Skip to main content

Search

Automobile Fraud: 3.3.5.7 Further Requirements for a Valid Power of Attorney

In the rare situation in which a dealer has properly obtained a power of attorney to act as both transferor and transferee, the dealer has further obligations. The dealer reviews the physical or electronic title and any reassignment documents and, only if no discrepancies are found, acknowledges disclosure on the physical or electronic title.

Automobile Fraud: 3.3.6 Fallacious Argument That Buyer Cannot Legally Review All Information on the Title

Certain dealers allege that the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prohibits car buyers from reviewing all the information on the title, because this statute prohibits release of the names and addresses of prior owners. This argument is certainly fallacious, and one can expect it to be used only to hide information on the title that would otherwise uncover a fraudulent transaction.

Automobile Fraud: 3.4.2 Information on the Title

Physical titles generally include the name of the jurisdiction and the phrase “certificate of title” at the top center of the form. Below that is printed the vehicle identification number,72 the year and the make, model and body type.

Automobile Fraud: 3.7.2 The Development of Electronic Titling

There have been efforts to convert some or all aspects of the automobile lien and titling system to electronic formats for many years. The reasons behind this push are varied. Automobile creditors see electronic liens as less expensive and time consuming and easier to maintain from a recordkeeping perspective. Some states and other title issuing jurisdictions also see electronic titling as a time and money saver.

Automobile Fraud: 3.7.3 Federal Standards for Electronic Titling

In 2019, NHTSA issued a rule establishing federal standards for electronic titling and electronic title disclosures.124 The rule may encourage some states that have not implemented electronic titling to do so, and also may encourage states with hybrid systems to implement an entirely electronic system.125

Automobile Fraud: 3.8.1 The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA),132 effective September 13, 1997, established privacy rights concerning title and other motor vehicle information held by state agencies. This statute complicates the ability to trace the identity of former car owners through a title search. The Act prohibits state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) from releasing this information in certain situations, permits the information’s release in others, and even requires DMVs to supply this information in yet other circumstances.

Automobile Fraud: 3.8.3 DPPA Requires DMV to Release Data When Safety Is at Stake

In general, the DPPA allows a DMV to release names of car owners in certain situations, but does not require DMVs to do so. One significant exception is that the DPPA requires DMVs to provide prior owner information “for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft.”155 The United States Supreme Court has made this very point: “For example, the DPPA requires disclosure of personal information. . . .”156

Automobile Fraud: 3.8.4 Data from Sources Other Than DMV

In many instances information about drivers and vehicles may be obtained, individually or in bulk, not from the DMV but from other sources, who derive the information from accident reports, traffic tickets, or other records that may be viewed as not being “motor vehicle records.” While the DPPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the obtaining, disclosing, or use of personal information from motor vehicle records, it does not prohibit release of the same personal information from other sources.158 Some courts have found that the sale or relea

Automobile Fraud: 3.8.5 Constitutional Challenges

The DPPA has been challenged on a number of constitutional grounds, most notably based on the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has resolved the Tenth Amendment issue, finding the Act within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and that Congress did not run afoul of federalism principles in passing the statute.160

Automobile Fraud: 3.8.6 State Restrictions on Release of Identity of Former Owners

The DPPA is patterned after a California statute.163 As with the federal statute, the California statute creates certain exceptions when title information is allowed to be released.164 One is when an attorney states under penalty of perjury that the information is necessary to represent a client in a civil action involving use of the motor vehicle, and that action is pending, filed, or being investigated.165 Other states have also enacted laws regu

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.1 Scope of This Section

This section focuses on consumer remedies when the dealer transfers good title to the consumer, but the transfer was made in a manner to further a fraudulent sale. A separate issue is what remedies are available to a consumer when the dealer fails to deliver good title to a vehicle, and the consumer never obtains rightful ownership. Such remedies are explored elsewhere in this treatise168 and in another NCLC treatise.169

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.2.1 Utility of a MVICSA Claim

Much of this chapter has discussed requirements under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (also known as the federal odometer act) and its implementing regulations.170 Violations of federal titling requirements analyzed in this chapter should lead to a private federal cause of action under the Act for treble damages, $10,000 minimum damages,171 and attorney fees.

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.2.2 Must “Intent to Defraud” Relate to Odometer Violation?

The Seventh and Ninth Circuits as well as some other courts have found that MVICSA violations and the intent to defraud must directly relate to odometer fraud.175 A more thoughtful approach taken by other courts interpreting the current version of MVICSA finds MVICSA violations actionable even when the violation and the intent to defraud do not directly relate to odometer fraud.176 As the Eleventh Circuit has stated:

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.2.3 Older Case Law No Longer Applicable

Some older cases dismiss MVICSA claims unless they pertain to odometer tampering or erroneous mileage disclosures.181 But these cases were decided before extensive changes were made to MVICSA that added the requirement that the disclosures be made on the certificate of title.182 It is now an essential part of the federal approach to stopping odometer fraud that disclosures be made on the title, and attempts to evade this requirement interfere with that enforcement plan.

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.2.5 When Court Finds Intent Must Relate to Mileage Requirements

Because of the split in courts on the issue of whether intent to defraud must relate the vehicle’s mileage, rather than using a broader standard of intent to defraud, it is prudent to also add UDAP or common law fraud claims to the MVICSA claim. As will be described below a MVICSA violation, even without intent to defraud, may be a UDAP violation, and a scheme involving an intent to defraud should meet the elements of common law fraud.190

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.3 Remedies Under the State Motor Vehicle Title Statute

State motor vehicle title statutes frequently do not provide a private right of action for damages,192 but they often provide that a transfer not complying with the title requirements is void.193 In addition, state law frequently voids a sale when a dealer provides the consumer with temporary tags, but does not produce the certificate of title within a set number of days.194 Another remedy that may be available is revocation of the dealer’s license

Automobile Fraud: 3.9.6 Securities Fraud

Placing false information on a title is securities fraud. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that titles are securities and that false information placed in a title violates federal criminal statutes that regulate falsely made or forged securities.203 Consequently title fraud may involve securities fraud under federal or state law, which may provide a private right of action.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 6.3.3.1 Introduction

When evaluating the legality of an extra charge, advocates should keep certain principles in mind. First, the failure to pay a legally imposed extra charge may not justify an eviction for nonpayment of rent, but could constitute grounds for an eviction as a violation of a material term of the lease. Second, any mandatory charge for a housing service or use of the housing unit must be included in rent and cannot be charged as an additional amount above any statutory rent maximum. Third, the charges must be rational and reasonably related to the tenancy.