Lexplug logoLexplug

West v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
143 P.3d 1037 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-403 abrogates a state's stolen property statute in situations where an owner is fraudulently induced to voluntarily transfer goods in a transaction of purchase. In such cases, the defrauder obtains voidable title and can transfer good title to a subsequent good faith purchaser for value, preventing the original owner from recovering the property.


Facts:

  • Kenneth James West agreed to sell his 1975 Corvette to a man identifying himself as Robert Wilson.
  • In exchange for a cashier’s check, West signed over the Corvette's title and relinquished possession of the car to Wilson.
  • Ten days later, West discovered that the cashier's check from Wilson was a forgery.
  • West filed a stolen vehicle report, but police were unable to locate Wilson or the Corvette.
  • Approximately two and a half years later, West located the Corvette in the possession of Tammy Roberts.
  • Roberts, who held a valid certificate of title, had purchased the vehicle from her brother, who had acquired it through a newspaper ad.

Procedural Posture:

  • Kenneth West sued Tammy Roberts in county court to establish ownership of the Corvette under the Colorado stolen property statute.
  • The county court (trial court) found for Roberts, ruling that the Uniform Commercial Code governed the dispute.
  • West, as appellant, appealed to the district court, which acted as an intermediate appellate court; Roberts was the appellee.
  • The district court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Roberts.
  • The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the district court's decision.

Locked

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 the Uniform Commercial Code (§ 4-2-403), which permits a person with voidable title to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser, prevail over a state's stolen property statute (§ 18-4-405) when an original owner is fraudulently induced to voluntarily transfer possession of goods?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Bender

Yes, the Uniform Commercial Code prevails over the state's stolen property statute. When an owner voluntarily delivers goods under a 'transaction of purchase,' even if induced by fraud, the purchaser acquires voidable title. Under UCC § 2-403(1), a person with voidable title has the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value. The court reasoned that the UCC, being both more recent and more specific to these commercial scenarios than the general stolen property statute, controls. This outcome reflects a policy of placing the loss on the party best positioned to prevent it—the original seller—thereby protecting innocent purchasers and promoting the free flow of commerce by ensuring the finality of transactions.


Dissenting - Justice Eid

No, the stolen property statute should prevail over the UCC. The dissent argues that the stolen property statute is the more specific law, as it deals with the single, narrow issue of recovering stolen property, whereas the UCC is a comprehensive and general code governing all commercial transactions. Furthermore, the legislature revisited and amended the stolen property statute on two occasions after the UCC was adopted, indicating a legislative intent for it to remain effective. The dissent contends that the majority engages in policy-making by favoring the good faith purchaser, a decision that should be left to the legislature, and that the more specific statute should control the outcome.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the legal hierarchy between the modern Uniform Commercial Code and older state laws regarding stolen property. It carves out a critical exception to the common law rule that a thief cannot pass good title, distinguishing between theft by taking (void title) and theft by fraudulent inducement (voidable title). By prioritizing the UCC, the court reinforces the security and finality of commercial transactions, protecting good faith purchasers who are least able to detect remote fraud. This precedent places the burden of diligence squarely on the original seller, who is in the best position to verify a buyer's identity and payment method before voluntarily parting with property.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: West v. Roberts (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"