Wheelers win. The Supreme Court held as follows:
"¶10...The statutes in that
title dictate the procedures for obtaining certificates of title, but they do not
regulate how ownership may be obtained or transferred. See, e.g., §
61-3-220, MCA. Indeed, as used in Title 61, MCA, "owner" is defined
as "a person who holds the legal title to a vehicle. . . . [T]he owner is
the person in whom is vested the right of possession or control." Section
61-1-101(52), MCA. This definition makes no reference to the certificate of
title, which is merely the "verifiable record of ownership."
Section 61-1-101(7), MCA (emphasis added). Title 61, MCA, and the certificate
of title have no bearing on this appeal.
¶11 Instead, Montana's Uniform Commercial Code (MUCC), Title 30, chapter 2, MCA, provides the rules for determining ownership. The MUCC applies to transactions in goods. Section 30-2-102, MCA. Goods include "all things . . . which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale." Section 30-2-105(1), MCA. As a boat and a trailer are movable, the sale of a boat and a trailer is a transaction in goods. Cf. Safeco Ins. Co., 215 Mont. at 200, 695 P.2d at 1313 (holding that an automobile was movable and therefore a good for the purposes of the MUCC). Thus, the MUCC controls our decision in this case.
Page 5
¶12 According to the MUCC, the "rights of unsecured creditors of the seller with respect to goods which have been identified to a contract for sale are subject to the buyer's rights to recover the goods under this chapter (30-2-502 and 30-2-716)." Section 30-2-402(1), MCA. Here, Webber is an unsecured creditor, the Chabots are sellers, and the Wheelers are buyers. Thus, Webber's rights to the boat and trailer were subject to the Wheelers' rights if the goods were identified to the contract of sale between the Chabots and Wheelers.
¶13 If there is no agreement to the contrary, identification occurs "when the contract is made if it is for the sale of goods already existing and identified." Section 30-2-501(1)(a), MCA. Here, the Wheelers and Chabots did not explicitly agree how and when identification to the contract would occur, and the boat and trailer existed and were identified at the time the contract for sale was made. Thus, in this case identification occurred at the time the contract was made.
¶14 As identification happened before Webber seized the boat and trailer, the Wheelers' rights to the boat and trailer are superior to Webber's. Section 30-2-402(1), MCA. The Wheelers, therefore, have the right to recover the boat and trailer. Sections 30-2-402(1) and -716, MCA."
¶11 Instead, Montana's Uniform Commercial Code (MUCC), Title 30, chapter 2, MCA, provides the rules for determining ownership. The MUCC applies to transactions in goods. Section 30-2-102, MCA. Goods include "all things . . . which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale." Section 30-2-105(1), MCA. As a boat and a trailer are movable, the sale of a boat and a trailer is a transaction in goods. Cf. Safeco Ins. Co., 215 Mont. at 200, 695 P.2d at 1313 (holding that an automobile was movable and therefore a good for the purposes of the MUCC). Thus, the MUCC controls our decision in this case.
Page 5
¶12 According to the MUCC, the "rights of unsecured creditors of the seller with respect to goods which have been identified to a contract for sale are subject to the buyer's rights to recover the goods under this chapter (30-2-502 and 30-2-716)." Section 30-2-402(1), MCA. Here, Webber is an unsecured creditor, the Chabots are sellers, and the Wheelers are buyers. Thus, Webber's rights to the boat and trailer were subject to the Wheelers' rights if the goods were identified to the contract of sale between the Chabots and Wheelers.
¶13 If there is no agreement to the contrary, identification occurs "when the contract is made if it is for the sale of goods already existing and identified." Section 30-2-501(1)(a), MCA. Here, the Wheelers and Chabots did not explicitly agree how and when identification to the contract would occur, and the boat and trailer existed and were identified at the time the contract for sale was made. Thus, in this case identification occurred at the time the contract was made.
¶14 As identification happened before Webber seized the boat and trailer, the Wheelers' rights to the boat and trailer are superior to Webber's. Section 30-2-402(1), MCA. The Wheelers, therefore, have the right to recover the boat and trailer. Sections 30-2-402(1) and -716, MCA."
Not a family law case, but interesting -- and it could come up in a family law case sometime.
Wheeler v. Webber 2015 MT 61N
No comments:
Post a Comment