Court Opinion

ID: 9584793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:45.271979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:02.697407
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring specially.
Because the record is incomplete, there is no evidence before us regarding the precise status of the certificate of title on July 22, 1993 when DeFontaine took the Porsche to Chattahoochee Bank and substituted it as collateral on the prior $40,000 note. Accordingly, affirmance of the trial court appears correct and I concur therein.
Nonetheless, I differ with the majority’s analysis in Division 1 regarding the effect of title certificates on third parties. “ ‘[A]s between the parties[,] an ownership may change hands without the necessity of transferring a title certificate by the seller and obtaining a new one in the name of the purchaser.’ Canal Ins. Co. v. Woodard, 121 Ga. App. 356, 358 (173 SE2d 727) (1970).” (Emphasis supplied.) McDowell v. Owens, 170 Ga. App. 421, 422 (317 SE2d 275) (1984).
In the context of third parties, here Bank South, this rule is different. OCGA § 40-3-32 (d) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in Code Section 40-3-33 and as between the parties, a transfer by an owner is not effective until this Code section and Code Section 40-3-33 have been complied with; and no purchaser or transferee shall acquire any right, title, or interest in and to a vehicle purchased by him unless and until he shall obtain from the transferor the certificate of title thereto, duly transferred in accordance with this Code section.” In Canal, supra, the court stated: “as between the parties an ownership may change hands without the necessity of transferring a title certificate by the seller and obtaining a new one in the name of the purchaser. [Cit.] However, as to third parties who may acquire an in*80terest, it is essential that the title transfer be completed.” Id. at 358-359.
Decided March 10, 1995
Reconsideration denied March 29, 1995.
Leon S. Jones, for appellant.
Barry Staples, Goldner, Summers, Scrudder & Bass, William W. Horlock, Jr., Quirk & Quirk, Neal J. Quirk, for appellees.
The requirement that a title transfer be completed as to third parties who acquire an interest in the vehicle ensures that the interests of a third party acting in good faith will be protected. Here, Bank South claims that it inspected the Porsche as collateral and obtained the original title and MV-1 title application prior to allowing the substitution of collateral. In so doing, Bank South took every possible action to protect itself.
On the other hand, Zweig did not take all reasonable actions to protect his interest in the vehicle. He could have demanded the certificate of title before he paid for the vehicle, and thereby protected his interest in the vehicle. He did not do so, and left open the possibility that his interest would be unprotected as to a third party.