Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 350558; Published
Judges Redford, Beckering, and Kelly; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s subrogation action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Court of Appeals held that because State Farm’s insured failed to properly transfer ownership of his vehicle, State Farm was still the insurer of highest priority under MCL 500.3114(1).
Jordan White was driving a 1998 Ford Expedition with his girlfriend, Allison Hurry, and their toddler son, when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into some trees near the roadway. White and the child died in the accident, and Hurry was seriously injured. Hurry applied for no-fault PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, who assigned her claim to Nationwide. Nationwide later discovered that the Expedition was perhaps owned by John Gary Best Jr., State Farm’s insured, at the time of the collision, and filed the underlying subrogation action against State Farm as a result.
Best testified that he gifted the Expedition to White less than one year before the accident, and that “the bill of sale was a piece of notebook paper on which he wrote the date, the fact that he was giving the vehicle to White for ‘zero dollars,’ the vehicle’s color, and its VIN number.” At the time of the accident, however, Best’s license plate was still on the Expedition, and Best was still the registered owner.
As for the certificate of title, the evidence shows that Best wrote his name and address and signed his name in the section to be completed by the seller. But he did not provide any information regarding the name and address of the purchaser, the date of sale, the selling price, or the odometer reading. In the section to be completed by the buyer, White neither signed nor printed his name. White gave the Expedition’s certificate of title to his cousin, Austyn Jackson, to keep in Jackson’s lock box. Apart from Best’s testimony, there is no evidence of a bill of sale or other written intention by Best to give White the Expedition.
The trial court eventually granted summary disposition in Nationwide’s favor, ruling that, because Best failed to comply with the requirements under MCL 257.240, the vehicle was not actually, legally transferred. Therefore, MCL 500.3114(4) applied and established State Farm, as the insurer of the owner or registrant of the Expedition, as the insurer of highest priority.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of Nationwide, but noted that MCL 257.233, not MCL 257.240, was the pertinent statute for purposes of the transfer analysis in this case. The Court of Appeals explained what actions were required of Best under MCL 257.233 at the time of transfer:
According to the foregoing, proper transfer of a title or an interest in the Expedition required Best to remove the plates, since White was not an immediate family member, indorse an assignment of the title on the seller’s portion of the certificate of title, and deliver the certificate of title and the Expedition to Best. In addition, MCL 257.233a required Best to inform White of the odometer mileage, either on the certificate of title, where there was a space for the information, or in a separate written instrument that provided the information required by MCL 257.233a(1). The date of White’s signature on the certificate of title as the purchaser/transferee would have constituted the effective date of the transfer, had he signed it. MCL 257.233(9). But he didn’t. And there is no date of sale on the certificate.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that because White neither signed the certificate of title nor applied for title, himself, the transfer failed as a matter of law because it did not satisfy the requirements of MCL 257.233(9), which provides:
(9) Upon the delivery of a motor vehicle and the transfer, sale, or assignment of the title or interest in a motor vehicle by a person, including a dealer, the effective date of the transfer of title or interest in the vehicle is the date of signature on either the application for title or the assignment of the certificate of title by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee.” [MCL 257.233.]
Because White failed to sign the certificate of title or apply for title, himself, there was no effective transfer date, and because there was no effective transfer date, the Court of Appeals held that Best was still the legal owner and registrant of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
However, even if we assume without deciding that Best properly indorsed the certificate of title, White’s failure to either sign the certificate of title or apply for title resulted in there being no effective date of transfer pursuant to MCL 257.233(9). Thus, regardless of the parties’ intent with respect to Best’s gift of the Expedition to White, transfer of the gift failed as a matter of law because, at the very least, it did not satisfy the requirements of MCL 257.233(9). If White had signed the certificate of title, even if he had not delivered it to the Secretary of State, the transfer would have been complete. See Perry v Golling Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, Inc, 477 Mich 62, 64; 729 NW2d 500, 501 (2007) (holding that, pursuant to MCL 257.233(9) title transfers to the purchaser when the purchaser signs the certificate of title or application for title is signed, not when it is delivered to the Secretary of State). He did not; therefore, the transfer failed.
* * *
We conclude for the foregoing reasons that there was no valid transfer of the Expedition’s title from Best to White because there was no effective transfer date. Because there was no effective transfer date, Best remained the legal owner and registrant of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting Nationwide’s motion for summary disposition.
