6.2.2 Ownership

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

"Ownership" in a motor vehicle usually refers to someone having a propietary interest in the vehicle beyond that of mere bailee, and in some situations, ownership may refer to the holder of legal title.^[32]

A person may still be the owner of a motor vehicle even though he or she did not obtain a certificate of title when the vehicle was purchased under a valid agreement of sale.^[33] A certificate of title need not be assigned and transferred to effect a valid sale of a motor vehicle.^[34] The Arizona courts have consistently held that "ownership" of a motor vehicle does not depend upon prior compliance with the transfer of title requirements set forth in the title regulation statutes.^[35]

Illustrative of this concept is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analysis in Wallace v. Employers Casualty Company.^[36]

In Wallace, Olson Motors sold a new car to Jack Dent and took in trade a 1957 Chevrolet. The validity of this sales transaction was not questioned. Olson Motors sold the 1957 Chevrolet to Douglas Ezell, manager of Potts Motor Company. Olson Motors received full payment for the vehicle. Four days later, an employee of Potts Motor Company picked up the Chevrolet to drive it to the Potts Motor car lot. While driving the vehicle to Potts Motors, the driver of the 1957 Chevrolet negligently caused an accident. The injured victims, the Wallaces, obtained a judgment against Potts Motors, and brought suit against Employers Casualty, the insurance company for Olson Motors, to recover the unpaid balance of the judgment. The Wallaces argued that Olson Motors remained the owner of the 1957 Chevrolet because the title to the vehicle had not been signed over to Potts Motors. The court rejected this argument in a thoughtful analysis of Arizona law:

Ownership as well as physical possession is an applicable legal criterion under Arizona law. In Yahnke v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 1966, 4 Ariz. App. 287, 419 P.2d 548, the Arizona Court of Appeals passed upon the interpretation which should be given to the term "newly acquired automobile", under the standard policy, where the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and the car he was driving was one which had been owned by his father but had broken down and had been at a garage where plaintiff worked for some six months while he repaired it. There had been no intention, however, on the part of the father to transfer title until in June 1962, a few days before the accident, when the father decided he would give the Jeep to the son and signed over the certificate of title. The court said:

"The policy provision clearly contemplates a situation where physical delivery is the final act in the transfer or ownership. Where such is not...