Opinion ID: 1391596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unlawful Exercise of Delegated Authority

Text: In determining that regulation 42-6-134(I)(iv) was an unlawful exercise of delegated authority the district court stated: The term `salvage' is found to have a multitude of meanings in both law and common usage. The most appropriate, and only accurate meaning for the term as used in § 42-6-134, C.R.S.1973, is that which covers the physical acts of removing of economically valuable parts from an automobile, the scrapping of said vehicle for its inherent metal components, or the physical adaptation of the motor vehicle for some alternative physical, utilitarian purpose. . . . The court then concluded that the decision of an insurance company to sell a vehicle as salvage after a total loss settlement did not comport with the above definition of salvage. We disagree with this analysis. Prior to the 1976 amendment, section 42-6-134, C.R.S.1973, provided that a certificate of title need be surrendered only upon the destruction or dismantling of said motor vehicle or upon its being changed in such manner that it is no longer a motor vehicle . . . . However, section 42-6-134 was amended in 1976 to require the surrender of the certificate upon the vehicle's being sold or otherwise disposed of as salvage. The trial court's restrictive definition of salvage was essentially a paraphrase of the pre-1976 statute, and it gave no effect whatever to the 1976 amendment. By that amendment the legislature obviously intended to extend the owner's duty of title-surrender to those situations where the vehicle is sold or otherwise disposed of as salvage. The subject matter of the regulation is consistent with that legislative intent. Furthermore, the regulation was promulgated pursuant to the Certificate of Title Act, section 42-6-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973. The director of the department is charged with the administration of this act and, for that purpose, he is vested with the power to make such reasonable rules and regulations . . . and provide such procedures as may be reasonably necessary or essential to [its] efficient administration. . . . Section 42-6-104, C.R.S.1973. Clearly, the regulation is within the director's delegated authority and is in keeping with his rule-making power under the Act.