In re George
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-163,20-163 |
| Citation | 253 A.3d 899 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF Theodore N. GEORGE (Deborah George, Appellant) |
Amanda T. Rundle of Rundle & Rundle, PLLC, Springfield, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Theodore C. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, Brattleboro, for Respondent-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton and Cohen, JJ., and Morris, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
¶ 1. Daughter Deborah George appeals the civil division's determination that her father, decedent Theodore N. George, was the sole owner of a vehicle at the time of his death and that the vehicle was properly included in his estate. She argues that decedent's act in changing the registration to reflect joint ownership effectively transferred an interest in the vehicle to her. Alternatively, she argues that decedent's act demonstrated his intent to make a gift of joint ownership. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence that decedent transferred an interest in the vehicle to daughter under either theory and affirm.
¶ 2. Decedent purchased the vehicle at issue, a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado, in 1992. The Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a Certificate of Title to decedent in 1994. The vehicle was titled in decedent's name only. The copy of the title in the record contains no assignment of ownership to daughter.
¶ 3. In 2006, decedent submitted to the DMV a Vermont Registration, Tax, and Title Application (2006 Registration Application)1 for the vehicle. Decedent's name is listed in the space provided for the owner, and daughter's name is listed in the adjacent space provided for a co-owner. The same Vernon, Vermont address is listed for both decedent and daughter. Next to daughter's name, a handwritten annotation says, "add co-owner." The form directs applicants to select rights of survivorship if more than one owner is listed and provides that "if no box is checked joint tenants will be selected." Decedent made no indication. At the bottom of the form, decedent signed the application; the line for the co-owner's signature was left blank. No bill of sale accompanied the 2006 Registration Application. The DMV issued registration certificates naming both decedent and daughter for 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and 2017-2018.
¶ 4. Decedent executed his last will and testament in 2016; Article Third disposes of his vehicles. The will devised the "1979 White Cadillac" to Christine George, one of decedent's other daughters. Decedent executed the first codicil to his will in 2017. The codicil continued to devise the "1979 White Cadillac" to Christine.
¶ 5. Decedent died in November 2017. Thereafter, the Probate Division of the Windham Superior Court admitted decedent's will and first codicil. The executor of decedent's estate later filed an inventory with the probate division. The inventory listed the 1979 Cadillac Eldorado, among other vehicles.
¶ 6. Daughter objected to the inclusion of the 1979 Cadillac in the estate's inventory. The probate division held hearings to determine ownership of the vehicle but did not find clear evidence of ownership. It acknowledged decedent's 2006 Registration Application but noted that it was signed only by decedent, that it was unclear who wrote the notation "add co-owner," and that it lacked an accompanying bill of sale. It also looked to decedent's attempted disposition of the vehicle under the will and first codicil, which suggested that "decedent believed he owned the vehicle and was free to bequeath it" because this attempted disposition was part of an estate plan in which decedent devised one vehicle to his partner and to each of his children and grandchildren. Given that plan, and because ownership of the Cadillac was ambiguous, the probate division was "reluctant to defeat his testamentary intent." It found that the vehicle was properly included in the inventory and ordered the executor to transfer it to the named beneficiary, Christine George.
¶ 7. Daughter appealed the probate division's decision to the Civil Division of the Windham Superior Court, which considered the matter de novo. In a decision on the merits, the court affirmed. The court determined that 23 V.S.A. § 2023, which governs vehicle transfers, requires ownership to be transferred through assignment of the title certificate. Although the vehicle was more than fifteen years old and exempt from receiving a new title under 23 V.S.A. § 2012(10), the court reasoned that decedent could still assign the title issued to him in 1994. It found no evidence that decedent executed an assignment and warranty of title to daughter. It also found no evidence of a bill of sale reflecting a transfer of interest. Without such evidence, the court determined that the 2006 Registration Application alone was insufficient to transfer an interest in the vehicle. Accordingly, the court concluded that decedent owned the vehicle outright and the vehicle was properly listed in his estate's inventory.
¶ 8. On appeal, daughter argues that 23 V.S.A. § 2023 grants the DMV Commissioner the authority to prescribe alternate methods of transferring ownership of a vehicle, and the Commissioner designated Form VD-119 as one such method. According to daughter, decedent's 2006 Registration Application thus transferred an interest in the vehicle to daughter, and she owned it jointly with a right of survivorship at the time of his death and now owns it outright. Alternatively, she asserts that even if the statutory requirements for transfer under § 2023 are not met, the 2006 Registration Application provides clear and convincing evidence that decedent intended to transfer ownership to daughter as a co-owner.
¶ 9. This appeal asks us to consider whether daughter was a joint owner with a right of survivorship of the vehicle at the time of decedent's death, either because decedent validly transferred an interest in the vehicle to daughter under Vermont's vehicle transfer statute or as an inter vivos gift. We agree with the civil division that decedent's 2006 Registration Application did not comply with the statutory requirements under 23 V.S.A. § 2023 to transfer an interest in the vehicle. We conclude that the record contains insufficient evidence to support a finding that decedent made a valid gift in 2006.2 We address each issue in turn.
¶ 10. We first address whether decedent's 2006 Registration Application effectively transferred an interest in the vehicle to daughter under Vermont's vehicle transfer statute. This question concerns the proper interpretation of 23 V.S.A. § 2023(a). We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Benson v. MVP Health Plan, Inc., 2009 VT 57, ¶ 4, 186 Vt. 97, 978 A.2d 33. When construing a statute, "[o]ur primary objective is to effectuate the intent of the Legislature." Id. We look first to the plain language of the statute and "presume the Legislature intended the plain, ordinary meaning" of the words used. Id. (quotation omitted).
¶ 11. Section 2023(a) of Title 23 provides: "If an owner transfers his or her interest in a vehicle ... he or she shall, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, execute an assignment and warranty of title to the transferee in the space provided therefor on the certificate or as the Commissioner prescribes ...." Daughter argues that the plain language of this provision permits the DMV Commissioner to prescribe alternate methods by which vehicle owners can transfer ownership. She asserts that the Commissioner has designated Form VD-119 as one such alternative. She points to language on the DMV website explaining that Form VD-119 can be used for "new transactions, transfers, renewals, title-only transactions, adding or deleting an owner, lease buyouts, and IRP transactions." See Forms & Manuals, Vt. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, https://dmv.vermont.gov/forms-information [https://perma.cc/USZ6-R2FJ]. She argues that § 2023(a) cannot be used to transfer ownership here because the vehicle is more than fifteen years old and the DMV will not issue a new title. See 23 V.S.A. § 2012(10) ().
¶ 12. As an initial matter, we disagree with daughter's argument that 23 V.S.A. § 2023 cannot be used to transfer ownership when a vehicle is more than fifteen years old and thus exempt from receiving a new title under 23 V.S.A. § 2012. Transfer under § 2023 does not hinge on the issuance of a new title; instead, it requires assignment of the current title. The exemptions listed in § 2012 did not prevent decedent from assigning his interest on his current title.3
¶ 13. As to daughter's argument regarding Form VD-119, we agree that the plain language of 23 V.S.A. § 2023(a) empowers the Commissioner to designate alternative methods for transfer of vehicle ownership. However, for the following reasons, we conclude that decedent's 2006 Registration Application did not effectively transfer an interest in the vehicle to daughter.
¶ 14. First, we note that the DMV has not adopted any regulation under a formal rulemaking process providing an alternative method to transfer ownership. See Code of Vt. Rules 14 050, http://lexisnexis.com/hottopics/codeofvtrules (listing rules promulgated by the DMV). However, 23 V.S.A. § 2003(a) gives the Commissioner authority to "prescribe and provide suitable forms of applications, certificates of title, notices of security interests, and all other notices and forms necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter." Accordingly, we look to Form VD-119 to consider whether the Commissioner prescribed it as an alternative to the space provided for assignment on a vehicle title certificate to transfer ownership.
¶ 15. Form VD-119 differs from the space provided for assignment on the title certificate in one critical aspect: it lacks any language of intent to transfer. The form asks for the name,...
To continue reading
Request your trial