Please help settle a debate between myself and a friend concerning ownership of a car. There’s $20 bucks riding on this…
My friend contends that no one in the United States actually owns their car. The State owns it. Crazy, right? Well, his argument is based on a document that he says most people don’t know about called The Manufacturers Certificate of Origin (MCO). Each car that is manufactured has an MCO that is the true title for the car. Because most cars are purchased on a payment plan, the dealer sends the MCO to the state agency that controls the registration of vehicles. The MCO is microfilmed and then shredded to make it much more difficult for you to obtain the actual title. He claims that the ‘Certificate of Title’ you get when you purchase the car is NOT the actual Title of Ownership. That document is the MCO which the State keeps on record after destroying the original.
He even went further with his argument that since you only have the Certificate of Title, that’s the reason you have to register your car with the state every year and receive license plates.
He pointed me to this case study:
So, my question to the Doper’s is: is my friend correct, that you do not have allodial ownership of your vehicle unless you have the MCO? And if you did, are you still required to register it with the State?
I have the title to both my cars but one of them is not registered with the state because it doesn’t leave my property. The registration is part of the license process to operate it on public roads.
Seems to me that’s like saying if your state only provides copies of your birth certificate, rather than the original, then you aren’t alive. Ms. Rottero’s claim notwithstanding, I can’t imagine any court or government agency maintaining that the individual does not own the car. Methinks she has a skewed – and wrong – perspective on this.
ETA: And I think you’d be hard pressed to find evidence that anyone besides Ms. Rottero (and possibly a small handful of similar loonies) would support this notion. One mistaken person’s opinion, even if that person is in a position of authority, does not make that opinion a fact.
This sounds like a case where the friend can redefine “ownership” to fit his argument. But of course, it’s pretty elementary to redefine ownership in such a way that no one owns anything, and we’re all technically slaves to circus animals.
Now in a lot of circumstances, a person’s car will actually be owned by that person’s bank, through the terms of his/her car loan. And in other circumstances, a person’s car will actually be owned by the dealership, through the operation of a lease agreement.
But the mere fact that the state (and, I’ll point out, probably not all states do this) keeps one sheet of paper associated with your car does not change the fact that you own it. Ownership can be defined as possession plus legal exclusive control. You possess and control your car. The government would be horrified to have it any other way: for starters, if one could claim one doesn’t actually own one of one’s biggest possessions, you’re setting people up for the easiest tax shelter in history.
A certificate of origin is a document that is most important with imports and exports, and it is not a title. The OP’s friend’s argument strikes me as too stupid to argue with, but maybe the OP could ask his friend this question: if the state owns my car, how is that I can sell it without getting permission from or even notifying the “owner”?
The OP doesn’t source the quote given. A quick search it’s a piece of internet glurge that has been passed around since at least 1996. There is an attribution on the early links, apparently to evangelical publishers America Today. You can find it on the Ron Paul Forums. And it was picked up by loon of loons, David Icke.
Only one problem. There never was a Denise Rottero. Her name appears only in sites that give this glurge.
There is a Tennessee Department of Revenue (no Operations) but of course no Denise Rottero can be found there, not even in the archives. There are judges named Greer in Tennessee, but when you search for Greer and Rottero nothing comes up but the glurge.
100% guaranteed phony, devised to appeal to whack jobs who fear the government and are too stupid to do a simple Google search.
Yeah, anyone who ever owned a trailer (such as a boat trailer) knows the whole thing is hogwash.
Someone needs to maintain the manufacturers’ paperwork, because it’s needed to reference the rightful owner. A complete breakdown and lost trail of ownership? This happens no-so-often on cars, because people do tend to keep their docs in order, and insurance and registration is fairly rigid, forcing people to keep docs.
Trailers? They are often left to lapse in registration; get sold under boats and lost in yards; sold as part of a boat deal that might never mention the trailer; and then you find yourself with a big legit boat and a trailer you can’t register. Title/papers? Long gone. Sometimes you can get the state to track down a Certificate or Origin or the state has a procedure where you can get a copy from the manufacturer, which the state wants so that they can reference it, track it and decide if you are the rightful owner (i.e. issue a title to you).
That’s when you realize that a title declares you the owner, and that without the state, there is no official word on who owns what.
I work with titling cars in my profession. The MCO simply acts as a title for a new car until a “real” title is secured. After the first title is issued for the vehicle the MCO is meaningless except as backup paperwork showing the vehicle’s history. The MCO doesn’t confer ownership anymore than an old title that has been signed over to a new owner. Those are on file with the state too.
Well… you can’t, can you? In my experience, selling a car involves a lot of interaction with the government, including the paying of some fees and what amounts to “notifying” the government of the sale.
Granted you don’t have to ask for permission beforehand, but that could be interpreted as your having been granted permission when you recieved the title (or “title” as the OP’s friend would have it.)
He says that if one can get a hold of the MCO, that is legal proof of absolute ownership. He calls it the ‘birth certificate’ of the vehicle. And he says you have to surrender this document to the State (to register the vehicle) which keeps a record of it on file, proving that the State has an investment in your property.
You might well (and probably would) both be sued. Generally the owner’s liability insurance will cover an accident and medical costs, etc. He wouldn’t be criminally liable if you were driving recklessly so you could well be liable in a civil suit for wrongful death as well as manslaughter. He could be criminally liable if he knew the car had bad brakes, for example.
The state is the ‘decider’ of who owns what. As the final ‘decider’ of who owns what, they need the proper paperwork.
A title is a declaration, BY THE STATE, that you own, X, Y or even Z.
The decider, incidentally, never jumps up and proclaims they are they owner of whatever it is they’ve issued a title on.
The answer refuting his stupidity is built into the process:
State decides who owns what.
State issue title to owner
State maintains proof because, as the decider of who owns what, they need it!
Ask him this: So when you move from one state to another, you are transferring ownership of the vehicles from one to the other? I don’t think so.
Tell him they also have the original deed to his house on file and they own it as well which means they can come in unannounced and search THEIR house even without a warrant. Maybe that will scare him.
Liens do not affect ownership/title unless the secured asset is repossessed. So no, very few people (like none) have their car owned by a bank if it’s not a lease.
