Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.188931; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Hood, and Bandstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Registration and Title Requirements) (MCL 257.201, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversing a grand of summary disposition, held a factual dispute existed regarding whether plaintiff Miguel was an owner of the uninsured vehicle he was driving when injured, and thus, disqualified from receiving no-fault benefits pursuant to §3113(b) of the no-fault act.
The accident occurred on November 2 or 3,1993. The automobile accident occurred when Miguel was driving an uninsured Chevrolet Cavalier that he had arranged to purchase from another person. Miguel, however, also had insurance from State Farm on a second car. When he sought benefits from State Farm, State Farm brought a motion for summary disposition contending that because Miguel was operating the uninsured Cavalier and because he was an owner of that car under MCLA 257.37(b), he was disqualified from receiving no-fault benefits.
The issue concerned whether or not Miguel was in fact the owner of the Chevrolet Cavalier at the time of the accident. On this issue, the evidence was in conflict. The testimony was that the prior owner of the vehicle was given a down payment by Miguel on October 14,1993, and that the certificate of title and registration indicated that transfer and delivery occurred on that date. Testimony, however, indicated that the certificate of title was not in fact delivered until after the date of the accident. Because of this conflicting evidence, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court made impermissible factual findings if it determined that Miguel was the titleholder based on the delivery of title before the accident. Pursuant to MCLA 257.233(5), upon delivery of the certificate of title, the effective date of transfer is the date on which the title was executed. The certificate of title indicated the date of execution was October 14,1993. However, deposition testimony indicated that the actual date of execution may have been after the accident. Since there was conflicting evidence on this issue, the Court of Appeals held that it was inappropriate for the trial court to have granted summary disposition on whether or not Miguel was indeed the owner of the uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident.
