Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Co., RENT-A-CAR

• Citation: 151 So.2d 855
• Decision Date: 10 April 1963
• Docket Number: No. 3125,RENT-A-CAR,3125
• Parties: AVISSYSTEM, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. HARRISON MOTOR COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 855

151 So.2d 855

AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. HARRISON MOTOR COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 3125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 1963.

Robert E. Beach of the Law Offices of Roney & Beach, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Curtis J. Timm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis & Timm, Sarasota, for appellee.

SHANNON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant instituted a replevin suit against Harrison Motor Company for a 1959 Ford automobile. After denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant-appellee filed a like motion, which was granted. This appeal followed.

On or about July 1, 1959, the plaintiff purchased and took title to the automobile in Vermont, thereafter taking it to Plattsburgh, New York, to be used in the regular course of its car rental business. On May 10, 1960, the car was rented to Pasco Ferrucci for one day under a written rental agreement. When the time provided for return of the auto had elapsed and the plaintiff realized that the car was stolen, it notified the New York State Police, the F.B.I., and the Plattsburgh Police. The plaintiff's car was transported to Florida, where, in November, 1960, an application for a Florida certificate of title was submitted to the Florida Motor Vehicle Commissioner by Pasco Ferrucci. Ferrucci also submitted the Vermont title registration which had been altered so that plaintiff's name was removed and Pasco Ferrucci's name was inserted in its place. As a result of the fraudulent alteration, the State of Florida issued a certificate of title to Ferrucci. While the transfer was pending, he traded the car to the defendant, after defendant was assured by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner that Ferrucci had title.

The plaintiff filed a complaint for replevin for return of the car, alleging that the car was stolen and that the title was, without its knowledge and consent, transferred as set out above. The defendant maintained that it was a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of the rights of the plaintiff, if any. In support of its allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff attached as exhibits the purchase invoice for the automobile, Vermont title registration, the rental receipt, Florida application for certificate of title, a copy of the altered Vermont title registration, and the Florida certificate of title. The plaintiff also filed a notice of intention to request the lower court to take judicial notice of certain portions of Vermont and New York law applying to the facts in the case. The statutes of both states were later introduced into evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

Affidavits were submitted for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied and that of the defendant was granted, the trial court saying, in part:

'The Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff, having placed the title certificate of the subject motor vehicle in the possession of one Pasco A. Ferrucci and thereafter having failed to notify State authorities that said vehicle was stolen, created the circumstances causing the loss; that plaintiff is estopped to assert its title in said motor vehicle and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * *'

The plaintiff in its appeal raises two questions: 1) Was the defendant an innocent purchaser for value without notice of defect in the title of the automobile? And 2) Was the plaintiff estopped to assert title?

By virtue of the Vermont Motor Vehicle Laws, Title 23, Sec. 307, '[a] person shall not operate a motor vehicle * * * unless the registration certificate thereof is carried in some easily accessible place in such motor vehicle. * * *' The New York law is similar. Hence the plaintiff was required by law to rent the automobile to Ferrucci with the title certificate therein. Ferrucci feloniously brought the automobile to Florida where he altered the registration title into his name and obtained a Florida title. It is elementary that no one can transfer or confer better title to chattels than he himself has. Ferrucci had never legally obtained title to the car, but had illegally forged the title, and hence he could not convey title which he himself did not have. Glass v. Continental Guaranty Corp., 1921, 81 Fla. 687, 88 So. 876, 25 A.L.R. 312. Keeping in mind that Ferrucci was the bailee of the automobile in question, the existence of the bailor-bailee relationship prohibited him from committing any act in derogation of the bailor's title or possessory rights. 4 Fla.Jur., Bailments, Sec. 6.

With reference to the sale of motor vehicles, the law has been modified slightly in Florida. In Trumbull Chevrolet Sales Co. v. Seawright, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 829, Judge Sturgis, speaking for the court, said, in part:

'Motor vehicles constitute a special class of personalty which, because of considerations too numerous to recite, has had thrown up around transactions for the sale thereof and transfer of title thereto a distinct body of case and statutory law differing in many important respects from that generally governing sales of other types of personalty. And although it varies to some extent in the several states, the underlying trend and objective is to protect the interest and title of the rightful owner against fraudulent sales of such property, to establish a uniform method of transfer, and to insure, as far as practicable, the validity of title and possessory rights of the ultimate owner. To accomplish this, certain duties and limitations have been placed on the purchasers as well as the seller, and courts generally require strict compliance therewith.'

See also, Metro-Plan, Inc., v. Kotcher-Turner, Turner, Inc., 1941, 296 Mich. 400, 296 N.W. 304; and Leary, 'Horse and Buggy Lien Law and Migratory Automobiles,' 96 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 455 (1948)

Defendant takes the position that it had no notice that the vehicle was...