Case Information

*1 CQPT oRl%x OT Tm ATT9RNEY OZNERAL OT TNXM w+‘-J AUSTIN

Ronorablo W. R. Imy county Auditor

nrrant aouaty Port Worth, Tsus

Dear 811~:

OQInIon No. C-1559.

Ret Rhsthar or not It Is nao- essary to record liens on motor vshIoles subsequent to the sfiaotlre data or Z!ouSs ,BIll No. 407, 46th LegIslaturs.

Vfs‘are in reoslpt OS your letter of Sept*mbsr 9, whioh you requsst an oplnlon ot this Department as 1939, to whether or not it is nsoessary to raoord liens on motor In ths county olark’s office shoe ro~.Ioles the passage of, the CrrtIfIoate of Title Act,

vm wlmv&l tn0 ‘ya?ul ywl.+Aa. 4fupvaL UplK w.hfLw or not th8 csstfrioats of Title Act suQanadas or repeals ths gsnsrel rsoordfng statutes as to motor rehlolrs. It Is to consider the law oonoernlng nscsssary, thsrsrora, the rag- lstratlon of motor tehlclas prior to Ootobsr 1, 1939 and also to oonsldsr ths siiaot of tha pro~lsions of the Cartfiioata Title Act upon the sesa.

Artlols 8490 of ths Rsrissd Civil Statutes provldss, In part, as r0im8:

*mery ohattel mortgage, dssd OS trust or other ihstrument of writing, intendsd

operate as a mortgage, or lien upon-parsonal props&~, and stary trassrsr thsrsof, whloh shall not be aocompanlsd by an Immediats

dsllrery aad be Sollowed by an actual end oontlnued ohangs.or possssslon of ths propsrt~ mortgaged pledged, or afrsoted by such tnstru- shafl abaolutaly void as against sent, *2 Hononblo W. E. Yanoy, Pegs t

orsdltors of the mortgagor or person making sus, as galst subssquent purohassrs and mortgagsos or lisn holdsrs in good raith, unlss~ suoh Iortrumant, or a trus oopy thera- shall be iorthulth deposited with and In the oriior 0r ths oount~ o&erk or f&a ths oounty whsrr the prop@rty shall then be Ii the mortgagor or person mak- situated, Ing the same be a resident of this gtate,

then, of the oounty of whloh he shall at tlma be a realdent; * * * **

Article 5497 of the Revised Civil Statutes reads as r0ii0rrs t

“Chattel mortgages and other instru- ments intended to operute as mortgages or liens upon personal gropsrty shall not bo reoordrd at length, all persons shall be thereby charged with notlos thereof, and of the rights of ths mortgages, his assignee or reprrsentatlves thereunder,-

Article 5497a of the Revised Civil Statutes raaas as

‘That all chattel mortgage6 hsroartor given as security for money advanced ior Thor purohaso of motor vehioles shall, when reg- Istersd as roqulred by law OS chattel nort- gages, be and are superior to the alain or 0laI~8 Of other OreditOrs even though suoh motor rshlcle or vehicles are daily expo8ad ror sale. Yr0da0a, however, any such chattel mortgage shall be void as to bona tide pur- chassrs when such motor vehioles are dally et- pored I r0r 8ala.e A pro or oonstruotlon of the above quoted titioles als- thres ma s or oloses legal operations of said Laws.

?irst, ArtIols 5490 makes unmoordad chattel mortgages void as against subsequent purtbsers absolutaly and mortgagees or lien holders in gcod faith. This provIslon Is Inherent in our reoording statutes and Is necessary and InQIsgensable Sor a proper operation OS suoh lawsa

Honorable W. R. Yanoy, Pags S

8000na, tha mcoraing statutes quoted operate to give oonstruotiro notice to the world of a duly reooraea ohattsl mortgage. It is to be remembered that Artlols 5497 uses the words aand all persona shall be therrby ohargrd with notlor thereat.* It would be Im.cossible to enumerate all o?

the oases a80ia8a by the oourts 0r this state rhioh SO hold. Is olsarly tatod In the oass of Nurray Com- The proposition pany Y. Deal,, 176 8. 1. 718:

*from the time the mortgage Is so depdSIt- d for registration, It beoomes aonstructlvs notios of the mortgagees lien.” See also the cases of Thorndale Ueroa’ntlle Company, v. Continental Gin Company, 217 S. pi. 1069, and the et al., Supreme Court case of Cr.rshear vr Watt, 44 S. W. 67.

The third majOT prlnolple Of law wllloh IS a result 0s our recording statutes Is that the priority 0s liens Is determined by the date of tlllng for reoord of.such liens.

AS a general rula the one first riled ror reoord takes pri- orlty over those later rii0a. See Smelser Y. Baker 99 S. ?i.

377; Third National Bank Springfield Massaohusetts, et al Y. National Bank or Comeroe, ot al., 159 S. Vi. 668; J. AZ.

Radford Grooery Conpany V# Pace, et al., 172 S. Ti. 146; Dallas County State Bank V. CrIsison, et al., 231 8. W. 857; Ridgill v. 3, L. Wilson RardwaTs Company, et al,, 178.5. Vi. 068; Moors v. First State Bank of LIvingston, 127 8. R. (2d) 536.

House Bill No. 407, Acts of the 46th Legislature went into effeot on.Ootobrr 1, 1959 , It is the opinion 0s hi* Department It Is now unneoessary to record, liens against motor vehLole8 In the county clerks* ofrloes. This conclusion Is ba8.a upon thrss reasons.

First, Hours El11 Ro. 407 Is a new enaotment dealing specIfIoally with motor vehicles and oonoerns the same general subject as the general recording statutes. There can be no question but that the recording statutes and IJouse Bill No. 407 ars’both designed to protect the Innooent purchaser and the lien holdsr . Housa Bill No. 407 was passed beoause the Legislature found thst the general reoordlng statutes aid not offer surrioient proteotion In the cases of motor vehloles. That this is trus may be seen from Seotlon 1 of House Bill No. 407:

*Tlii8 Aot shall be referred cited known as ths *certItIoate or Tftle AC b *4 Iionorablr 1. t. Tansy, Fags 4

and In tha enaotaent hsrrof it Is hersbt asolaroa to be the lsgIslatIve lntsnt and p Plio oolic~ or this state losrm and p&vent th th rt or motor vahlslas, arid i8porctIoi Into this State~of and In rtolon sotor vshi6188, and ths traSrIo lootlvely, are to be lIboral1y oonstrued

that end. The following tens as herein

defined shall oontrol In the enforcement 0s this hot."

and oonstruotion That the Lcgl~slature considered the present law In- adequate to prevent the thing set out In Ssotion 1 of the Aot Is further emphasised by thn eaergency clause of Bouss Bill No. 407, which reads as follows, parts

** * * and that many 11s~ have beon against plotor vehIolu to the serious craatsd tinanolal loss OS a large number of persons, and the fact that an early adogtlon of this Aot will operat3 to materially safeguard dealing In motor vehicles and using the sams as security * *- * *O

5vIng seen tae LegIslature~r tindine that the present statutes ars Inadequate as protection In oases of rioording vehlales, ths nest ooasldaratlon $8 whether or not ths Legislature can rspeal or suaprnd tha operations of the general statutes as to motor vehloles by suoh an naotnent as reoordlng stating that the aam House Bill No. 407 without 8peoIiICally are su8penara. In this oonneotlon a number of rules of statutory ooostruotIon are Important,

The queatlon of repeal, whether express Implied, Is on8 of legIelatIve Intsnt. See Rogers Y. w&ous, 8 Tex. 6s; St. Louis 5. K. Railway Company Y, Kay, et al., 65 Tex. 558; ?irst Ndtlonal Rank va Le8 County Cotton Oil Cornpaw, 274 S. F. 127; Berry Y. State, lb6 9. W. 626; State y. Texas and N. 0. R. Com- pany, 126 S. Vi, 65; Fortinberry Y. Statr, 48 S. Oy. (M) 146.

Eonorable Vi. Ii. Tanor, Paga 5

seai0n 66 0s Houss : Ill No. 409 is a general mpeal- in olaurr whioh roads a8 roilowsr

*All aots parts of ots Iason8,irtsat with the provIsIvns of fhir Aot are hereby rapsalsbs

A uensral repealing olauss Is dfsotlrs to repsal prior enaotmahts to the extent that thsy ars lnoonslstent dth, or repugnant to ths terms or the later statutr, Ths Supremo Court of Texas tn an op’lnlon wrlttsn by fudge Gains8 In ths case of Caddls, et al. Y’. Terrall, Land Commlssloner, 110 9. vi. f~~io~~canstruIng a general repnaling clause which reads as

“All laws and pa-rts of laws In oonillot with the provIsIons of this Aot are hereby repealed .s

had this to say about the proposition:

*It Is’clear that there Is no express rspeal; Is not directly that Is, the provisIon In question

ointed out as expressly But 8 no8 the affect i! ot a gan- repealed, laws era1 provIslon repealing oontlIcting evinces that the Legislature had In mind that something was to be repealed, ths inallnsd against reoo&

courts will leas airing rspugnanoy In ap.plyIng suoh a 8tatutr.Y The language above quoted was also quoted In the case of J~bnson Y, Jo&son, 55 S. W. (Rd) 15.3. Thera is another rulr conetrwtlon whioh of stututory

is dlreotly apQlIoable to the case at hand. Whers it Is.apparent Is bntendsd to ombraoe all the law upon the sub- that a statute ject tilth whloh It deals It supersedes all iOmeT laws relating Thfs rule of construotlon was Invoked br 8ame subjeot. the Comlssion of Appeals of Texas in the case of First National Bank ve Lee County Cotton Oil Company, supra, In a ease whIoh wa8 In many respeots analogous to our present sItuatIonr That oass construed Artlole 579 of the Revised C1?11 Statutes of 1911 which provided a means of fixing lIabllIty of drawers and endorsers bill of exohange othb than by protest notics. The court held that the uniform negotiable instrument act of 1910 repealed Article *6 Honorable 'II. P. Yanoy, Page 8 later 8Ot tmat84 of the 8aBo 8Ubj8ot matter 579 bsoaure the

a8 th8 fOZS8re Th8 uniform aegot1ablo inrtrumtnt aot oontaln8d 'a g-mm1 rspaalfng alatur whlohaa8 exactly idantioal with th8 @n8Ed r8QO411ly OhU88 iIl ROU88 Bill NO. 409e Th8 COUrt qUOt8d irOB ea88 Of St. hi18 8. \5. mi1-J’ ““““~TV~8Ka’, in an Opinion WittOIl by tUdg8 0dbS8. .et 810, 8Upr8, i?Dlp th8 Oa8. Of mg8l'8 1. WatTOur, language m8 a qUOt&iOil Which ths sUpre88 GOtUt Of TaXa ip88kily thrWgh 8UpIT4, Judg8 WhMi8P, 8aid 118 rOiiOW8:

'A 8ub88qUOnt 8tatUtO HV181~ th8 8ubject mettAr of a former on8, and evidsnt- ly lntsnded a8 a 8ubstituts tor it, although it ~0~1tam n0 expr486 WONTS to that dreot, nurt opsr ta to repeal the formsr to ths 8x- tent to w'~ioh it8 ?rov181On8 9~3: revlred and su~plement8d. So thcugh a aubeequent 8tat- a utr be not re>ugmnt ln its provision for18sr one, yet it it was clearly intsnd8d to prsrcribs the only rule whioh should govern, it rsjmal8d the prior statute**

The Court in the Firat National Bank oaso al80 quoted the language of the case of Stuts v. Howton oil COlUU1881On frtm 0r ~02a8, 194, s. 8. 4321

“The rule 18 well 8Ctthd that, wh8n 8 8Ub88qUsht statute 8hOw8 by it8 OOuteXt that it wa8 intended to eimbraoe all law upon tha rubJ8ot dealt with, 8uOh 8tatUta will, by irpllo+tlon, ~881 all rormrr lawn N- to the 8-0 8ubjeOt. The OOrrsOtM88 lettIlt 18 not contrarerted, it 18 Oi that rub to Cite authWitie8 in 8UppOrt UQneOeB8ary or it,-

The Roger8 and the St. Louis Railway 011808 word both aited and followed in the ca88 of Stats V. Tesa8 & N. 0. R. Com- pany, wra e The S?;prems Court Of Tesa8 rxprs88ed 1t88lf on first

ttir mattsr in 1049 in the oa8e of Bryan v. Sunberg In an opinion written bg Judge :;heslsr. Ths Court said a8 follows; -But when the new 8tatUtO ifI it8eli OOm-.

prehend8 the entire 8ubjeot and orsater a n8w, entlro, and independ8nt eystua re8peOting th8 aubjsot matter, it ir UniVsrMlly held to r8- pot&l and 8UjJ8r8ed8dall plWiOU8 8ybta8 and *7 Honorable H. E. Yancy, Pagr 7

law8 r88pecting thr ram8 8UbjrCt Mtt8E." a8 to It ir the opinion of thlr DepaABent that; ha8 nDx‘ 88t Up a new 8y8t8m mOtOr VCSh101t38, th8 irgi8htUre OS law for the proteotion oi innooent pUrOha88r8 and lirn TlAi8 8Jlt8m i8 80 C?OrPpletO in it8elf n8 t0 8UpOr- holderr.

88d8 the operation8 the general recording 8tBtUt88 U8 V8k~10108.

In the Sedond place it I8 the opinion ot thi8 De- tiou8a Bill No. tO7 repeal8 the operation or th8 partment genema moording etatutas a8 tc mctor vsl:Iclee because it oontllct8 with them.

Pihere there 18 a 'general statute in foroe and' then is peased, both statutes rsmaln in foroe a speolilc atatute excf?pt that the seoond 8upW8edeI3 the first a8 to the 8ubject 'matter contained In said special 8t3tUte. Fortinberzy v. State, and Towsend I. Terrell, An examlnetlon mpra, 16 S. W. 1063, the pertinent provl8ion8 of HoUSe ill1 No. 401 lead8 one to the inevitable conclurion th..t said Act 18 in coniliot with th8 general recording at tUt88 a8 t0 motor vehicles. This may b8 clearly been from an examination of the effect oi Hou8e Bill Ho. 407 upon the three major legal meulta oi the general re- cordln atatutea as 8et out previouely in thl8 opinion:

In the flret place under general reaording stat- ute8 nt lien ia valid against a rubsequent purobe8er and mort- g&e8 or lien holder In good ialtb Wiles8 the 83~13 is recorded.

Hou8a Bill X0, 407 contains ihe iollowingprovl8lon8 concern- ing the validity of llenr:

*sec.. 41. No lien shall be valid on

any motor vehicle wi.lch 18 hersatter th8

rrubject of 8 firet sale, or be enforceabl8 against any such motor vetiol~ UnlO88 there is noted on importer's manufacturer*s oertlfloate the d&t>;, n3me, and a&rose of' the mortgagees who8e rights arise out of or are incident to suah ff.r8t sale by rG38vn of exrcutlon of an., wrlttarr instrument by the tran8fere8.

Qeo. 42. No lien on any motor VhhiCla shnll valid as adalnat t&@&part188 with- out aotual ktlowledge thereof or eniOrCeabl8 *8 Honorabla w. t. Yanoy, Page 8

a&art the motor vahIola of any 8uch

third pert148 a8 th8 i88UanOs Of a QaC- OS title th8raof, unlasa an ap-

tlfloata plloatlon for a new tltla I8 mad fir x '::d*;$&,w .," 8crlbad ln thi8 Act and all quant llanr noted by thi8 Dapnrtmanttharaon~

'Sa0. 44. No llan on any rpotor vahloti to wkloh a raoaipt or cartitioata tit18 has been i88U4d ehall be salld 8s aginrt

third part108 without actual knowledge thar8- of, or anforcsablr egalnst the motor vahiola of any such third Farties, unlaas the notation of said lien 8hfill Lave bean caused to be made VA receipt8 an6 cartlflCete8 Of title sn said motor var.icla, as 2povldad in.thi8 hot*

"Sac* 46. iIn13 liens noted on a racolpt or certificate of title shall be velld as a- geln8t creditors of the mortgagor in so far a8 concerns vahlcla,W

Tba affect of the84 s4Ct.i.A8 18 thbt if the lien8 are not recorded on the cartifioata Of title the same are not valid da8:jita the faot that they msy bo recorded in the county Clerk’8 Of iiO8. Also, under Section 46, if tha lien le,notad on the cartiflcatd of title, said llan la valid despite the fact that the 8eim.mfq not racordad.in:.tha county olark*s offloe. 30 the law 18 now that the raoordatlon of alien la immaterial on whether the it8 valldlty. Suoh validity depends entirely u 88ma 18 properly nqted upon the OertIfIoata c: of itla. In th18 raspaot, Licusa Bill No. 407 end the general racordlng 8tatutar ar-: entirely in oonflI0t~

Secondly, under thp general raoordlng rtatutes of a chattel mOrtgsg* the county 019rk's offioa recording constftutas constructive notlca to the public. The operation of this law 1s com;.Jately done away with,'by SaOtiOn8 33 and 51 of Hvusa Bill Ko. 401 w:~lah read as followlrr

%380. 33. No motor vM.lcle msy be diOpo8ad of at rubrraquant sale UAl48s the owner dasl(;netad iA cartlfloata OS

title shall tr:.nsfer the cartlfloata

title form to be pr.8oribad by the Da- on psrtmont before a Notary i-ublla, whloh *9 Honorable w. E. Tanor, Pa50 9

fo rm l hall'lnol~de, amon l uoh other

mtterr a8 the D0p,eeent may determine,

en eftidevlt erieat that tha

l lgner ie thr omrr of motor vehlole, that there are no 110ne a&abet l uoh exoopt ruoh a8 are ehown

motor vehlel0

on the 00rtirf08t0 of title and no title

to any motor vrhiolo l hall pare or vest

until uch trenrfor be so ex0outed. It 8Mll hersaftrr

"860. 61. be un- lawful ror any perron; qlther by hiae0lr

or through any agent, to offer for ealr

or to sell or ~to offer as 0our1ty for

any obllgatlon any mctoz i&i010 regietsr-

ed or licensed In thI8 State without then and there having In hi8 po8aeaeion tha

proper raoelpt or osrtitIcets ooverlng of title

the motor .*ehIclo 80 ~ffsred.~ It mayaleo bs pointed out that. the oaptlon of Hour0 Bill No. 4O7 contains the following; language: thet ruch'oertiiiiate shall

-ProvIdi conetftut0 not 00 of ruch llene and mort- 7

gagee, and prescribing the priorltles OS

liens and mort*508 as againat all partIe8.a Furthormor0 lien8 which are r0oorded In ths oounty olerk'r orflae sitar 6 lrt cannot 8orv0 a8 oonetruatlvr otober not100 becauer oi Sootlone 48 and 44 of raid Aot, above quoted, ubloh etate eald lien8 are not valid unleea noted on tho title. ee.rtIfIoate IS raid 110~ at0 not valid they oannot earn es notlo,. So In thI8 rslpeot the 50n0ral etat- recording utes are in oonfliot with Houee :I11 No, 4O7.

Thr Third legal reaillt or the gsnsral reoordlng rtat- the ertsbllshmsnt of priority of llane, has bean sntlrrly utes, supareedrd by House Bill No, 407 a8 to vshIole8. Under I8 determin- the general reoordlng the priority o? 110~ 8tatut.w w Q..,tha data thoes liens wars fIlsd,for rsoordation In thr obmty olnrk'r ofilcs. 45 of Hours Bill No, 407 raedr Seotion ae iollow0r

*All lien8 on motor VrS.ioler shall take prloritr according to the or&r of tls0 th0 same are recorded on the reoelpt or oerti- floeto of tit10 of all ruoh r0oordlnge

Honorable v. 5. Yanoy, Page 10

be made by the Departaant.*

80 we rind the lm now that the prlorlty of lien. In dateraina(; by the order the tiaa the 8ema era reoordad o? oartifloata of tltla. Of naoa8elty thin on tha.raoaipt thi priority 88 rat up by the goner.1 raoordlng deetroy l tatutee 88 rotor vehlola8~ the provlalon8 It 18 our opinion therefore, that

o? xouea BIll~No. 4Q7 &ra 4fraOtly in oonfllot with the gan- era1 reoordingsetatutae l nd.aa to vahicla8 must o? neo- sealty euper8a6e auoh Caneral recordIn law8.

It in the opinion of ttlr Department it will not naoaeaary to raoord a lien on a motor vat;lcla In the data 0r xouea Bill county clerk*8 0rrl00 artar the affeotlva No. 407 for the third reason that the operation OS House Bill the U8.fUln.88 of the ganaral reoordltq Noa 407 suepande law8 because of term In Article 6490 "In good faith.* The COUX't# here oonetruad ttle term in meny carea and have held thet certain f&Ot# Pay .Xi#t which make a 8Ub8.qU.at pUr0h.a.r or . rubs.- lien holder not one in good faith. A very good statement quent en to whet Is meant by the term "good faith" a. urad in the ra- cording atetutaa wee made bjr the court in the ceaa of Burlington State Bank, at al,, v. Marlin National Benk, et .I., 166 8. W. . 499:

*The exprareIon *good Salthe em wed ,ln the statute providing that a ahattel

mortgagn ehall oeaaa to be valid a5eIn.t

,tha oredltore oi pereon making the in good faith e?ter

811118 uortg5.88 the arplratlon of one yasr rrou iillng

name unlearn en r?ldevlt of reneral In

fIlad,~~la ynonymoua with ~ooa8olenoa~,

It ambfaeae thoea oblI5etlone which are

Impoeed u?on one dealing with property by the cIrcumetanoa8 eurroundlng It at tha tine*

WA want of that oautlon and dlll5enoa w!.loh an ordinary man op. ordlne~ prudsnoa In aoouetoaad to axarclae In meklng gur-

oherar 18, in judslqent of law; a want or good faith."

See al80 South Tax.8 Emplamant k M.OLfn.ry Co., et al.

Honorable W. l5. Yencr, R&a 11

.~ v. Aeahuao Gene1 Co., t69 8. w..lO97, arrInad by the Comnle- alon or Appule in UO 9. Vi. beli Tlrrt Ilational. Bank of Steven- villa v. Tho~peoe, at el., 888 S. W. 0S4,

Vndar Hour6 El11 Ho, 407 before l motor vahIole may be offered for ula o? offered fo r l aourlty, owner of the mama runt obtain a oartlfioate of title. Toot any lien to be to a eubeaquant lien the eama would have to be valid and prior of title. Let ue 8uppoea l l ltuetlon notad on raid oartlfloata where e parbon Wieha8 to puroha86 e ubad aer from another o?

rimhem to take 8 lien eelnat bald oar* In oaaa 0s 8 purohaea it would bs naoeeeary ror l trenefar 0r maid oartIflcata or tIClo to be mador In a oaaa where ha wI8haa to obtain a lien upon said oar, aald lien would have to be no.ted on the oartIfIoata of tltla to axamIne th:! mama to mea If end ha would have the opportunity there ware any prior llenr noted thereon. Ha knowe thzlt a lien not noted thereon 18 not valid a8 a&net him. Suppoae, however, there axIete a valid lien against the oar and the mama In noted of title but hem not bean racordad. on bald oertIfIoata In the flret plaoe thin oartlflcata of title would be construotlva ~notIoe to & auoh a8 to keep him frou being e 8ub8equant mort-

magma In &ad fait:! un-Zar Xrtlola 5490. In the l aoond place, even If It oould be meld thnt the oertIfloate of title war not oonetructlva notice to him. still tha oeaas would indicate that ha oartalnly, could not be a &ood faith purchaser or mort~agea having had opportunity to aremIne raid certIflcate of title wl.loh would ooma in him po88aeeIon. By this line of raeeonin& we reach the oonclurlon that lf a lien Is cot noted on the oertl- floeta or title it cannot be 8-t up against aUb8~iqUant purchaear If raid lien 18 noted on the oertlflcate OS title or nort~aagae. 'than there oonld no good faith ~uroharar under Artiola 5490. In this we7 the entire affaot and operation of the reoordlng atatutaa a8 to motor vahicle8 ia oblltaratad~

For the raaeon8 di8ou88ad in amwar your firet in- it in the opinion of ttia Department it i8 uenacee8ary quiry, In the offloe of tile oounty' olark. for a lien to be recorded Nothing In thla opleio~, however, rhould be taken to mean that llane oreetad and fIlad for records prior to Ootober 1, 1939, are not valid. ire have raaohad in construing our Texas

The oonnlualon reeohad by the oourte ‘ totutea In Imllar to the oonoluelon other etatee oonatrulng their Certiflcata Of Title Acta, The following quotation by the Supreme Court of Appeal8 of Vlrglnie In ths oaaa of C. I. T. Corporation v. Quy, et al., 195 9. IL 659,

Honorable W. I. YAMr, Page 16

la dlraotly in points

“In l ddltltin to the l tatutee noted the Motor VahIola Coda of Vlr&ia alro doe18 with thle 8ubJeot. AOtb 19SS 0.

Sit, pa 61Si hot8 1934, o+ 868, p* 580, Within it8 dafInltlon, a oonditlonel

eel8 18 en nouabrenoe. Pladmont ato.,

Corp. v. Com!nonwaalth, 146 Ve. 2&; 135 8. r. 678, Re~IetretIon card8 end oartl- era leruad by the Dlvlelon

floatae of title of Motor VehIclae. They and the llene thera- on appearlag are aurrloIant notice to oradl- tore end ~urchaeere and do not herb to be recorded locally,*

The Faderal DI8trIot Court, Eartarn DletrIct, Penn- in the oaea o? In ra Tall 16 Fad. Supp. 987, held aylvenIe, the Penneylvenia CartifIcate of Tltfa Aot to a recording 8tatutar

Sea elao the canes of Tnfleld v. Butler, at al., 264 N. PI. 546, S~~prama Court of Iowe, and Mrylend Credit Finance Corporation v. Frenkltn Credit FIneno Corporation, at al,, 180 8. B. 408, Supreme Court of Appaalr of Virginia.

Xhlla it 18 the opinion 0s thin Department that It 18 unneoa8eary to record ohettal aort~agee on motor vahlolae In thaw oountr olerk’e office, In all probability many pareone who take aortggae againat vshlolae wilLuleh reoord their 116M in the OOunty alark~8 Off106 an a eat&r Of praoau- tlon. TO18 will probably be true until the oourta thla State daolda whether or not 8UOh raoordatlon 18 na~eaeary. In much a oaaa you era advlaed thqt the oounty clerk 8houl. record the mortgsga en hen bean haratOfor6 done, and the 8ame oherge a8 wall em 1 he mama teuup tax 8,hould be a880880d againat the party wiehlng e mortgage racordad~

Yours .vaty truly ATWBNXI 0BRER.G OF TBUS ASWiOVED NOVEMBER 7, 19S9

(a) Oereld C. Menn

ATTORNEY O:~ERbU OF TKUS BY

(a) Billy Goldberg A.#i#tMt Ba:R8: lw APROVED OPINION COW’ITTISE RY (8) B. W. ‘B., CHAIF@IAX