Opinion ID: 843275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: application of the robinson factors

Text: Because the majority reads Goins as it does, it denies that it has overruled that case. As a consequence, it makes no mention of the Robinson [4] factors. But given that the Robinson Court held that precedent should not be overturned without consideration of these factors, I will apply them now. We should consider whether Goins was wrongly decided. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. We should also determine whether Goins defies `practical workability,' whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the [ Goins ] decision. Id. My application of the Robinson factors reveals that Goins should not be overturned. First and most importantly, the Goins Court did not err in holding that the application for title was executed when the dealership sent it to the Secretary of State. This conclusion requires an understanding of MCL 257.233. When the claim in Goins occurred, the Legislature had not defined the term execute, as it appears in the statute. However, the statute does address owners transferring title. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Goins Court to conclude that the term execute referred to an action that the owner, i.e., the dealership, must take. Moreover, the Goins Court's statement that execution occurred when the dealership sent the necessary forms to the Secretary of State was consistent with how Michigan courts interpreted the statute at the time. In Zechlin v. Bridges Motor Sales, [5] which the Goins Court cited, the Court of Appeals observed that the effective date of a transfer of title is the date of the execution of the application for title. Id. at 342, 475 N.W.2d 60. In Zechlin, the dealership had filed the application for title with the Secretary of State before the accident occurred. Id. at 342, 475 N.W.2d 60. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the dealership's ownership interest in the vehicle terminated before the accident. Id. Accordingly, the Goins Court's determination that execution occurred when the dealership sent the necessary forms to the Secretary of State was consistent with how the Court of Appeals interpreted the statute at the time. There is also a public policy basis for the Goins decision. By holding that the application was executed when the dealership sent the application for title to the Secretary of State, the Goins Court prevented a possible fraud on buyers. Were execution interpreted to occur when the buyer signed the application, the dealership, no longer the owner, could escape liability for a subsequent accident yet retain the application. It could thereby try to prevent the buyer from obtaining a certificate of title until the buyer paid it more for the vehicle. The Goins holding circumvented this problem. For the above reasons, I believe that Goins was correctly decided. Additionally, no argument has been made that the Goins decision cannot be applied in a practical manner. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. The Goins rule that the application for title is considered executed when the dealership sends it to the Secretary of State is easy to understand and to apply. [6] The next Robinson factor to consider is whether, if the decision were overturned, reliance interests would work an undue hardship. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. It is unknown whether or how dealerships and vehicle purchasers altered their procedures in order to conform to the holding in Goins. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether there will be any hardship when Goins is overturned. The final factor to consider is whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the decision. Id. From the time Goins was decided until the time the instant case arose, the relevant portion of MCL 257.233 remained the same. Specifically, the statute provided that one could ascertain the date of transfer of title by identifying the date of execution of the application for title. Also, the record does not reflect that the procedure for obtaining title to a motor vehicle has changed. Accordingly, no change has occurred in the law or facts. Considering all the Robinson factors, Goins should not be overturned.