(a) Each certificate of title issued by the department shall contain:
(1) The date issued;
(2) The current legal name and current address of the owner;
(3) The names and addresses of any lienholders in the order of priority as shown on the application, or if the application is based on a certificate of title, as shown on the certificate;
(4) The title number;
(5) A description of the vehicle including the following data: year, make, model, vehicle identification number, type of body, number of cylinders, whether new or used and if a new vehicle the date of the first sale of the vehicle for use; and
(6) Any other data the department prescribes.
(b) Unless security is furnished as provided in Section 32-8-36, a distinctive certificate of title shall be issued for a vehicle last previously registered in another state or country, the laws of which do not require that lienholders be named on a certificate of title to perfect their security interests. The certificate shall contain the legend, “This vehicle may be subject to an undisclosed lien” and may contain any other information the department prescribes. If no notice of a security interest in the vehicle is received by the department within four months from the issuance of the distinctive certificate of title, the department shall, upon application and surrender of the distinctive certificate, issue a certificate of title in ordinary form.
(c) The certificate of title shall contain forms for assignment and warranty of title by the owner, and for assignment and warranty of title by a dealer, and may contain forms for applications for a certificate of title by a transferee, the naming of a lienholder and the assignment or release of the security interest by a lienholder.
(d) A certificate of title issued by the department is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.
(e) A certificate of title to a vehicle is not subject to garnishment, attachment, execution or other judicial process, but this subsection does not prevent a lawful levy upon the vehicle.
(Acts 1973, No. 765, p. 1147, §8; Act 2015-362, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Rutledge v. Toyota Motor Credit (In Re Rutledge), 115 B.R. 344 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1990).
· cites it 3× “This Court notes Alabama Code Section 32-8-39(d) which provides: A certificate of title issued by the department is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.”
Hildreth v. State, 51 So. 3d 344 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 32-8-39(d), Ala.Code 1975 ("A certificate of title issued by the [Department of Revenue] is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.”
Green Tree — Al LLC v. Dominion Resources, L.L.C., 104 So. 3d 177 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
“Code 1975, § 32-20-26(a)(3) and former § 32-8-39(a)(3). Compliance with the certificate-of-title statute — specifically, former § 32-8-61 (b) and its successor § 32-20-41(b) — ensures the priority of the lien on the manufactured home over the owner or encumbrancer of the real…”
Turner v. DeKalb Bank (In Re Turner), 209 B.R. 558 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1997).
“Turner a recognizable ownership interest? Second, if the ownership of the truck was transferred by the divorce decree to the debtor, did it remain with her or transfer to the creditor upon default? The Uniform Certificate of Title and Antitheft Act of Alabama, § 32-8-39(d),…”
Hines v. Marchetti, 436 B.R. 159 (M.D. Ala. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code § 32-8-39(d) (1975). Therefore, the name as it appears on the title (in this case, Hines) is presumptive evidence of ownership, although that evidence is not conclusive.”
Williams v. Seamon, 532 So. 2d 1028 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Williams contends that the transaction involved in the instant case is governed by the Uniform Certificate of Title and Anti-theft Act, Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 32-8-1 through -87.”
Humber v. Bjornson, 8 So. 3d 995 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
“” § 32-8-39(d), Ala. Code 1975. "In Alabama, a certificate of title to a motor vehicle establishes prima facie title in favor of the individual .”
Horn v. State, 908 So. 2d 303 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
“See § 32-8-39(d), Ala.Code 1975 ("A certificate of title issued by the [D]epartment [of Revenue] is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing in it.”
Raviv v. Hanover Ins. Co., 873 So. 2d 240 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).
“On appeal, Raviv argues that there is substantial evidence to create a material issue of fact as to whether Family Car Center was the owner of the Toyota at the time of the accident and as to whether the Toyota was insured by Family Car Center’s insurance policy with Hanover.”
State v. Sweatt, 668 So. 2d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
“Code § 32-8-39(d) (1975). Although a certificate of title is not conclusive, it establishes a prima facie case of ownership and, in this case, shifts the burden of proof to the State to present substantial evidence to rebut that prima facie case.”
— Ala. Code § 32-8-39(a)(3) — 1 case
Green Tree — Al LLC v. Dominion Resources, L.L.C., 104 So. 3d 177 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
“Code 1975, § 32-20-26(a)(3) and former § 32-8-39(a)(3). Compliance with the certificate-of-title statute — specifically, former § 32-8-61 (b) and its successor § 32-20-41(b) — ensures the priority of the lien on the manufactured home over the owner or encumbrancer of the real…”
— Ala. Code § 32-8-39(d) — 10 cases
Rutledge v. Toyota Motor Credit (In Re Rutledge), 115 B.R. 344 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1990).
“This Court notes Alabama Code Section 32-8-39(d) which provides: A certificate of title issued by the department is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.”
Hildreth v. State, 51 So. 3d 344 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“§ 32-8-39(d), Ala.Code 1975 ("A certificate of title issued by the [Department of Revenue] is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.”
Turner v. DeKalb Bank (In Re Turner), 209 B.R. 558 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1997).
“Turner a recognizable ownership interest? Second, if the ownership of the truck was transferred by the divorce decree to the debtor, did it remain with her or transfer to the creditor upon default? The Uniform Certificate of Title and Antitheft Act of Alabama, § 32-8-39(d),…”
Hines v. Marchetti, 436 B.R. 159 (M.D. Ala. 2010).
“See Ala.Code § 32-8-39(d) (1975). Therefore, the name as it appears on the title (in this case, Hines) is presumptive evidence of ownership, although that evidence is not conclusive.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.