Opinion ID: 843275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the majority distorts the holding of goins

Text: The majority contends that its opinion does not necessitate an overruling of Goins because its opinion is a harmonious extension of the Goins holding. The irrefutable fact is that the Goins Court wrote that the application for title was executed when [the dealership] sent the necessary forms to the Secretary of State. Goins, 449 Mich. at 14, 534 N.W.2d 467. The majority effectively rewrites this sentence to read, the application for title had been executed by the time the dealership sent the necessary forms to the Secretary of State. It then adds that the application for title was executed at the moment the purchaser signed the application for title. The majority implies that the Goins Court was sloppy in its phraseology. That seems unlikely given that the Goins Court dedicated a significant portion of its analysis to past decisions that emphasized the importance of the transfer of title to the transfer of ownership. See Goins, 449 Mich. at 10-14, 534 N.W.2d 467. Considering its detailed discussion of the importance of deciding when title transferred, it is not credible that the Goins Court found it unnecessary to specify the exact moment the title transferred. For that reason, I conclude that the Goins Court meant what it wrote: the application for title was executed, hence title transferred, when [the dealership] sent the necessary forms to the Secretary of State.