Opinion ID: 843275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the statement in goins was central to the holding of the case

Text: The statement under consideration was not dictum for the reason that it was essential to the determination of the case. [3] As indicated above, the dealership's liability in Goins turned on whether it owned the vehicle at the time of the accident. Goins, 449 Mich. at 4, 534 N.W.2d 467. The Goins Court concluded that the dealership did not own it because both requirements of MCL 257.233(5) had been satisfied. Id. at 14, 534 N.W.2d 467. In order to make that determination, the Court had to ascertain whether, at the time of the accident, the application for title had been executed. Id. Accordingly, the Court's statement that the application was executed when the necessary forms were sent to the Secretary of State was part of the resolution of the central issue. The Court of Appeals was correct in relying on Goins to conclude that the date the dealership mailed the application to the Secretary of State determined whether the dealership was liable. Perry v Golling Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 11, 2005 (Docket No. 254121), 2005 WL 2514260. Moreover, the statement in Goins binds this Court in this case.