Charles Evans BMW, Inc. v. Williams
395 S.E.2d 650, 196 Ga. App. 230, 13 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 128 (1990)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a person who obtains goods through fraud punishable as larcenous obtains voidable title and thereby has the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value.
Facts:
- Appellee agreed to sell his car to an individual named Hodge and accepted a cashier's check as payment.
- Appellee signed the certificate of title as the seller and voluntarily delivered both the vehicle and the title to Hodge.
- Hodge, impersonating Appellee, approached Appellant (a dealership) the following day to sell the vehicle.
- Hodge presented the certificate of title containing Appellee's genuine signature to Appellant.
- Appellant agreed to purchase the car and issued a check payable to Appellee, which Hodge cashed using a falsified driver's license.
- Appellee subsequently discovered that the cashier's check received from Hodge was a forgery.
- Appellant sold the car to a third party but was forced to refund the money and retrieve the car after police intervention.
- Appellant returned the car to Appellee but retained the certificate of title.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant filed a trover action against Appellee in the trial court to recover the vehicle.
- Appellant moved for summary judgment in the trial court.
- Appellee filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court denied Appellant's motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a swindler who procures a vehicle from an owner through criminal fraud and impersonation acquire voidable title such that they can convey valid title to a subsequent good faith purchaser for value?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Carley
Yes, a swindler who induces a voluntary transfer of possession through fraud holds voidable title and can transfer valid title to a good faith purchaser. The court reasoned that under OCGA § 11-2-403(1), there is a critical legal distinction between a physical theft (which conveys void title) and fraud (which conveys voidable title). Because Appellee voluntarily delivered the car and title to Hodge within a 'transaction of purchase'—even though deceived by the identity and the forged check—Hodge acquired voidable title. Consequently, Hodge had the power to transfer good title. The court found that Appellant acted as a 'good faith purchaser for value' because they followed reasonable commercial standards, verified the title, and paid a non-nominal price. Therefore, Appellant acquired superior title to the vehicle over the original owner.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the 'least cost avoider' principle inherent in the UCC. By placing the loss on the original owner rather than the good faith purchaser, the law encourages sellers to be diligent in verifying payments and buyers. It clarifies that criminal fraud (trickery) is not the same as theft (physical taking) regarding title transfer. If an owner voluntarily hands over goods, even under false pretenses, they take the risk that the fraudster will sell to an innocent third party who the law will protect to ensure the security of commercial transactions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Charles Evans BMW, Inc. v. Williams (1990)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"