the parts were not stolen, by checkin g the V IN nu mbers through t he County Cl erk’s Offi ce. The prior meeting between the parti es is not suffici ent to e stabl ish bad3

faith on the part

of defendant. The defendant went t o plaint iff’s home on one occasion to enquire about Corvette parts for sal e. Both parties agreed that plainti ff told him she h ad no parts f or sale . The defe ndan t’s sales re ceipt f rom Lam bert’s A uto Parts s hows that George Marti n purchased t he parts from Tyrone Ballar d, the plaint iff’s son, and t

here is nothing i n the rec ord to put defendant on notice that plaintiff ’s son did n ot hav e auto parts to sell.

The fact that defendant

did not obt ain a certifi cate of titl e at the time of purchasi ng the part s is not disposi tive. We have held the fact that a sell er pres ents no ind icia o f title i s no t alon e su ffic ient t o de mo nstra te a b uyer’s lack of g ood faith
. Jernigan v. Ham , 691 S.W.2d 553 ( Tenn. App. 1984). In Jernigan , the Court noted that i t was not cus tomaryto ask for title to a used piece of equipment, since i t was
usu ally un ava ilabl e. Id. at 557 . Simila rly, Georg e M artin testif ied tha t he us ually receiv ed a title w hen h e bou ght “w hole” vehic les. A ccord ing to h is testimo ny, Ma rtin purchased onl y a “hul l”. Moreover, T.C.A. §55-3-201 st ates t hat “anyowner dismantl ing . . . anyregis tered ve hicle shallimmediate ly forward to t he divis ion, t

he certifica te of title.” T hus, M artin’s su bseq uent p urch asers h ad no appa rent rea son to belie ve th at a c ertif icate of tit le w oul d be ava ilabl e. A lso, u nde r Te nne ssee law , a certi fica te of title is n ot re qui red to p ass o wn ersh ip o f a m oto r ve hicle
. Sm ith v. Sm ith , 650 S .W.2d 5 4 (Ten n. App . 1983).

Plaintiff rel ies on t

hree case s to support her contention t hat defendant
was n ot a good faith purcha ser for value . These ca ses, how ever, predate T ennessee ’s adop tion of the U niform Co mm ercial C ode a nd th e case s cited d eal w ith titles to slaves or real p rope rty and do not ap ply in this co ntext.

Defendant’s s tatus as a good fai th purchas er for val ue, al one, does not establ ish good titl e to the vehicl e. T.C. A. §47-2-403 st ates t hat “a pur chaser of goods acqu ires all title w hich h is transf eror h ad or had p ow er to tran sfer. . .”. T he statu te4

also pr ovides t

hat “[a] person with voidable title has power t o trans fer a good tile to a good faith purchaser

for value .” Although the Tri al Court c orrectly determi ned that the defendant

was a good faith purchaser for value , the stat

ute requires that the trans feror have at lea st “voi dable” titl e in order to confer

good title. In this c ase, the record show s that T yrone B allard h ad no autho rity to sell plain tiff’s ve hicle. W e hav e held that the selling o f a ve hicle w ithout a utho rity to do s o co nstitu tes th eft. Butler v . Buick Motor Co. , 813 S.W.2d 454 ( Tenn. App. 199 1), cert deni ed, 502 U.S. 911 (1991) . If “goods are st olen or ot herwise obt ained again st the w ill of the o wn er, only vo id title can result, an d the th ief on ly has vo id title to th e go ods .” 77 A C .J.S. Sales §232 (1994). Tyrone Bal lard and t he subsequent purc hase rs had a void , not vo idable , title. Acc ordin gly, defen dant’s goo d faith pur cha se sta tus is not itself suf ficie nt to crea te go od t itle u nde r T.C .A. § 47- 2-4 03. The defendant, however, as t he Court hel d, acqui red good ti tle by accessi on. Our courts ha ve held that ti tle maypass, however, to an innocent purchaser , where the re is a great disparity

in the va lue bet ween the ori ginal arti cle and the n ew pro duc t resu lting fro m th e pu rch ase r’s la bor and /or m ateri als. Eusc o, I nc. V. Huddleston , 835 S .W.2 d 57 6 (Te nn. 19 92); Capital Chevrolet Co. V. Earheart , 627 S.W .2d 3 69 ( Te nn. A pp. 1 981 ).

De fend ant ac quired title by acce ssion b ecau se his la bor sig nifica ntly increa sed the value of the vehi cle. He acquired the hull of a vehicl e for $900.00 and spent appr oximatel y $5, 000.00 res tori ng the vehi cle, and invested approximat ely100 hours of restorati on labor. There is evidence in the record t hat the restorat

ion has a market v alue of $7 ,950.00. Th ere is ample e vidence to support the T rial Court’s finding t hat ti tle pa ssed byaccessi on. Finall y, plaint

iff argue s that

accessi on cannot appl y because ther e is not adequate di spari ty between the value of the vehi cle when owned by her , and the value5

of d efen dant’s restore vehic le. Th e only ev idenc e of th e pre-s ale va lue of the ve hicle
wa s plaintif f’s estim ate of its value . Assu ming for p urpo ses of argu men t that this estim ate w as c orre ct, pla intif f’s a rgu me nt is f oun ded upo n an imp rop er co mp ariso n. In Earheart , the Court did not compare the value of the originalCorvette to the va lue of the re store d Corvette . Rather , the Court compared t he value of t

he hull purchased by Sartin to the val ue Sarti n creat ed. Thus, the Tri al Court made t he proper comparison of va lue in t his cas e. We affirm the jud gmen t of the Trial C ourt and rem and at app ellant’s cost.

__________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J. CONCUR:

___________________________ Houston M . Goddard, P.J.

___________________________ Cha rle s D. Susa

no, Jr., J.