Virginia Lawyers Weekly

An SUV buyer who changed his mind could not use a popular consumer protection statute to force the dealer to take back the truck.

The buyer had paid cash for the 2003 Dodge Durango he bought from Luxury Auto Sales of Dumfries, according to the new decision by Prince William County Circuit Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr.

Although the buyer arranged to pick up the title at the dealership after his check cleared, he did not follow through before he had to go out of town. His temporary tags expired and the Durango was impounded, according to the Sept. 17 opinion in Rolander v. Luxury Auto Sales of Dumfries. (VLW 008-8-215).

It’s not unusual for a dealer to hold tight to a title until it can be handed over to a buyer, according to Alexandria lawyer A. Hugo Blankingship III, who represented the dealer.

Dealers “rarely take titles in their own name,” Blankingship said. They usually transfer title by a reassignment of title on which there may be three or four dealers. A lost title is a “disaster” for the dealer, who would have to go back to the original owner, possibly in another state, and then trace the title again through the chain of ownership.

“You can’t take a chance to send it” through the mail, Blankingship said, because the “consequences are catastrophic” if it goes astray.

So Luxury was doing the prudent thing to hold out for personal delivery, according to Blankingship, who said the dealer even offered to drive the title over to the buyer’s house.

After the vehicle was impounded, the buyer returned to the dealership and requested an extension of the temporary registration, which the dealer was prohibited from doing under Virginia Code § 46.2-1542(C). The dealer refused to provide a second temporary registration, and later sent the title to the buyer via Federal Express.

The buyer returned the title to the dealer by certified mail, along with a letter stating he was returning the vehicle to the dealer, who could pick it up at the impoundment lot. Code § 46.2-1542(B), cited by the buyer, allows rescission of a vehicle sale under certain circumstances when the dealer has not provided the title within 30 days.

With “no case in Virginia on all fours,” Alston held that the seller had divested itself of all interest in the vehicle when it transferred title to the buyer.

Luxury had possession of the title, and would have been able to produce it for the buyer prior to expiration of the temporary certificate of title, had the buyer arranged for the transfer, the judge said.

When “the certificate of title was finally assigned, there was no question among the parties as to the ownership of the automobile,” Alston wrote. The buyer, who kept the vehicle in his possession, “only attempted to rescind the sale after Luxury refused to provide a second temporary certificate of registration, which would have facilitated the recovery of the vehicle from the impoundment, according to the court.

The dealer did not violate Code § 46.2-1542(B), and the court denied the buyer’s request to rescind the sale.

The buyer, Brett P. Rolander, appeared pro se in the case.

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Tumblr Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »