2021 IL App (1st) 201140 

SIXTH DIVISION

December 3, 2021 

No. 1-20-1140 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

JOSEPH IMPROTA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JESSE WHITE, as Secretary of State, State of Illinois, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

 Appeal from the 

 Circuit Court of 

 Cook County 

Nos. 18 CH 10396 & 

 20 CH 587 

 The Honorable 

 David B. Atkins, 

 Judge, presiding. 

PRESIDING JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices Harris and Mikva concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Joseph Improta, purchased a 2017 Subaru WRX from an Illinois used car dealer 

on January 8, 2018. Plaintiff applied for a vehicle title in Illinois. Defendant, Jesse White, in his 

capacity as the Secretary of State, denied the application because a required statutory database 

search showed the State of Texas branded the car “junk” in October 2017 due to flood damage.

1

1

The record before us is silent as to the cause of the flood damage. We note, however, that in August 

2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the southeast coast of Texas, resulting in major flooding in 

Houston, where the vehicle was repeatedly serviced prior to being declared a total loss on August 27, 2017.

Reports estimated that as many a 1 million vehicles were destroyed by Hurricane Harvey. See https://

www.caranddriver.com/features/a18370403/hurricane-harvey-destroyed-more-vehicles-than-any-singleevent-in-america-this-is-the-aftermath-feature/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2021). Our legislature amended the 

definition of “junk vehicle” on August 25, 2017. See Pub. Act. 100-450 (amending 625 ILCS 5/1-134.1 

(eff. Jan. 1, 2018)). 
No. 1-20-1140 

2 

Plaintiff requested a hearing on his title rejection. Evidence at the hearing showed the car was sold 

at an auction in Houston, Texas in November 2017. In December 2017, the State of New 

Hampshire issued the vehicle a rebuilt title after it passed various inspections required by New 

Hampshire. The hearing officer recommended upholding the denial. The Secretary agreed and 

issued a junk title. On administrative review, the circuit court of Cook County reversed and 

remanded. On remand, the Secretary again affirmed the denial based on the earlier Texas 

determination of junk vehicle status and the mandatory language contained in section 3-104.5(c) 

of the Illinois Vehicle Code (65 ILCS 5/3-104(c) (West 2018)), and further found that plaintiff’s 

application for a rebuilt title in Illinois was insufficient. Plaintiff again sought administrative 

review. The circuit court reversed and directed the Secretary to issue plaintiff a vehicle title. The 

Secretary appeals. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment and affirm the Secretary’s final order. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On January 8, 2018, plaintiff purchased a 2017 Subaru WRX from Island City Auto 

Broker’s, Inc., an Illinois used car dealer, for $14,000, plus $980 in sales tax, and $196 in title and 

plate fees. Island City disclosed to plaintiff, in writing, that the vehicle had a December 2017 

certificate of title from New Hampshire showing the vehicle had been rebuilt, and plaintiff signed 

the disclosure form. The New Hampshire title reflected the vehicle had previously been titled in 

Texas as “water/flood damaged.” Island City applied for an Illinois rebuilt title on plaintiff’s behalf 

and disclosed the car’s rebuilt status. Pursuant to section 3-104(o) of the Vehicle Code (65 ILCS 

5/3-104(o) (West 2018)), the Secretary verified the car’s history through the National Motor 

Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS). The NMVTIS report showed Texas had branded 

the car as “junk” on October 11, 2017. Specifically, the report stated: 
No. 1-20-1140 

3 

“The vehicle is incapable of safe operation on the roads or highways and 

has no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap, or the vehicles [sic] owner 

has irreversibly designated the vehicle as a source of parts or scrap. This vehicle 

shall never be titled or registered. Also known as a non-repairable, scrapped, or 

destroyed.” 

The report also showed that on December 20, 2017, the car was branded “rebuilt” by New 

Hampshire. Specifically, the report stated “The vehicle, previously branded ‘salvage[,’] has passed 

anti-theft and safety inspections, or other jurisdiction procedures, to ensure the vehicle was rebuilt 

to required standards. Also known as prior salvage (salvaged).” 

¶ 4 The Secretary’s investigation included a Carfax report indicating an insurance company in 

August 2017 declared the car a total loss by reported flood damage . The Carfax report showed the 

car was sold at a salvage auction, and a new owner was reported in New Hampshire, where a flood 

damage title and rebuilt title were issued. 

¶ 5 The Secretary denied plaintiff’s vehicle title application. In a March 13, 2018, denial letter, 

the Secretary explained that the NMVTIS verification showed the vehicle had previously been 

designated as junk and the junk designation was valid. Plaintiff requested an administrative 

hearing. The Secretary sent a notice setting the matter for a hearing on April 10, 2018, before a 

hearing officer, Timothy A. Armstrong. The notice of hearing also indicated that the Secretary 

denied plaintiff’s application for a title based on sections 3-104.5 and 3-118.1 of the Vehicle Code 

(625 ILCS 5/3-104.5, 118.1 (West 2018)). 

¶ 6 Plaintiff gave the following testimony. He owned and operated an auto parts store in Illinois 

for more than 30 years, and had owned over 100 vehicles, including vehicles with rebuilt titles. He 

did not investigate the vehicle’s history before purchasing it. Island City provided him with the 
No. 1-20-1140 

4 

New Hampshire title disclosing the car was rebuilt. The New Hampshire title did not disclose the 

car had been branded junk by Texas. He knew the car incurred flood damage. He did not think the 

New Hampshire rebuilt title would affect his ability to title the car in Illinois because he had 

purchased and titled rebuilt vehicles before and received Illinois titles. After receiving the 

Secretary’s March 13, 2018, denial, the vehicle passed an Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IDOT) safety inspection. If he did not receive a title for the car, it would have no value to him 

other than for parts and scrap. 

¶ 7 Plaintiff’s counsel argued the New Hampshire title should take precedence over the Texas 

title and argued the car had passed an IDOT safety inspection. He argued the denial of title in 

Illinois was unconstitutional for failing to give full faith and credit to the New Hampshire rebuilt 

title and constituted a deprivation of property without just compensation. 

¶ 8 The Secretary presented his investigation documents, including the NMVTIS and Carfax 

reports, and argued there was no evidence contradicting Texas’s junk designation. The hearing 

officer took the matter under advisement. 

¶ 9 On July 13, 2018, the hearing officer issued his findings and recommendations. The 

hearing officer found the vehicle had a rebuilt title from New Hampshire with a notation “rebuilt 

vehicle,” and “water/flood damaged.” The Secretary’s NMVTIS check revealed that the State of 

Texas had branded the vehicle junk, and the Secretary denied the application for title based on the 

junk status. The hearing officer found the only “exception to the NMVTIS statute *** is when a 

vehicle was previously issued a rebuilt/salvage title (prior to the NMVTIS system) in Illinois, and 

petitioner who seeks to have the title transferred to him/her is able to prove that it is safe operable 

[sic] and roadworthy.” The Vehicle Code, however, contained a bright line rule that “vehicles 

brought into Illinois that were, at any time, classified as junk will not be issued a rebuilt/salvage 
No. 1-20-1140 

5 

title.” The hearing officer concluded that plaintiff had not met his burden of establishing that the 

vehicle was not junk under section 1-134.1 of the Vehicle Code, and recommended the Secretary 

affirm his denial of plaintiff’s application. The Secretary adopted the hearing officer’s findings of 

fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation, and entered a final order affirming the issuance of 

a junk title for plaintiff’s vehicle.

¶ 10 Plaintiff timely sought administrative review in the circuit court in case No. 18 CH 10369. 

In addition to seeking administrative review of the Secretary’s final order, plaintiff asserted section 

3-104.5 of the Vehicle Code was unconstitutional for failing to give full faith and credit to titles 

issued by other states, discriminated against out-of-state commerce by imposing an undue burden 

on interstate commerce, and violative of due process. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s

constitutional claims with prejudice, and they are not part of this appeal. 

¶ 11 On August 15, 2019, after briefing, the circuit court entered a written order reversing the 

Secretary’s decision and remanding for further consideration. The circuit court made the following 

findings. Sections 3-104.5 and 3-301 both use the mandatory language “shall” with respect to the 

Secretary’s titling obligation: section 3-104.5 required the Secretary to issue a junk certificate 

based on Texas’s junk title, and section 3-301 required the Secretary to issue a rebuilt title provided 

the vehicle passed a section 3-308 inspection. The Secretary’s “conclusion that it should be 

allowed to adhere to one section of the [Vehicle Code] without adhering to another is a mistake.” 

The Secretary’s “application of section 3-104.5 is clearly erroneous in light of the [Vehicle Code’s] 

definition of ‘junk vehicle,’ ” since the vehicle was operational and there was no evidence that the 

vehicle had been “dismantled, crushed, compressed, flattened[,] or otherwise reduced to a state in 

which it can no longer be returned to an operable state.” The Secretary “committed clear error in 

making its decision.” The circuit court ordered, “The decision of the [Secretary] is reversed and 
No. 1-20-1140 

6 

remanded for further consideration of [p]laintiff’s Certificate of Title application, pursuant to 625 

ILCS 5/3-301.” 

¶ 12 On December 12, 2019, the hearing officer—without any additional briefing or hearings—

issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing officer found plaintiff 

purchased the vehicle nine days after the Illinois legislature amended the definition of “junk 

vehicle” to include any vehicle “branded or assigned as junk or a similar designation by another 

state or jurisdiction.” 65 ILCS 5/1-134.1 (West 2018). Under federal law, the Texas junk brand 

could not be deleted, and the New Hampshire title did not in any way affect the Texas junk brand. 

Even if Texas retracted the junk brand, plaintiff would need to prove the vehicle was road worthy, 

and plaintiff did not provide the Secretary any evidence other than the IDOT inspection that 

occurred after his title application was denied. Plaintiff “did not provide *** bills of sale, receipts 

for the list of parts used to rebuild the vehicle[,] or the identification number of the vehicle(s) from 

which the parts originated” as required by section 3-303 of the Vehicle Code (65 ILCS 5/3-303 

(West 2018)). The hearing officer concluded the Texas junk brand required the issuance of a junk 

certificate in Illinois. In a December 12, 2019, supplemental order, the Secretary adopted the 

hearing officer’s amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation, and affirmed 

the issuance of a junk title. 

¶ 13 On January 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a petition for rule to show cause in the circuit court in 

case No. 18 CH 10369 against the Secretary and the hearing officer, or alternatively, to enforce 

the circuit court’s August 15, 2019, order. Plaintiff asserted the Secretary and hearing officer 

“blatantly refused to comply” with the circuit court’s August 15, 2019, order by again finding the 

vehicle was junk, despite the circuit court’s contrary finding. Plaintiff requested the circuit court 

order the Secretary and hearing officer show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt, 
No. 1-20-1140 

7 

and further requested the circuit court instruct the hearing officer to enter an order consistent with 

the circuit court’s August 15, 2019, order. 

¶ 14 On January 16, 2020, plaintiff filed another complaint for administrative review in case 

No. 20 CH 587 seeking review of the Secretary’s December 12, 2019, supplemental order. 

Although plaintiff disputed the validity of the order, he filed his complaint “to preserve his rights.” 

In count I, he sought a judgment declaring the December 12, 2019, supplemental final order “void 

and of no force or effect,” and requested attorney fees and costs under Supreme Court Rule 137 

(eff. Jan. 1, 2018). Count II sought judicial review of the Secretary’s supplemental final order. The 

circuit court consolidated case Nos. 18 CH 10369 and 20 CH 587. 

¶ 15 On September 21, 2020, after briefing, the circuit court denied plaintiff’s petition for a rule 

to show cause, denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, and reversed the Secretary’s supplemental 

final order. The circuit court found the Secretary incorrectly interpreted the circuit court’s prior 

order “to mean that the [c]ourt merely disagreed with [the Secretary’s] finding, and that [the 

Secretary] could affirm its own decision so long as it ‘considered’ [the circuit court’s] August 15, 

2019 [o]rder.” The circuit court clarified that its prior order “makes perfectly clear” that the 

Secretary erred by denying plaintiff’s application for a vehicle title. The circuit court criticized the 

Secretary’s interpretation of “the phrase ‘for further consideration’ to mean that [the circuit 

court’s] reversal of the administrative decision was seemingly conditional upon [the Secretary] 

agreeing with the [circuit] [c]ourt’s finding.” The circuit court refused to find the Secretary in 

contempt because the circuit court’s order “provided [the Secretary] with just enough ambiguity 

to possibly misinterpret the August 15, 2019 [o]rder.” The circuit court ordered the Secretary to 

issue plaintiff a certificate of title for the vehicle.

¶ 16 The Secretary filed a timely notice of appeal.
No. 1-20-1140 

8 

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, the Secretary argues its decision to deny plaintiff a vehicle title was not clearly 

erroneous where the vehicle had previously been branded “junk” by the State of Texas—which 

satisfied the definition of “junk vehicle” under section 1-134.1 of the Vehicle Code—thereby 

triggering Section 3-104.5(c)’s requirement that the Secretary issue a junk title. The Secretary also 

raises arguments directed at plaintiff’s constitutional claims, but we have no need to address the 

Secretary’s constitutional arguments because plaintiff has not cross-appealed the dismissal of those

claims and they are not before us. 

¶ 19 We first address a jurisdictional argument raised by plaintiff. He asserts the circuit court’s 

August 15, 2019, order reversing and remanding the Secretary’s final administrative order was a 

final and appealable order, and the Secretary did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days of 

August 15, 2019. In his view, all that was left to do following the circuit court’s remand was for 

the Secretary to issue a rebuilt title. We disagree. 

¶ 20 “ ‘A circuit court’s remand to an administrative agency is a nonfinal order if the agency 

must do more than enter a judgment or decree in accordance with the court’s directions.’ ” Hooker 

v. Retirement Board of Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 391 Ill. App. 3d 129, 136 

(2009) (quoting Lippert v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 273 Ill. App. 3d 150, 153 (1995)). “[W]hen

a circuit court remands a case to an administrative agency for further proceedings, the circuit court 

retains jurisdiction until the circuit court examines the results of the [administrative agency]

proceedings.” Id. at 137 (citing Wilkey v. Illinois Racing Board, 96 Ill. 2d 245, 249 (1983)). 

¶ 21 Here, the circuit court’s August 15, 2019, order was nonfinal because it remanded the case

to the Secretary “for further consideration of [p]laintiff’s Certificate of Title application, pursuant 

to 625 ILCS 5/3-301.” The order clearly contemplated additional consideration of the facts and the 
No. 1-20-1140 

9 

law by the Secretary. The circuit court may have found that the Secretary clearly erred by finding 

that the vehicle was junk, but the circuit court’s August 15, 2019, order did not direct the Secretary 

to issue a rebuilt title and contained no discussion as to whether plaintiff’s title application satisfied 

all the criteria for a rebuilt title under section 3-301 of the Vehicle Code—a task the circuit court 

expressly left to the Secretary. On remand, the Secretary did as he was instructed, and concluded 

that not only was the vehicle junk, but that plaintiff’s application for a certificate of title was 

insufficient. The parties then returned to the circuit court for review of the Secretary’s 

supplemental final order, which the circuit court reversed with instructions that the Secretary issue 

a certificate of title. The Secretary filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the circuit court’s 

September 21, 2020, order instructing the Secretary to issue a certificate of title. We reject 

plaintiff’s argument—and the circuit court’s view expressed in the September 21, 2020, order—

that the August 15, 2019, order was a final and appealable order, as it did not fully resolve the 

issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to a certificate of title. We find the Secretary’s notice of 

appeal was timely and we have jurisdiction over the Secretary’s appeal.2

¶ 22 Next, we address the Secretary’s decision to deny plaintiff’s application for a vehicle title 

and the issuance of a junk title. On administrative review, we review the administrative agency’s 

final decision rather than the circuit court’s judgment. Provena Covenant Medical Center v. 

Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368, 386 (2010). Our standard of review depends on the issues 

raised. Lopez v. Dart, 2018 IL App (1st) 170733, ¶ 67. Conclusions on questions of law, such as 

the construction of a statute, are reviewed de novo. Horsehead Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 

2019 IL 124155, ¶ 27; Parikh v. Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of 

Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL App (1st) 123319, ¶ 19. Questions of fact are 

2

Based on our finding, we do not reach the parties’ arguments regarding whether the revestment 

doctrine applies.
No. 1-20-1140 

10 

reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Provena, 236 Ill. 2d at 386-87. 

Mixed question of law and fact are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard. Horsehead, 

2019 IL 124155, ¶ 27. “Under that standard, the historical facts are admitted or established, the 

rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard or whether 

the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Id.

¶ 23 Here, the relevant facts are undisputed, and neither party takes any issue with the 

Secretary’s factual findings. The issue here is whether the Secretary properly found plaintiff was 

not entitled to a vehicle title because Texas previously branded the vehicle as junk. To the extent 

that resolving this appeal requires us to construe the Vehicle Code, we do so de novo. We review 

the Secretary’s decision that the vehicle met the section 1-134.1 “junk vehicle” definition under 

the clearly erroneous standard. 

¶ 24 The Secretary argues he correctly applied the Vehicle Code and his decision to deny 

plaintiff’s application for a vehicle title was not clearly erroneous. He contends plaintiff’s vehicle 

was a “junk vehicle” under section 1-134.1 because the State of Texas branded the car junk, and 

section 3-104.5(c) of the Vehicle Code required him to issue a junk title and deny plaintiff’s 

application. We agree.

¶ 25 We first examine the Vehicle Code. “The cardinal rule in construing a statute is to ascertain 

and give effect to the legislative intent.” In re Jarquan B., 2017 IL 121483, ¶ 22. The plain and 

ordinary meaning of the statutory language is the best indicator of that intent. Id. We read statutes 

as a whole and in light of all the other provisions. Id. Where the statutory language is unambiguous, 

we avoid resorting to other canons of statutory construction. Id.

¶ 26 Section 3-104(o) of the Vehicle Code provides “Each application for certificate of title for 

a motor vehicle shall be verified by the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System 
No. 1-20-1140 

11 

(NMVTIS) for a vehicle history report prior to the Secretary issuing a certificate of title.” 625 

ILCS 5/3-104(o) (West 2018). The legislature’s use of the term “each” in connection with the term 

“application for a certificate of title” indicates an expansive reach: the Secretary is required to 

verify all applications for a certificate of title through the NMVTIS, including applications for a 

rebuilt title. The record shows the Secretary verified the vehicle history report through the 

NMVTIS, and the report showed that Texas branded the vehicle “junk” on October 11, 2017, and 

New Hampshire branded the vehicle “rebuilt” on December 20, 2017. 

¶ 27 Section 3-104.5 makes plain that “[a]ny motor vehicle application for a certificate of title 

or a salvage certificate that is returned with a NMVTIS warning or error indicating that another 

state has previously issued a title or brand indicating the status of the motor vehicle is equivalent 

to a junk vehicle, as defined in Section 1-134.1 of this Code, shall be issued a junk certificate” 

where the previous title or brand was issued in the 10 years preceding the application. Id. § 3-

104.5. Section 3-104.5’s use of the term “any” in connection with the term “motor vehicle 

application for a certificate of title,” given its plain and ordinary meaning, is all inclusive and 

includes applications for a certificate of title for rebuilt vehicles. The Secretary must verify all title 

applications through NVMTIS for “warnings or errors” indicating a prior “title or brand indicating 

the status of the motor vehicle is equivalent to a junk vehicle,” a term defined by section 1-134.1 

of the Vehicle Code. Section 3-104.5 mandates that where a NVMTIS warning or error indicates 

a prior junk designation, the Secretary “shall” issue a junk title. 

¶ 28 Here, the NVMTIS report showed Texas branded the vehicle “junk” on October 11, 2017, 

and the Secretary was required to determine whether the vehicle met the section 1-134.1 of the 

Vehicle Code definition of “junk vehicle.” The version of section 1-134.1 in effect at the time 

plaintiff purchased the vehicle and applied for a vehicle title defines “junk vehicle” as “a vehicle 
No. 1-20-1140 

12 

which has been or is being disassembled, crushed, compressed, flattened, destroyed or otherwise 

reduced to a state in which it no longer can be returned to an operable state, or has been branded 

or assigned as junk or a similar designation by another state or jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) 

Id. § 1-134.1. Section 1-134.1 presents alternative analyses for determining whether a vehicle is 

junk: a vehicle will be considered junk if it is in a condition specifically enumerated—

disassembled, crushed, compressed, flattened, destroyed, or otherwise reduced to an irrevocably 

inoperable state—or if another jurisdiction branded the vehicle junk or a similar designation. A 

plain reading of the statutory language shows that even if the vehicle does not satisfy the 

enumerated criteria, it will still be deemed junk if another jurisdiction previously branded or 

assigned a junk designation within the last ten years. From this, we can determine that our 

legislature made a policy decision to protect Illinois consumers by not issuing an Illinois title for 

vehicles branded or assigned junk designations by other jurisdictions. Prohibiting the titling of 

vehicles previously branded junk by a foreign jurisdiction ultimately protects Illinois consumers 

by reducing fraud and protects the public at large by keeping unsafe vehicles off the road.3

 

¶ 29 Here, it is indisputable that Texas branded the vehicle as “junk” in October 2017. The 

record before the Secretary showed a junk branding by Texas, and there was nothing in the record 

that would call into question the validity of Texas’s junk designation. The vehicle here plainly met 

the Illinois definition of junk vehicle because Texas branded the vehicle junk within the 10 years 

prior to plaintiff’s application for a certificate of title in Illinois.

¶ 30 Plaintiff argues, however, that he is entitled to a rebuilt title under section 3-301 of the 

Vehicle Code (id. § 3-301) because New Hampshire issued the vehicle a rebuilt title after the 

3

For example, “title washing” is a practice where a seller attempts to hide a vehicle’s history by 

removing a vehicle’s brand by titling the vehicle in a state that does not recognize that brand, physically 

altering a vehicle title, or simply applying for a vehicle title without disclosing the vehicle’s history. See 

https://www.carfax.com/press/what-is-title-washing (last visited November 22, 2021). 
No. 1-20-1140 

13 

vehicle was branded junk by Texas. He asserts that New Hampshire’s rebuilt title conclusively 

shows the vehicle is not junk, and that section 3-301 should control where a vehicle has been issued 

a rebuilt title after being branded junk. We disagree. 

¶ 31 Plaintiff’s argument presupposes that the Vehicle Code permits titling of vehicles 

previously titled or branded junk. It does not. Instead, a plain reading of the Vehicle Code 

specifically instructs the Secretary to verify all vehicle applications through the NMVTIS and to 

issue a junk certificate to any vehicle previously issued a title or brand equivalent of a junk vehicle 

as defined by Illinois law. The legislature could have easily made an exception for a previously 

titled junk vehicle later titled as rebuilt or salvage by any jurisdiction at any time, but it did not.

Nothing in the Vehicle Code contemplates titling a previously designated or branded “junk 

vehicle,” as defined by Illinois law, regardless of whether there is an intervening title from another 

jurisdiction. 

¶ 32 Plaintiff argues that the New Hampshire rebuilt title “triggered” the applicability of section 

3-301 of the Vehicle Code governing rebuilt titles in Illinois. Section 3-301(a) provides, 

“For vehicles 8 model years of age or newer, the Secretary of State shall 

issue a new certificate of title to any rebuilt vehicle or any vehicle which previously 

had been titled as salvage in this State or any other jurisdiction upon the successful 

inspection of the vehicle in accordance with Section 3-308 of this Article.” Id. § 3-

301(a). 

Plaintiff contends that section 3-104.5(c) may require a junk certificate for vehicles previously 

branded junk, but “does not speak to how the vehicle should be treated if it is later rebuilt.” He 

insists section 3-104.5(c) conflicts with section 3-301 and that section 3-301 requires the issuance 
No. 1-20-1140 

14 

of a rebuilt title to vehicles previously titled as junk but later retitled as rebuilt or salvage by a 

foreign jurisdiction. 

¶ 33 We find that the Vehicle Code does address titling vehicles once branded junk and later 

titled rebuilt by a foreign jurisdiction. Under the plain and unambiguous language of section 3-

104.5(c), Illinois does not permit titling of vehicles previously branded junk; the subsequent titling 

history of the vehicle is simply not relevant. Here, plaintiff’s title application did not pass the 

screening phase set forth in section 3-104.5(c), and there was no requirement for the Secretary to 

evaluate plaintiff’s application under section 3-301.4

¶ 34 The Court of Appeals of Indiana reached a similar conclusion in Indiana Bureau of Motor 

Vehicles v. Majestic Auto Body, 128 N.E.3d 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). There, an Indiana auto body 

shop purchased two vehicles at an auction in Texas. Id. at 467. The NMVTIS report showed the 

vehicles were damaged in Hurricane Harvey and the vehicles were “ ‘incapable of safe operation 

for use on the roads or highways and [have] no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap.’ ” 

(Alteration in original.) Id. The State of Texas designated the vehicles junk and issued salvage 

certificates. Id. at 468. The Indiana State Police inspected the vehicles and concluded the vehicles 

were in good condition, and the auto body shop applied to obtain clean titles. Id. The trial court 

ultimately ordered the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to issue salvage titles for the 

vehicles. Id. The trial court denied the BMV’s subsequent motion to vacate, and the BMV 

4

We note the Secretary’s supplemental final order found that plaintiff’s application for a rebuilt 

title was not accompanied by any of the documentation required by section 3-303—which requires a salvage 

certificate or previously issued out-of-state title for the rebuilt vehicle; “bills of sale and other documents 

evidencing the acquisition of all essential parts used to rebuild the vehicle;” photographs of the rebuilt 

vehicle, if required; a certificate of safety from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) as set 

forth in section 13-109; a list of all essential parts that were replaced and the identity of the vehicles that 

supplied the essential parts; and, if there was a contract for rebuilding the vehicle pursuant to section 3-304, 

a copy of the contract and the form executed by the rebuilder—or by section 3-304, which requires a signed, 

written affirmation from the applicant regarding various information about the vehicle. Plaintiff does not 

challenge the Secretary’s supplemental final order on these points. 
No. 1-20-1140 

15 

appealed. Id. at 468-69. The court of appeals reversed. Under Indiana law, “A vehicle that has been 

designated “JUNK”, “DISMANTLED”, “SCRAP”, “DESTROYED”, or any similar designation 

in another state or jurisdiction shall not be titled in Indiana.” Ind. Code Ann. § 9-22-3-18 (West 

2018). The court of appeals found that, despite Texas’s issuance of salvage titles, “under the plain 

and unambiguous terms of Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18, [the] vehicles cannot be titled in 

Indiana since Texas had designated them as junk vehicles.” Majestic Auto Body, 128 N.E.3d at 

470-71. The court of appeals observed that “titling of vehicles that have been designated as junk 

by another state is not authorized by statute,” and the trial court was instructed to vacate its orders 

requiring the issuance of salvage titles. Id. at 471. 

¶ 35 We note that in Majestic Auto Body, the vehicles at issue were previously branded junk by 

the State of Texas and that the State of Texas issued the vehicles salvage titles. Id. at 467. It is 

apparent that there is a difference between a vehicle branded as junk and branded as salvage. 

Illinois law does not define salvage, but federal law provides some guidance. The federal AntiTheft Car Act (49 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq. (2018)), which established the NMVTIS, defines a “junk 

automobile” as “incapable of operating on public streets, roads and highways” and “ha[ving] no 

value except as a source of parts or scrap.” Id. § 30501(4). A “salvage automobile” is defined as 

“an automobile that is damaged by collision, fire, flood, accident, trespass, or other 

event, to the extent that its fair salvage value plus the cost of repairing the 

automobile for legal operation on public streets, roads, and highways would be 

more than the fair market value of the automobile immediately before the event that 

caused the damage.” 

¶ 36 From this, we can infer that the terms “junk” and “salvage” are not mutually exclusive: a 

junk vehicle is incapable of operation, while a salvage vehicle is, in insurance parlance, a total 
No. 1-20-1140 

16 

loss, but perhaps capable of being restored to a functional automobile. In Illinois, a salvage 

certificate is a prerequisite for a rebuilt title. See 625 ILCS 5/1-168.1 (West 2018) (defining

“rebuilt vehicle” as “A vehicle for which a salvage certificate has been issued and which 

subsequently has been put back into its original or operating condition by a licensed rebuilder and 

which has met all the requirements of a salvage vehicle inspection.”). 

¶ 37 Here, unlike Majestic Auto Body, there is no evidence that either Texas or New Hampshire 

ever issued a salvage title or certificate. The State of Texas branded the car junk. According to the 

NMVTIS report, the Texas junk brand indicated the car was 

“incapable of safe operation on the roads or highways and has no resale value 

except as a source of parts or scrap, or the vehicles [sic] owner has irreversibly 

designated the vehicle as a source of parts or scrap. This vehicle shall never be titled 

or registered. Also known as a non-repairable, scrapped, or destroyed.” 

The car was sold at auction and later New Hampshire issued a rebuilt title. The New Hampshire 

rebuilt title, however, does not change the fact that Texas previously branded the vehicle junk, and 

Illinois law does not allow the titling of a vehicle previously branded as junk by a foreign 

jurisdiction. Our legislature has determined that once a vehicle is branded junk, it will always be 

considered junk in Illinois. It does not matter that New Hampshire chose to issue a rebuilt title for 

a vehicle previously branded junk because Illinois does not permit such titling. A vehicle 

previously branded junk is not eligible for a rebuilt title in Illinois. 

¶ 38 The record does not establish why Texas branded the car junk rather than salvage, but 

section 3-104.5 makes plain that the “why” does not matter: all that matters is the vehicle was 

branded junk by a foreign jurisdiction within ten years of the application for title. If New 

Hampshire law permits junk vehicles to be later titled as rebuilt, that is a matter of New Hampshire 
No. 1-20-1140 

17 

law. Illinois, however, provides no such path for junk vehicles, which are only eligible for junking 

certificates. 625 ILCS 5/3-104.5(c) (West 2020); see also id. § 3-117.1 (governing when junking 

or salvage certificates must be obtained). 

¶ 39 In sum, plaintiff’s complete reliance on section 3-301 is misplaced considering the Vehicle 

Code does not permit titling of vehicles previously branded or designated junk by any jurisdiction 

within 10 years of making title application. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, sections 3-301 and 

3-104.5 of the Vehicle Code do not conflict, and the two provisions can be harmonized. Where a 

vehicle has been titled as junk by another jurisdiction, that vehicle is considered junk in Illinois. If 

a vehicle was branded or titled “salvage” or “rebuilt” in another jurisdiction, the vehicle may be 

eligible for a rebuilt title in Illinois under section 3-301, provided it had not been branded “junk” 

at any point. 

¶ 40 The Secretary’s July 13, 2018, final order and December 12, 2019, supplemental final order 

correctly interpreted the Vehicle Code, and his conclusion that plaintiff’s vehicle was not entitled 

to a certificate of title was not clearly erroneous. The circuit court’s reversal of the Secretary’s 

final order failed to give effect to the plain language of section 1-134.1’s definition of “junk 

vehicle” where another jurisdiction has branded the vehicle as junk. Furthermore, the circuit court 

incorrectly concluded that section 3-301 applied and was satisfied because, as the Secretary found, 

plaintiff’s title application did not satisfy the requirements for a rebuilt title where he had not 

submitted all the required documentation. We find no clear error in the Secretary’s supplemental 

final order denying plaintiff’s vehicle title application. We affirm the Secretary’s supplemental 

final order denying plaintiff’s title application and reverse the circuit court’s order reversing the 

Secretary’s supplemental final order and instructing the Secretary to issue plaintiff a certificate of 

title. 
No. 1-20-1140 

18 

¶ 41 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 42 For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary’s final order is affirmed, and the circuit court’s 

judgment is reversed. 

¶ 43 Secretary’s final order affirmed.

¶ 44 Circuit court judgment reversed. 
No. 1-20-1140 

19 

No. 1-20-1140

Cite as: Improta v. White, 2021 IL App (1st) 201140

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nos. 18-CH10369 & 20-CH-587; the Hon. David B. Atkins, Judge, 

presiding.

Attorney

For

Appellant:

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor 

Notz, Solicitor General, and David E. Neumeister, Assistant 

Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant. 

Attorneys 

For 

Appellee:

Jordan Dorrestein and Richard L. Williams, of Griffin 

Williams McMahon & Walsh LLP, of Geneva, for appellee.