301.200. Sales by dealers. — 1. In the case of dealers, a certificate of ownership or proof that a dealer has applied for a certificate of ownership or that a prior lien has been satisfied by the dealer shall be required in the case of each motor vehicle in his possession, and the director of revenue shall determine the form in which application for such certificates of ownership and assignments shall be made, in case forms differing from those used for individuals are, in his judgment, reasonably required; provided, however, that no such certificates shall be required in the case of new motor vehicles or trailers sold by manufacturers to dealers.
2. Dealers shall execute and deliver manufacturer's statements of origin in accordance with forms prescribed by the director of revenue for all new cars sold by them. On the presentation of a manufacturer's statement of origin, executed in the form prescribed by the director of revenue, by a manufacturer or a dealer for a new car sold in this state, a certificate of ownership shall be issued.
3. Each certificate of ownership issued by the department of revenue shall contain space for four assignments. On all certificates of ownership containing fewer than four assignment spaces, the director shall prescribe a secure document for use in making a fourth assignment by a dealer. All secure documents for assignments which are spoiled shall be marked "void" and shall be returned by the dealer to the department of revenue at the end of each month.
Notes of Decisions
Bordman Inv. Co. v. Peoples Bank of Kansas City, 320 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958).
· cites it 12× “Its transfer to Watts constituted a substantial compliance with the terms of Section 301.200 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Watts had good title to the automobile and it was lawful for Watts to mortgage same to Bordman.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 485 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 9× “One tine of the argument points toward an assertion that White acquired "ownership" of the Ford because the provisions of § 301.200 [3] "covering sales by dealers does not contain the strict requirements set out in § 301.”
Exec. Jet Mgmt. & Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Scott, 629 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Section 301.200, RSMo 1978 exempts automobile dealers from the requirement that they have in hand certificates of title to all cars in their possession if the car was acquired from the manufacturer.”
Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Maries Cnty. Bank, 244 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The Jones’ argue that they could not apply for a certificate of title because “under Section 301.200 ... the manufacturer’s statement of origin [must] be submitted with the application for an initial certificate of title in a sale from a dealer and specifically places the burden…”
Bartleman v. Humphrey, 441 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 2× “, supra, there was no evidence of an agreement to accept a check in payment of the premium and a conditional receipt had been given for the check; and in Hickerson v. Con Frazier Buick Co., supra, the bill of sale issued to the purchaser of an automobile was no evidence of…”
Lebcowitz v. Simms, 300 S.W.2d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 3× “, which is as follows, states: “In the case of dealers, a separate certificate of ownership, either of such dealer’s immediate vendor, or of the dealer himself, shall be required in the case of each motor vehicle in his possession, and the director of revenue shall determine the…”
Hickerson v. Con Frazier Buick Co., 264 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953).
· cites it 3× “, provides that a dealer shall issue and deliver to the purchaser of a new car a bill of sale in accordance with the forms prescribed by the director of revenue and that when such bill of sale is presented to the director “a certificate of ownership shall be issued”.”
Gfc Corp. v. Nesser, 273 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1954).
· cites it 3× “Section 301.200 RSMo 1949, V.A. M.S. It would appear, therefore, that the parties contemplated by the terms of the contract that the titles would be released to Blives prior to payment.”
Mallory Motor Co. v. Overall, 279 S.W.2d 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 3× “Our statutory law pertaining to the sale of new automobiles by a dealer is found in Section 301.200 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which provides: “Dealers shall execute and deliver bills of sale in accordance with forms prescribed by the director of revenue for all new cars sold by them.”
Faygal v. Shelter Ins. Co., 689 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
“Once John Mitzel presented the dealer’s bill of sale to the Department of Revenue, and received the original certificate of ownership in his name, pursuant to § 301.200, any assertion of ownership in the vehicle by plaintiff thereafter runs afoul of the requirements of § 301.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co., 581 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
“Northwestern’s Policy Except in cases involving new motor vehicles, § 301.200, V.A.M.S., requires that a car dealer have in his possession “a separate certificate of ownership, either of such dealer’s immediate vendor, or of the dealer himself” in the form prescribed by the…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.200(2) — 2 cases
Bartleman v. Humphrey, 441 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1969).
“, supra, there was no evidence of an agreement to accept a check in payment of the premium and a conditional receipt had been given for the check; and in Hickerson v. Con Frazier Buick Co., supra, the bill of sale issued to the purchaser of an automobile was no evidence of…”
Hickerson v. Con Frazier Buick Co., 264 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953).
“, provides that a dealer shall issue and deliver to the purchaser of a new car a bill of sale in accordance with the forms prescribed by the director of revenue and that when such bill of sale is presented to the director “a certificate of ownership shall be issued”.”
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.