A certificate of title, when issued by the Department showing a security interest, shall be adequate notice to the Commonwealth, creditors, and purchasers that a security interest in the motor vehicle exists and the recording or filing of such creation or reservation of a security interest in the county or city wherein the purchaser or debtor resides or elsewhere is not necessary and shall not be required. Motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers, other than those which are inventory held for sale, registered or for which a certificate of title shall have been issued under this title shall not be subjected to, but shall be exempt from the provisions of §§ 8.9A-301 through 8.9A-527 and § 55.1-407, nor shall recordation or filing of such security interest, except a security interest in inventory held for sale, in any other place for any other purpose, be required or have any effect.
Code 1950, § 46-71; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-71; 1966, c. 558; 1989, c. 727; 2006, c. 896; 2010, c. 135.
Notes of Decisions
Bank of New York v. Leake (In Re Wuerzberger), 284 B.R. 814 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 12× “When “a security interest” is reflected on the certificate of title, Va.Code § 46.2-638 provides that the certificate of title is “adequate notice .”
Leake v. Oakwood Acceptance Corp. (In Re Wuerzberger), 271 B.R. 778 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 6× “711, 717-18 , 85 S.E.2d 201, 204 (1955). The notation on the certificate of title is deemed to provide adequate notice to the Commonwealth, creditors and purchasers that a lien on the property exists.”
Enter. Leasing Co. of Norfolk/Richmond v. Mepco, Inc. (In Re Mepco, Inc.), 276 B.R. 94 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2001).
“Code § 46.2-638. Section 46.2-644 provides that an execution hen “shah constitute a lien, subsequent to security interests previously recorded by the Department and subsequent to security interests in inventory held for sale and perfected as otherwise *101 permitted by law, when…”
Terry v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs. of Am., Inc., 338 B.R. 700 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Abruzzese noted that Virginia’s perfection statute, Va.Code § 46.2-638, although ambiguous as to the time of perfection, does not rely on the date of issuance of a certificate of title for perfection purposes.”
Commonwealth v. Car Pawn of Virginia, Inc., 37 Va. Cir. 412 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “2d 359 (1956); see also Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-638 . The Virginia Pawnbroker Statute explicitly lists “written or printed evidences of indebtedness” as one of two things that do not constitute permissible items pledged to pawnbrokers.”
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. C. L. Hyman Auto Wholesale, Inc., 42 Va. Cir. 502 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-638 (Michie 1996). In applying a predecessor to this section, the Virginia Supreme Court has said: It follows, therefore, that when a certificate of title is issued which fails to show a lien or encumbrance, it is notice to the world that the property is…”
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.