Court Opinion

ID: 9574763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:07:51.757043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:57.967853
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
dissenting.
In 1926 the General Assembly of Virginia enacted broad, comprehensive and mandatory legislation (Acts 1926, ch. 149), having to do with the registration of titles to motor vehicles. It provided for the issuance of certificates of title to motor vehicles, the recordation of liens upon such vehicles, and declared the effect of the issuance and recordations of such titles and liens. Its enactment was subsequent to the cases of Boice v. Finance and Guaranty Corp., 127 Va. 563, 102 S. E. 591, 10 A. L. R. 654; Garrett v. Rahily & Martin, 132 Va. 226, 111 S. E. 110; and Gump Investment Co. v. Jackson, 142 Va. 190, 128 S. E. 506, 47. A. L. R. 82, Vir*720ginia decisions cited and relied upon in the majority opinion.1
The act of 1926 was amended and amplified by Acts 1932, ch. 342, p. 613, and Acts 1934, ch. 265, p. 380. These enactments, as amended, are now carried in the Code of 1950 under “Title 46, Motor Vehicles” and the parts pertinent to this decision are found within chapter 3, articles 1 to 5, §§ 46-42 to 46-109,2 inclusive.
Section 46-106 provides for issuance of certificates of title to manufacturers or dealers. It requires the manufacturer or dealer to obtain certificates of title for cars that are to be operated, and it expressly allows issuance of such certificates for new cars that are to be sold as such. If the “application for á certificate of title” discloses that there is a lien upon the vehicle, § 46-69 requires the Division of Motor Vehicles to list the lien upon the title certificate.
Section 46-71, Code of 1950, declares that an issued certificate of title showing a lien or encumbrance thereon shall be deemed adequate notice to the Commonwealth, creditors and purchasers. Its pertinent part reads as follows:
“Such certificate of title, when issued by the Division showing a lien or encumbrance, shall be deemed adequate notice to the Commonwealth, creditors and purchasers that a lien against the motor vehicle exists and the recording of such reservation of title, lien or encumbrance in the county or city wherein the purchaser or debtor resides or elsewhere is not necessary and shall not be required. * * *”
This legislation, Title 46 Motor Vehicles, now provides the sole means by which titles to motor vehicles may be issued and recorded and liens made effectual against creditors and purchasers without actual notice. In my opinion it nullifies the principle stated in the Boice case insofar as the transfer of titles to motor vehicles is concerned.
*721When a dealer applies' for the issuance of a title certificate upon a new car, whether it be with or without a recorded Hen thereon, it is known that the car will in ah probabihty be offered for sale in the dealer’s usual course of business. Undoubtedly the Legislature was aware of this when the legislation was enacted. The provisions of § 46-71 that the hen or encumbrance upon such title certificate “shall be deemed adequate notice to the Commonwealth, creditors and purchasers” is all-inclusive and unambiguous. It is not limited to a lien on a certificate of title issued to one other than a manufacturer or dealer, but it apphes to all certificates of title regularly issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles.
By what mode or method the transfer of ownership, title or interest in a motor vehicle shall be effected, and what shall constitute conclusive evidence of ownership or interest therein, have been determined and fixed by this legislation. It protects the rights and interests of all motor vehicle owners or holders of hens and affords a certain place and means by which any purchaser may readily ascertain the rights and interests of any and all parties in the vehicle. It is not in the public interest to allow individuals by private agreement to alter and set at naught these regulations, which, if observed, offer ample protection to the purchaser, hen holder and owner.
Under the clear and exphcit language of this legislation, it should be held binding upon purchasers whether they purchase from a dealer or one other than a dealer.
In Staunton Industrial Loan Corp. v. Wilson (1951), 190 F. (2d) 706, 709, the effect of recordation of a hen upon the title certificate is stated thus:
“No creditor can complain that he has been mislead, for the hen is registered for all to see. * * * In Virginia today, a man would not buy an automobile on the strength of possession, for the sole evidence of ownership of a motor vehicle is the registered title. * * *”
Janney v. Bell (1940), 111 F. (2d) 103; Universal Credit Co. v. Botetourt Motor Co., 180 Va. 159, 21 S. E. (2d) 800.
*722When the lien is duly recorded upon the title certificate, that is declared by § 46-71 to be notice to the world of the existence of the lien, and that is true .whether the motor vehicle be owned or held for sale by a dealer or other owner.
Acquisition of title to a motor vehicle by a purchaser from a dealer may be effected only through compliance by the parties with the mandatory provisions of the registration act. Thomas v. Mullins, 153 Va. 383, 149 S. E. 494.
When a certificate of title is issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles to a motor vehicle, it is the owner’s sole muniment of title upon which a purchaser may rely.
“Once the vehicle is registered, legal title can be transr ferred only by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner.” Universal Credit Co. v. Botetourt Motor Co., supra, at p. 173.
Section 46-84 provides the only method by which title to a motor vehicle shall be transferred to a purchaser. If he purchases the vehicle, whether from a dealer or one other than a dealer, with a lien recorded upon the title certificate, then we should hold that he acquired the vehicle subject to that lien.
Buchanan and-Smith, JJ., join in this dissent.

 O'Connor v. Smith, 188 Va. 214, 219, 49 S. E. (2d) 310, 312, also cited in the majority opinion involved the sale and transfer of personal property other than motor vehicles.

 The amendments made by Acts of 1952, which appear in the 1954 Supplement to the Code of 1950, under' “Title 46, Motor Vehicles” are not pertinent to this controversy.