Union Bank of Tucson, Arizona v. Griffin, 62178
| Decision Date | 28 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 62178,62178 |
| Parties | UNION BANK OF TUCSON, ARIZONA, Appellant, v. Cynthia GRIFFIN, d/b/a Bethany Tag Agency, Appellee. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; James L. Coffman, judge.
Trial judge granted summary judgment for defendant in plaintiff's action for negligence for failure to note plaintiff's lien on a newly-issued Oklahoma certificate of title. The surrendered Arizona certificate of title had plaintiff's lien duly noted on its face. Inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court from the uncontroverted facts being possible, summary judgment is vacated. Plaintiff argues that defendant improperly issued Oklahoma certificate of title.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
Ross A. Plourde, Reynolds, Ridings & Hargis, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Thomas G. Ferguson, Jr., Lisa S. Tipping, Kimball, Wilson & Walker, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant tag agent in an action brought by a foreign secured party alleging negligence of the tag agent in failing to note the plaintiff's lien on the Oklahoma vehicle certificate of title issued by defendant.
On September 21, 1979, Al and Esther V. Barkley gave plaintiff, Union Bank of Tucson, Arizona, a security interest in a 1979 Ford pickup for which plaintiff had loaned the purchase money. The security agreement of the same date provided that the Barkleys would not remove the collateral from the state of Arizona, nor attempt to sell same, without the prior consent of the plaintiff. An Arizona certificate of title was issued to the Barkleys, with Union Bank's lien duly noted on the face thereof, as required by Arizona law.
At an unspecified time thereafter, the Barkleys brought the vehicle to Oklahoma. On December 30, 1980, the Barkleys presented the Arizona vehicle certificate of title, which had plaintiff's lien noted thereon, to defendant Cynthia Griffin d/b/a Bethany Tag Agency. Defendant issued the Barkleys an Oklahoma vehicle certificate of title, but did not note plaintiff's lien on the face of the new certificate. Subsequently the vehicle was sold to a bona fide purchaser, who is not a party to the lawsuit. There is no indication from the record how long the vehicle had been in Oklahoma before the Arizona certificate of title was surrendered.
Plaintiff sued the tag agent for damages on December 29, 1982, alleging negligence for failure to note plaintiff's lien on the Oklahoma certificate of title, asserting that due to defendant's failure to note its lien, plaintiff's security interest was subordinated to the rights of the bona fide purchaser for value without notice in Oklahoma, under 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(2)(d). Subsequently plaintiff added the Barkleys as party defendants and obtained a default judgment against them, which proved uncollectable. The defendant tag agent answered that she could not have been negligent because there was no duty on her part to note plaintiff's lien on the Oklahoma certificate of title because plaintiff did not submit a lien entry form as required by the then-effective perfection statute, 47 O.S.Supp.1980 § 23.2b.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial judge on March 23, 1984. The facts treated by the parties as undisputed are:
1. That plaintiff/appellant, Union Bank, is a state bank maintaining its principal office in Tucson, Arizona, and is chartered pursuant to the laws of Arizona.
2. That the tag agent, on or about December 30, 1980, received from the Barkleys an Arizona certificate of title for a 1979 Ford pickup and the Barkleys requested issuance of an Oklahoma certificate of title.
3. That the Arizona certificate of title had a notation thereon of a lien in favor of Union Bank.
4. That the Oklahoma certificate of title issued on or about December 30, 1980, did not reflect the lien in favor of Union Bank.
5. That no lien entry form was presented by any party at the time that the Oklahoma certificate of title was requested.
On appeal plaintiff argues that the tag agent was negligent in issuing a lien-free certificate of title to the Barkleys when it knew of the bank's outstanding claim. Defendant maintains that she cannot be negligent because there was no duty on her part to note the lien on the Oklahoma title certificate. She cites Title 47 O.S.Supp.1980 § 23.2b, which provided:
"... a security interest ... in a vehicle as to which a certificate of title may be properly issued by the Tax Commission shall be perfected only when a lien entry form, which shall be on a form prescribed by the Commission, and the existing certificate of title, if any, or application for a certificate of title and manufacturer's certificate of origin containing the name and address of the secured party and the date of the security agreement and the required fee are delivered to the Oklahoma Tax Commission or one of its motor license agents ..."
Defendant asserts that because the plaintiff did not submit a lien entry form there was no duty to note plaintiff's lien on the Oklahoma certificate of title.
The statutory requirements for issuance of an Oklahoma certificate of title were set out at 47 O.S.Supp.1980 § 23.2a:
"... No certificate of title, whether an original or a duplicate ... shall be issued or furnished by the Commission unless the applicant therefor shall, at the same time, make application for and be granted an official Oklahoma certificate of title of such vehicle or shall present satisfactory evidence that such a certificate of title or registration covering such vehicle has been previously issued to the applicant."
Subparagraph 1 of § 23.2a lists the information required to be furnished in the application, including: a full description of the vehicle which shall include the manufacturer's serial or other identification number, the manufacturer's factory delivered price, the motor number and the date on which first sold by the manufacturer or dealer to the owner, and any distinguishing marks, together with a statement of the applicant's source of title and any security interest upon said vehicle, and such other information as the Commission may require.
The certificate of title acts were originally conceived as anti-theft statutes, designed to make it more difficult for thieves or fraudulent owners to dispose of vehicles through legitimate commercial channels. 1 Presumably, Oklahoma's requirement that the application disclose any security interests upon the vehicle is to alert the motor vehicle license agent so that any such liens can be noted on the Oklahoma certificate or other action can be taken before issuing the Oklahoma certificate. Section 23.2a(1) says "any security interest", which would include perfected as well as unperfected interests. To require an applicant to list any security interests would be meaningless if not for the purpose of protecting prospective buyers or creditors. Section 23.2b contemplates proper issuance of an Oklahoma certificate of title before perfection in Oklahoma can be accomplished. Section 23.2b says that a security interest in a vehicle "as to which a certificate of title may be properly issued" shall only be perfected when the prescribed steps are followed. We agree with plaintiff that, with regard to defendant's actions, the question is whether the certificate was properly issued, rather than whether plaintiff's security interest was properly perfected in Oklahoma.
Our reading of 47 O.S.Supp.1980 § 23.2a is that an Oklahoma certificate of title may be properly issued only when a fully completed application, or proof that an Oklahoma certificate had previously been issued to the applicant, is submitted and reviewed and the tag agent deems that the applicant is entitled to same. The duty to review the application to determine that issuance of an Oklahoma certificate of title is proper is evident from a reading of 47 O.S.1981 § 23.4, which provides:
"If the Commission shall determine at any time that an applicant for a certificate of title of a vehicle is not entitled thereto, it may refuse to issue certificate or to register such vehicle."
The tag agents are the duly authorized representatives of the tax commission. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd
... ... Union Bank of Tucson v. Griffin, ... Page 522 ... ...
-
Trinity Baptist Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Servs., LLC
...the duty at once arises to exercise care commensurate with the situation in order to avoid such injury.” Id., citing Union Bank of Tucson v. Griffin, 1989 OK 47, ¶ 13, 771 P.2d 219, 222. ¶ 8 The most important consideration in establishing duty is foreseeability. Wofford, ¶ 11, 795 P.2d at ......
-
Brewer v. Murray
...to the other, the duty at once arises to exercise care commensurate with the situation in order to avoid such injury.” Union Bank of Tucson v. Griffin, 1989 OK 47, ¶ 13, 771 P.2d 219, 222 (citing Bradford Sec. Processing Servs., Inc. v. Plaza Bank & Trust, 1982 OK 96, 653 P.2d 188). ¶ 10 Th......
-
Bouziden v. Alfalfa Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...contractual obligation to preserve the lessor's rights and property, Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Haviland, supra. 6. Union Bank of Tucson v. Griffin, 1989 OK 47, 771 P.2d 219, 222. Wofford v. Eastern State Hospital, 1990 OK 77, 795 P.2d 516, 519; Delbrel v. Doenges Brothers Ford, Inc. 1996 OK 36,......