Court Opinion

ID: 9630358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:09:13.06005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:37.467807
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would hold that the following testimony by Raye is some evidence that the only interest she retained was a feeble, ineffective, layperson’s effort to retain a lien or security interest in the mustang.
Q. What did you do with the par?
A. It was sold to Chris Harris.
Q. Okay. And did you have an agreement with Mr. Harris about paying it out?
A. Yes.
*456[[Image here]]
Q. And did you have an agreement with him to transfer the title upon full payment?
A. Yes.
RR Vol. 2, pgs 25, 26.
She would not even claim an ownership interest.
Q. ... And are you the owner of a 2001 mustang?
A. My name is on the title.
RR Vol. 2, pgs 24-25.
She failed to comply with the law as it relates to perfecting her lien interest in the car her boyfriend sold for her. Her boyfriend’s friend, the buyer — Harris— was a drug dealer. Harris was using the car to transport drugs and that makes his car contraband.
The easy way, the lawful way, for Raye to protect her interest was to comply with the law and perfect her security interest in the vehicle she “sold” (her term, not mine).
Instead, the majority of this Court makes holdings that could impact real estate transactions when they are here deciding a personal property forfeiture case. How? Because Raye, her boyfriend, and Harris used a form real estate contract to try to document the sale of the car, the note payment terms, and the security interest. But the payment terms are just that — nothing more and nothing less. And the attempt to keep a security interest was ineffective.1
In closing, I note that any question about whether Raye thinks she sold the car is foreclosed by her second issue. She wants the trial court (and now this Court) to render a judgment for the balance due on the note.
I would affirm the judgment of forfeiture. Because the majority does not, I dissent.

. The majority’s holding may also have unexpected collateral consequences in criminal law as well. Under the majority’s holding, could Reyes have resorted to self-help by repossessing the car for the default on the note or would that have been theft? See Turner v. State, No. 10-06-00055-CR, 2007 WL 475420, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS 1115 (Tex.App.-Waco Feb. 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem.op.).