McKinley v. DMV (2002)

Citation: 179 Or App 350, 39 P3d 920 · Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon (Haselton, P.J., Linder and Wollheim, JJ.; opinion by Haselton, P.J.) · Decided: February 6, 2002 (argued July 23, 2001) · Appeal from: Deschutes County Circuit Court (No. 99CV0187MS; A110120)

Facts

Plaintiffs were joint title holders of a 1994 Subaru with their son, Brian. In April 1997 they signed their ownership interest over to Brian and asked DMV to list them as security-interest holders, but there was no evidence DMV ever noted them on the title. Brian then forged a bill of sale transferring plaintiffs’ interests to himself and sold the car to a dealer, which checked the title (Brian as sole owner, no encumbrances). After two more dealer resales, defendant Quiring bought the car, financed by First Security Bank, which perfected its security interest. All buyers acted in good faith. Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that their security interest had priority and for repossession and sale.

Holding

Affirmed for Quiring and the bank. Plaintiffs’ alleged security interest, never noted on the title, was unperfected (ORS 803.097), and under former ORS 79.3010(1)(c) a good faith purchaser for value took free of it; subsequent holders shared that priority.

Reasoning

ORS 72.4030 (void vs. voidable title) did not govern this priority dispute: Brian was the registered owner, and Article 9 governed the competing security interests regardless of where title lay. The court questioned, but expressly did not resolve, whether the asserted security interest constituted a title interest in the vehicle. Under the statutes then applicable, plaintiffs produced neither a legally sufficient perfection application nor evidence of title notation. The court therefore applied former Article 9’s buyer-priority rule to their unperfected interest. This historical analysis is distinct from the current application-receipt rule described next.

Practical impact

This was a private-sale dispute decided under former ORS 79.3010(1)(c), not a ruling that every forced-sale buyer relying on a clean title defeats every lender. The plaintiffs failed to prove perfection. Current ORS 803.097(2)–(3) provides that a qualifying vehicle-security application with the required ownership evidence perfects from DMV receipt; the date need not be the later printing of the title. A current purchase requires that statute and the applicable buyer-priority rule, not the title appearance alone. [Current statutory text retrieved 2026-10-17: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors803.html]

Good-law status

needs_verification. Full opinion independently retrieved 2026-10-17; decided under former Article 9. Comprehensive later treatment and the application of current buyer-priority provisions have not been verified.

Applies in →

oregon · Topics: motor-vehicles, ucc-article-9-dispositions

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and subsequent treatment before relying on this decision.