Reinke v. Alliance Towing
| Decision Date | 29 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 03-0324.,1 CA-CV 03-0324. |
| Citation | 88 P.3d 1154,207 Ariz. 542 |
| Parties | Dennis J. REINKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIANCE TOWING; Richard Polanko, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Dennis J. Reinke, Buckeye, In Propria Persona Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robbins & Green, P.A. By Bruce M. Phillips, Phoenix, Attorney for Defendants-Appellees.
¶ 1 In this dispute between a person claiming to own a Corvette and a towing company claiming the Corvette was abandoned, we hold that a person may possess legal title to an automobile even though he has neither applied for nor received a certificate of title issued in his name from the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Department of Transportation.
¶ 2 Dennis J. Reinke appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Alliance Towing and Richard Polanko.1 In reviewing a summary judgment, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Hill-Shafer P'ship v. Chilson Family Trust, 165 Ariz. 469, 472, 799 P.2d 810, 813 (1990)
. In opposing Alliance's motion for summary judgment, Reinke presented evidence supporting the following facts.
¶ 3 In November 1999, Reinke purchased a 1986 Chevrolet Corvette from Paula Parris. On the back of the title document, Reinke's name was inserted as buyer and Parris signed as seller, with notarization. Reinke had not yet applied for a certificate of title in his name from the Motor Vehicle Division ("MVD") when, on December 21, 1999, he was stopped by the police while driving the Corvette. The title document was in the glove box of the car.
¶ 4 Reinke was arrested and charged with aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Corvette was moved to a Circle K parking lot by a police officer and the keys were returned to Reinke, who was in police custody. Two days later, on December 23, an employee from Circle K called Alliance to have the car removed from the parking lot. Alliance towed the car from the Circle K and stored it at Alliance's storage yard.
¶ 5 On January 14, 2000, Reinke, who remained incarcerated, executed a document purporting to be a power of attorney giving Ronald Turner "control over all property including automobiles." After receiving the power of attorney and the car keys, Turner went to Alliance to take possession of the Corvette for Reinke. The owner of Alliance, Richard Polanko, told Turner that only the owner of the car could pick it up and that the power of attorney looked like a forgery. Alliance retained possession of the car.
¶ 6 On January 26, 2000, Alliance completed a "Report of Abandoned Vehicle" regarding the Corvette. Questions two and four in the report form asked:
Polanko checked the "No" box in response to both questions. Polanko's signature appears on this form directly below the statement: "I further certify that I will immediately advise the Motor Vehicle Division, Abandoned Vehicle Section if contacted by any person regarding ownership of the vehicle." This form was submitted to the MVD.
¶ 7 Reinke's attorney sent Alliance a letter dated February 21, 2000, asserting Reinke's ownership of the car, offering to pay accrued storage costs, and stating Reinke had executed a valid power of attorney giving Turner the authority to take possession of the car. The letter asked Alliance to cooperate with Turner.
¶ 8 On February 26, 2000, the car was inspected by an MVD inspector. Alliance then received an "Abandoned Vehicle Authorization for Transfer of Title" form from the MVD. This form was signed by Polanko and submitted to MVD along with an application for title to the Corvette in Alliance's name. The "Abandoned Vehicle Authorization for Transfer of Title" form contains this certification:
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that as of the date of application no contact has been made for the return of the vehicle by the owner, lienholder, or any other person having an interest in the vehicle. I further certify that the vehicle described on this form is currently in my possession.
The MVD issued title to the Corvette to Alliance on February 29, 2000. Alliance later sold the car.
¶ 9 Reinke filed an action against Alliance and Polanko, alleging that they provided false information to the Arizona Department of Transportation in order to gain possession of the car. Reinke requested $10,000 in damages for the value of the car plus other relief.
¶ 10 Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment that was initially denied but ultimately granted by the trial court. The thrust of Alliance's position, both at the trial court and on appeal, is that Reinke was not the "owner" of the Corvette because Reinke had not applied for and received from the MVD a certificate of title in his name. And because Reinke was not the "owner of record," Alliance claims that it acted in accordance with Arizona statutes in pursuing and obtaining title to the Corvette as an abandoned vehicle. The trial court, in granting summary judgment in favor of Alliance, stated that Reinke had not proven that "he was the owner of the vehicle for purposes of the issues in this case."
¶ 11 Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 305, 802 P.2d 1000, 1004 (1990). We independently review both the propriety of summary judgment and issues of statutory interpretation. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. v. Bentley, 187 Ariz. 229, 231, 928 P.2d 653, 655 (App.1996).
¶ 12 In reaching its conclusion that Reinke had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding his ownership of the Corvette, the trial court evidently agreed with Alliance that ownership for purposes of this dispute required issuance by the MVD of a certificate of title in Reinke's name. Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-101(36)(a) (1998) defines an "owner" of a vehicle as a "person who holds the legal title of a vehicle."2 Alliance argues that "legal title" means record title. The term "legal title" is not, however, specifically defined in our statutes.
¶ 13 Alliance contends that several statutes from Title 28, including §§ 28-2058, -2059, -4835, and -4841, collectively demonstrate that the legally-recognized owner of a vehicle is the owner of record with the MVD, rather than a transferee of the owner of record. Section 28-2058 (Supp.2003) describes the transfer of title of a vehicle:
A. When the owner of a registered or unregistered vehicle transfers or assigns the owner's title or interest to the vehicle:
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 14 These provisions support the position of Reinke rather than Alliance. Subsections 28-2058(A)(1)(a) and (b) provide that a transfer of "title" takes place when the seller "endorse[s]" the certificate of title and "deliver[s]" it to the purchaser along with "delivery" of the vehicle. Reinke submitted evidence that the seller, Parris, endorsed the certificate of title and delivered both the Corvette and the title document to him.
¶ 15 Although subsection 28-2058(A)(1)(d) imposes a statutory obligation on the purchaser to apply for registration or title within a specified period of time, there is no language in this statute stating that the transfer of title is ineffective if the purchaser fails to make a timely application. Alliance does not cite, nor have we found, any statute stating that if a purchaser fails to apply for registration or title, the purchaser has not acquired or no longer holds legal title.4
¶ 16 Alliance also claims support from § 28-2059 (Supp.2003) but this statute simply provides that a certificate of title will be issued by the MVD if "satisfactory proof of ownership is furnished." This language demonstrates that "ownership" exists independent of a certificate of title. Indeed, even a certificate of title is merely prima facie evidence of ownership. See In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette, 183 Ariz. 637, 639, 905 P.2d 1372, 1374 (1994); Wallace Imports, Inc. v. Howe, 138 Ariz. 217, 224, 673 P.2d 961, 968 (App.1983). Therefore, § 28-2059 does not support the proposition that issuance by the MVD of a certificate of title is required for ownership.
¶ 17 Alliance places considerable emphasis on §§ 28-4835 (1998) and -4841 (Supp.2003). The first of these provides a presumption of responsibility regarding an abandoned vehicle: "The abandonment of a vehicle in a manner provided in this chapter is a presumption that the last registered owner of record is responsible for the abandonment and is subject to this chapter," unless certain exceptions are applicable. A.R.S. § 28-4835 (emphasis added). The second requires the MVD to notify "the owner and lienholder, if any, or any other person identified on the department's record" that a vehicle has been reported as abandoned and title may be transferred if the owner, lienholder, or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hounshell v. White, 1 CA-CV 06-0730.
...and employees of other county officers, and we can only conclude that its choice in this regard was intentional. See Reinke v. Alliance Towing, 207 Ariz. 542, 545, ¶ 19, 88 P.3d 1154, 1157 (App. 2004) ("`Where the legislature has included a specific provision in one part of a statute and om......
-
Cabral v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...an individual has the right to possess and control the property at issue") (citations omitted); Reinke v. Alliance Towing , 207 Ariz. 542, 88 P.3d 1154, 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) (evaluating ownership by considering whether plaintiff was "entitled to dominion, control, and possession of th......
-
In re Tucker
...22. Id. at 1243, citing U.C.C. §§ 1-201(19) & 2-103(a)(2) [now 2-103(1)(b)]. 23. U.C.C. § 9-324(b). 24. Reinke v. Alliance Towing, 207 Ariz. 542, 545, 88 P.3d 1154, 1157 (Ct.App.2004); and see A.R.S. § 28-2058(A)(1)(d). The Court notes that in Texas, there is a specific statute that invalid......
-
Garcia v. Dealers Auto. Auction of the Sw.
...if he has not applied for a certificate of title from the MVD and is therefore not the 'owner of record.'" Reinke v. Alliance Towing, 207 Ariz. 542, 545-46, ¶¶ 16, 20 (App. 2004). See also Price v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 102 Ariz. 227, 229-32 (1967) (ownership of automobiles does no......