(a) Each physical title shall be set forth by means of a secure printing process or other secure process. Additionally, a physical power of attorney issued pursuant to §§ 580.13 and 580.14 and physical documents, which are used to reassign the title, shall be issued by the jurisdiction and shall be set forth by a secure printing process or other secure process.
(b) Each electronic title shall be maintained in a secure environment so it is protected from unauthorized modification, alteration or disclosure. In addition, an electronic power of attorney maintained and made available pursuant to §§ 580.13 and 580.14 and shall be maintained by the jurisdiction in a secure environment so that it is protected from unauthorized modification, alteration and disclosure. Any system employed to create, store or maintain the foregoing electronic records shall record the dates and times when the electronic document is created, the odometer disclosures contained within are signed and when the documents are accessed, including the date and time any unauthorized attempt is made to alter or modify the electronic document and any unauthorized alterations or modifications made.
[84 FR 52700, Oct. 2, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Hopkins (N.D. Ala. 2026).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (a). Serra contends that (1) any claims relating to false title or the chain of title fail as a matter of law because the Odometer Act does not address title or chain of title; (2) Mr.”
Glendale Owens v. Samkle Auto. Inc., 425 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Transfer Forms were not the official, secured forms issued by the State of Florida as required by the Odometer Act, see 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (2000), and did not contain certain mandatory disclosures.”
Daluz v. ACME Auto Body & Sales, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 242 (D. Conn. 1992).
“49 C.F.R. § 580.4 . In this case, it is undisputed that the ACME failed to provide the essential certifications in the Odometer Statement, and thus violated the statute on its face.”
Oettinger v. Lakeview Motors, Inc., 675 F. Supp. 1488 (E.D. Va. 1988).
· cites it 4× “” The Secretary of Transportation has promulgated such regulations, and 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 requires all transferors to give the customer a written odometer certification of the car’s actual mileage.”
Boren v. State, 761 S.W.2d 885 (Ark. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See 49 CFR 580.4, 580.6. We cannot know what the jurors thought, but it may be that they felt Boren had not told the truth when he stated on the form that the odometer on each of the cars was not rolled back while the car was in his possession and that he had no knowledge of…”
Aldridge v. Billips, 656 F. Supp. 975 (W.D. Va. 1987).
“49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (c). While this court must accept the defendants’ allegations that they relied on the actual reading on the truck’s odometer, for purposes of this motion, the practice of preparing odometer statements simply on the basis of the odometer reading and then failing…”
Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp., 627 F. Supp. 1241 (M.D. Tenn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “5 (a)(1) (1984), exempts the transferors of motor vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”) of more than 16,000 pounds from the odometer disclosure requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (1984). The vehicle here is one whose GVWR, as defined in 49 C.”
Grand Jury Proceedings v. United States, 781 F.2d 64 (6th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 1988 (a); 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (a), and every transferee is required to sign the statement to acknowledge receipt, 49 C.”
Irvin B. Alley v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 767 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1985).
“(d) In addition to the information provided under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the transferor shall certify that: (1) The odometer was not altered, set back, or disconnected while in the transferor's possession, and he has no knowledge of anyone else doing…”
Davis v. Dils Motor Co., 566 F. Supp. 1360 (S.D.W. Va 1983).
“§ 1988 (a), (b); 49 C.F.R. § 580.4 (1980). 5 . See, Pickens, Sommervill and Root affidavits, attached to the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Count Three of the complaint, filed May 13 and 16, 1983.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 580.4(c) — 1 case
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.