LOCKED - Since I can not read, perhaps you can help me

[Patriotdiscussions]

(12) All titles, manufacturers’ statements of origin, applications, and supporting documents submitted with the application, including, but not limited to, odometer statements, vehicle identification number verifications, bills of sale, indicia of ownership, dealer reassignments, photographs, and any personal identification, affidavits, or documents required by or submitted to the department, shall be retained by the department for not less than 10 years.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 19.23.html

This is a statute dealing with applying for a title certificate for a car.

But, and maybe I am reading it wrong, but it looks like state keeps all titles,etc for 10 years at least.

From that parts definitions page




(1) “Certificate of title” means the record that is evidence of ownership of a vehicle, whether a paper certificate authorized by the department or a certificate consisting of information that is stored in an electronic form in the department’s database.


My question is first off, am I reading it wrong or does the state hold the title to every car that applies for a title cert? And without a security interest in the title, how is this possible.

[Famspear]

(12) All titles, manufacturers’ statements of origin, applications, and supporting documents submitted with the application, including, but not limited to, odometer statements, vehicle identification number verifications, bills of sale, indicia of ownership, dealer reassignments, photographs, and any personal identification, affidavits, or documents required by or submitted to the department, shall be retained by the department for not less than 10 years.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 19.23.html

This is a statute dealing with applying for a title certificate for a car.

But, and maybe I am reading it wrong, but it looks like state keeps all titles,etc for 10 years at least.

From that parts definitions page




(1) “Certificate of title” means the record that is evidence of ownership of a vehicle, whether a paper certificate authorized by the department or a certificate consisting of information that is stored in an electronic form in the department’s database.


My question is first off, am I reading it wrong or does the state hold the title to every car that applies for a title cert? And without a security interest in the title, how is this possible.

You're reading it wrong. Read the first subsection of the material you linked. This is a reference to documents that a new owner submits to the state in order to obtain a new certificate of title. One of the physical pieces of paper that may be submitted is the OLD title certificate. In the paragraph you quoted, the Legislature was a little sloppy in that the reference is to "title" instead of to "certificate of title."

You're mistakenly implying that the Legislature means that the State retains "title" in the sense of ownership. That's a legal impossibility -- since the State does not own the vehicle, and cannot "retain" what the State does not already have.

Statutes are full of imprecise expressions like this. And lawyers and judges use terms like "title" and "contract" in various ways all the time. Here, the statute is using the term "certificate of title" and "title" to mean the same thing: the actual physical document, rather than the "ownership."

Similarly, lawyers sometimes use the term "contract" to refer to the actual document, and other times use the term "contract" to refer to the binding promise, the binding agreement.

[Patriotdiscussions]

(12) All titles, manufacturers’ statements of origin, applications, and supporting documents submitted with the application, including, but not limited to, odometer statements, vehicle identification number verifications, bills of sale, indicia of ownership, dealer reassignments, photographs, and any personal identification, affidavits, or documents required by or submitted to the department, shall be retained by the department for not less than 10 years.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 19.23.html

This is a statute dealing with applying for a title certificate for a car.

But, and maybe I am reading it wrong, but it looks like state keeps all titles,etc for 10 years at least.

From that parts definitions page




(1) “Certificate of title” means the record that is evidence of ownership of a vehicle, whether a paper certificate authorized by the department or a certificate consisting of information that is stored in an electronic form in the department’s database.


My question is first off, am I reading it wrong or does the state hold the title to every car that applies for a title cert? And without a security interest in the title, how is this possible.

You're reading it wrong. Read the first subsection of the material you linked. This is a reference to documents that a new owner submits to the state in order to obtain a new certificate of title. One of the physical pieces of paper that may be submitted is the OLD title certificate. In the paragraph you quoted, the Legislature was a little sloppy in that the reference is to "title" instead of to "certificate of title."

ah so they meant title cert, which is different then the title, ok. So they keep the certificate of title for at least ten years then.

You're mistakenly implying that the Legislature means that the State retains "title" in the sense of ownership. That's a legal impossibility -- since the State does not own the vehicle, and cannot "retain" what the State does not already have.

well let's be honest, we know there are more then one kind of title. So there is a possibility if the state has a security interest, then it could hold the legal title and you could have equitable title.

Statutes are full of imprecise expressions like this. And lawyers and judges use terms like "title" and "contract" in various ways all the time. Here, the statute is using the term "certificate of title" and "title" to mean the same thing: the actual physical document, rather than the "ownership."

that's kind of crazy that it would be that way with the void for vagueness doctrine the courts have taken up dont you think?

Similarly, lawyers sometimes use the term "contract" to refer to the acztual document, and other times use the term "contract" to refer to the binding promise, the binding agreement.

Fair enough, so just a slip up of terms, they only keep the certificate of title,etc for ten years, not the title itself.

[Pottapaug1938]

The OLD certificate of title....

[notorial dissent]

I am still trying to figure out why you're salivating about a common records retention law. The law does not say what you are trying to make it say. When you file for a new title, or even for just a title, the bureau that handles that processes the information, which results in it going in to their record data base, the prior record of title is canceled out or if it is for a new vehicle the new record is entered. Now some places used to keep a file/record copy of the title that was generated at the same time as the new title, one is the actual title, the other is a record copy. Now in good records management you always keep originals, old titles, back up paperwork, whatever for a period of time, FL has determined that 10 years is that time period. That is what you are seeing here nothing more nothing less. No, they are keeping back up documentation and records.

[Famspear]

ah so they meant title cert, which is different then the title, ok. So they keep the certificate of title for at least ten years then.

They keep the OLD certificate of title, along with the other materials that the new owner supplied with the application.

well let's be honest, we know there are more then one kind of title. So there is a possibility if the state has a security interest, then it could hold the legal title and you could have equitable title.

The distinction between legal title and equitable title is bound up mainly in the law of trusts; it has little if anything to do with the procedures you're describing.

that's kind of crazy that it would be that way with the void for vagueness doctrine the courts have taken up dont you think?

You're reading garbage you've found on the internet. The void for vagueness doctrine does not apply here.

One question you should ask yourself is: Why do you struggle -- or pretend to struggle -- over such simple concepts? Why would you think that a minor imprecision in the use of a term in a statute dealing with title certificates could implicate the void for vagueness doctrine? Why do you people (and again, I use the phrase "you people") have this "thing" about title certificates for vehicles?

[Patriotdiscussions]

ah so they meant title cert, which is different then the title, ok. So they keep the certificate of title for at least ten years then.

They keep the OLD certificate of title, along with the other materials that the new owner supplied with the application.

and they keep what if it is a new car with no cert of title?

well let's be honest, we know there are more then one kind of title. So there is a possibility if the state has a security interest, then it could hold the legal title and you could have equitable title.

The distinction between legal title and equitable title is bound up mainly in the law of trusts; it has little if anything to do with the procedures you're describing.

that's strange, they think it is common enough to put it in the definition of new car....

(9) “New motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; however, when legal title is not transferred but possession of a motor vehicle is transferred pursuant to a conditional sales contract or lease and the conditions are not satisfied and the vehicle is returned to the motor vehicle dealer, the motor vehicle may be resold by the motor vehicle dealer as a new motor vehicle, provided the selling motor vehicle dealer gives the following written notice to the purchaser: “THIS VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED TO A PREVIOUS PURCHASER.” The purchaser shall sign an acknowledgment, a copy of which is kept in the selling dealer’s file.

Another slip up perhaps?

that's kind of crazy that it would be that way with the void for vagueness doctrine the courts have taken up dont you think?

You're reading garbage you've found on the internet. The void for vagueness doctrine does not apply here.

so when does it apply? And does it only apply to certain kinds of laws?


One question you should ask yourself is: Why do you struggle -- or pretend to struggle -- over such simple concepts? Why would you think that a minor imprecision in the use of a term in a statute dealing with title certificates could implicate the void for vagueness doctrine? Why do you people (and again, I use the phrase "you people") have this "thing" about title certificates for vehicles?

Call me crazy but when I pay for something I expect to own and hold the title to it.

Ok we know from the definition of certificate of title that the cert is just a record that a title exists. So where is and who has the title?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Found this for void for vagueness, do you agree with it? And how does this jive with your imprecise words all the time in statutes?



In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Found this for void for vagueness, do you agree with it? And how does this jive with your imprecise words all the time in statutes?



In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

From what I have been reading, in law books not the Internet is that the law is very percise and what is not included is excluded.

4. The expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of other similar things:
Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210,253 (1970)
https://www.michbar.org/publicpolicy/pd ... Interp.pdf



Also this

1. Statutory language is ambiguous when it is equally susceptible to more than one meaning, not when reasonable minds can disagree regarding its meaning.
Toll Northville LTD v Twp. of Northville, 480 Mich 6, 15 (2008)



According to the Michigan bar it seems the law does still use the rules of statutory interpretation.


So if the statute reads title instead of certificate of title then......


4. Clear and unambiguous language should be enforced as written.
In re McLeod USA Telecommunications Services, Inc. 277 Mich App 602, 609 (2008)
5. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the courts must apply it as written even if it leads to absurd results.
Kimmelman v Heather Downs Management Ltd., 278 Mich App 569 (2008)
6. "Absurd" means utterly and obviously senseless, illogical or untrue; contrary to all reason and common sense. It does not mean that reasonable people would think that the Legislature acted improvidently.
McGhee v Helsel, 262 Mich App 221, 226 (2004)

[erwalkerca]

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

You might want to consider the idea that you aren't an average citizen.

That wasn't intended as a compliment.

[Patriotdiscussions]

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

You might want to consider the idea that you aren't an average citizen.

That wasn't intended as a compliment.

No need to consider that at all, iq tests from the last 20 years proves it.

[Patriotdiscussions]

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.

You might want to consider the idea that you aren't an average citizen.

That wasn't intended as a compliment.

Btw did you have something intelligent to add or did you just want to get that middle school jab in?

[chronistra]

and they keep what if it is a new car with no cert of title?

The manufacturer's statement of origin, the application, and any other supporting documents submitted with the application, including but not limited to odometer statements, vehicle identification number verifications, bills of sale, indicia of ownership, dealer reassignments, photographs, and any personal identification, affidavits, or documents required by or submitted to the department.

The law says they keep whatever gets submitted. On a used vehicle, there will almost never be a manufacturer's statement of origin, because that's what you get on a NEW vehicle. On a new vehicle, there will not be an old certificate of title. On any vehicle, there may or may not be an odometer statement; a dealer reassignment is documented only on certain specific kinds of transactions; photographs are not typically submitted unless there is a question or an unusual circumstance (such as on kit cars). However, the department is required to keep all of these when they are required by or submitted to the department.

so when does it apply? And does it only apply to certain kinds of laws?

The 'void for vagueness' doctrine can be applied to pretty much any law, when it is couched "in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)) That would not apply here, because those of us of ordinary intelligence have no difficulty understanding what this law requires the department to keep.

[arayder]

PD, it would appear the the standard you are applying is that the statute is vague as long as you can muster some sort of follow up question.

The Florida statute has been explained to you. I have to ask how you can infer that the statue meets the legal standard for vagueness and unclarity when, it fact it has been explained to you?

[Pottapaug1938]

He also parrots the long-discredited foolishness about "the expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of other similar things".

He brings to mind the following famous quote from Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Unless he can start coming up with worthwhile topics, and arguing with more than word salad and misinterpreted or out-of-context quotes, it's time for moderation....

[Famspear]

Earlier, I wrote:

The distinction between legal title and equitable title is bound up mainly in the law of trusts; it has little if anything to do with the procedures you're describing.

To which PD responded:

...that's strange, they think it is common enough to put it in the definition of new car....

No, Einstein, "they" did not "put it in the definition of new car." The distinction between legal title and equitable title isn't even mentioned in the material you quoted. The terms "legal title" and "equitable title" don't even appear in the material. What does appear are the terms "title" and "certificate of title."

You seem to imply that this simple, easy-to-understand statute is somehow beyond your ability to understand -- and impliedly that you are a normal person, and that therefore the statute is vague and indeed "void for vagueness".

You appear to be claiming (1) that a statute that uses the term "title" as short hand for "certificate of title" is therefore somehow so confusing to you that reading it leaves you befuddled, and (2) that you feel the statute is "vague" enough that the statute should be treated as legally void.

That says something about your personality and your abilities.

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning? How do you manage to use modern electronic devices?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're so dumb that you can't understand this stuff, or you're just pretending to be this dumb.

So, the rest of us here reserve the right to deal with you under either scenario: Either you are too stupid to understand what any normal ninth grader should be able to grasp, or you are a troll.

[Pottapaug1938]

PD is a regular on SuiJuris, come here evidently believing that he can beard the Quatloosian lion in its den.

[Dr. Caligari]

The 'void for vagueness' doctrine can be applied to pretty much any law, when it is couched "in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926))

I beg to differ. In current law, the "void for vagueness" doctrine applies almost exclusively to criminal statutes. See, for example, the discussion in this case:http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis ... 5/1881905/

[Patriotdiscussions]

and they keep what if it is a new car with no cert of title?

The manufacturer's statement of origin, the application, and any other supporting documents submitted with the application, including but not limited to odometer statements, vehicle identification number verifications, bills of sale, indicia of ownership, dealer reassignments, photographs, and any personal identification, affidavits, or documents required by or submitted to the department.

The law says they keep whatever gets submitted. On a used vehicle, there will almost never be a manufacturer's statement of origin, because that's what you get on a NEW vehicle. On a new vehicle, there will not be an old certificate of title. On any vehicle, there may or may not be an odometer statement; a dealer reassignment is documented only on certain specific kinds of transactions; photographs are not typically submitted unless there is a question or an unusual circumstance (such as on kit cars). However, the department is required to keep all of these when they are required by or submitted to the department.

so when does it apply? And does it only apply to certain kinds of laws?

The 'void for vagueness' doctrine can be applied to pretty much any law, when it is couched "in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)) That would not apply here, because those of us of ordinary intelligence have no difficulty understanding what this law requires the department to keep.

So for a new car they must submit the statement of origin correct? Is that the original title then?

How come everyone is scared to answer the question of where the title is?

If the state is not holding it, and all we have is a certificate of title, then where is the title?

[Patriotdiscussions]

He also parrots the long-discredited foolishness about "the expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of other similar things".

He brings to mind the following famous quote from Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Unless he can start coming up with worthwhile topics, and arguing with more than word salad and misinterpreted or out-of-context quotes, it's time for moderation....

If you bothered to look at the link you would of seen it was the Michigan bar parroting that nonsense.

Of course we realize your understanding of law is much greater then the Michigan bar's.