O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-3-31 (2019)

Replacement of lost, stolen, mutilated, or destroyed certificates of title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a certificate of title is lost, stolen, mutilated, or destroyed or becomes illegible, the owner or the legal representative of the owner named in the certificate, as shown by the records of the commissioner or the commissioner’s duly authorized county tag agent, shall promptly make application for and may obtain a replacement, upon furnishing information satisfactory to the commissioner or authorized county tag agent. The replacement shall be issued on the following terms and conditions: (1) If the replacement title is issued to the owner named in the lost, stolen, mutilated, or destroyed certificate, as shown by the records of the commissioner or authorized county tag agent, the replacement certificate of title shall contain the legend: “This is a replacement certificate and may be subject to the rights of a person under the original certificate.”; (2) When the vehicle for which a replacement certificate of title has been issued is transferred to a new owner, the certificate of title issued to the transferee shall continue to contain the legend: “This is a replacement certificate and may be subject to the rights of a person under the original certificate.”

MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC

After a replacement certificate has been issued and the records of the commissioner or authorized county tag agent show that the owner has held record title continuously for a period of not less than six calendar months and the record title of the owner has not been challenged, the commissioner or authorized county tag agent may, upon proper application, issue a replacement title, which shall simply contain the legend “Replacement Title”; (3) A person recovering an original certificate of title for which a replacement has been issued shall promptly surrender the original certificate to the commissioner or authorized county tag agent. Where the owner named in a replacement certificate of title, or a transferee, recovers the original certificate such owner or transferee may surrender the original certificate together with the replacement title and if such owner or transferee is otherwise entitled to a certificate the commissioner or authorized county tag agent may issue such owner or transferee a new certificate of title with no legend thereon; (4) If two or more innocent persons are the victims of the fraud or mistake of another and none of the victims could have reasonably taken steps to detect or prevent the fraud or mistake, the victim who first acquired an interest in a vehicle through any certificate of title shall have such victim’s interest protected; and (5) A replacement title when the original has been lost in the mail prior to receipt by the registered owner shall be issued by the commissioner without charge upon application and completion of the form and affidavit prescribed by the commissioner setting forth the circumstances of nonreceipt of the title. The owner shall report the nonreceipt or loss and apply for replacement of the title to the commissioner within 60 days of the issuance of such title by the commissioner. An applicant shall provide an affidavit of nonreceipt and verify his or her current mailing address.

History

Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, § 14; Ga. L. 1965, p. 304, § 3; Ga. L. 1974, p. 593, § 1; Ga. L. 1977, p. 252, §§ 1, 2; Code 1981, § 40-330; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 40; Ga. L. 1986,

p. 438, § 3; Code 1981, § 40-3-31, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 3; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 40; Ga. L. 1997, p. 739, § 14; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1179, § 34.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Acquisition of title through fraud or mistake. - When the pawnbroker could have perfected a lien long before the expiration of six months after even the second replacement title was issued, this would have been a reasonable step to prevent the fraud perpetrated upon the defendants; therefore, the pawnbroker

was not an innocent party pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-3-31(4). Cobb Ctr. Pawn & Jewelry Brokers, Inc. v. Gordon, 242 Ga. App. 73, 529 S.E.2d 138, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (2000). Clerical error. - Trial court erred in concluding that the security interest holder had a valid, perfected security

interest that the court could enforce against the car buyer regarding the car purchased, based on O.C.G.A. § 40-3-31(4), as that statutory section pertained to lost, stolen, mutilated, or destroyed certificates of title; the car buyer’s certificate of title did not reflect the security interest because the state

motor vehicles department made a clerical error and issued a certificate of title without the security interest. Metzger v. Americredit Fin. Svcs., 273 Ga. App. 453, 615 S.E.2d 120, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 336 (2005), cert. denied, No. S05C1525, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 552 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2005).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Security interest of used car dealer. - Failure of a used car dealer to be listed on the certificate of title as an owner or security interest holder does not affect the

creation of the security interest and all the rights attached thereto including repossession. 1990 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 90-8.

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 100 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act (U.L.A.) § 13.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1983–2005 · leading case: Metzger v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 615 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Metzger v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 615 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Because OCGA § 11-9-337 (1) is the more specific statute, it controls, even if there were a perceived inconsistency between the various statutory provisions.”

Brown v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 317 S.E.2d 180 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “The MVD returned the application for title to Kathleen Brown because no power of attorney authorizing someone to sign for Gardner Brown was submitted.”

Owensboro Nat'l Bank v. Jenkins, 328 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “) It is true that OCGA § 40-3-31 (d) contains blanket language that “Except as provided in Code Section 40-3-32 and as between the parties, a transfer by an owner is not effective until this Code section and Code Section 40-3-32 have been complied with; and no purchaser or…”

Cobb Ctr. Pawn & Jewelry Brokers, Inc. v. Gordon, 529 S.E.2d 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The pawnbroker next contends that the trial court erred in ruling that OCGA § 40-3-31, which governs replacement certificates of title, applies to pawnbrokers.”

Sunnyland Employees' Fed. Credit Union v. Fort Wayne Mortg. Co., 354 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-3-31 (d) and OCGA § 11-2-401 (2).”

McDowell v. Owens, 317 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “was acting within its authority when it sold the automobile to appellee for $5,000 since appellant’s son indicated his acceptance of the lower sum in the telephone conversation with a P.”

First Nat'l Bank v. Atlanta Classic Cars, Inc., 363 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “FNB brings this appeal, contending that all of the trial court’s conclusions were erroneous. Held: 1. Initially, we consider the issue of whether, under the U.”

Anderson v. Kensington Mortg. & Fin. Corp., 305 S.E.2d 128 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 40-3-31 (Code Ann. § 68-415a) transfer of a motor vehicle (including a mobile home) cannot be accomplished without an assignment and warranty of title to the transferee, which must be subscribed and sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths in this…”

Stone v. Nolan, 320 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 68-415a (d) (now OCGA § 40-3-31 (d)) that “ ‘(e)xcept . . .”

Atlas Casing Co. v. Joyner, 386 S.E.2d 397 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Despite several attempts, the valid certificate was not delivered to Joyner until July 1986, nine months after the seller was obligated to do so.”

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.