It is generally illegal in Missouri for a dealership sell you a vehicle without timely providing a valid certificate of title. It is also illegal for the dealership and the finance company to collect payments when they have not timely provided you with a valid title. In general, such misconduct is statutory fraud and actionable under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Contact Reams Law if you have not received a title on the vehicle you tried to buy: (405) 285-6878.

Seems all too often in Missouri, car dealerships in Missouri try to sell a vehicle to hard-working people without providing a valid certificate of title. There may be circumstances (for example in writing by filling out a proper form) where the dealership has thirty days after a proposed sale, however, if the dealer still does not provide a valid title, the dealer and any finance company can be liable for fraud and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Protections Act.

If you didn’t timely receive a valid title, the dealership may try to tell you that your only remedy is to ‘rescind’ the sale and return the vehicle. Such assertions by a dealership or finance company are not consistent with current Missouri law.

“The sale of a car fails and is necessarily considered fraudulent and void when the seller fails to deliver a certificate of title…”  Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 408 S.W.3d 191, 203 (Mo. App. 2013). “Not providing a title is fraudulent. Id. at 205 (emphasis added), citing VAMS § 301.210. “Collecting payment on a void contract to purchase a vehicle is also fraudulent.” Id. (emphasis added). The statute “is essentially a police regulation of the highest type and absolute technical compliance is necessary. Such provisions are rigidly enforced and there are no exceptions to conform to intentions.”  Public Fin. Corp. of Kansas City, Mo. No. 1 v. Shemwell, 345 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Mo. App. W.D. 1961), citing Section 301.210. Failure to provide a title is fraudulent as a matter of statutory law, and the MMPA explicitly applies to fraudulent conduct. V.A.M.S. 407.020. Strict compliance with Section 301.210 is required. “The sale of a car fails and is necessarily considered fraudulent and void when the seller fails to deliver a certificate of title as required by Section 301.210.” Peel, supra, at 203. Failure to provide a title at the time of the purported sale is also a violation of the MMPA. Peel, supra; and see Heinz v. Driven Auto Sales, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 890, 896 (Mo.App. 2020) (finding allegations of petition for failure to provide title in violation of 301.210 stated cause of action under MMPA); and Missouri Supreme Court in Conway, 438 S.W.3d  at 416 fn. 4 (MMPA claim applies to loan servicer which entered relationship after the buyer enters the transaction, citing Peel, supra.)

Assignment by an auto dealer of the right to collect payments obligates the assignee (finance company) to perform all duties of the auto dealer created by the sales contract, including the statutory duty under Section 301.210. Heinz, supra, at 897. “The general rule is that the assignee of a non-negotiable obligation occupies exactly the same position the assigner occupied.” Id. (emphasis added), citing Peel, supra. The assignee is subject to all the same claims as the auto seller, including MMPA claims. Id. And the “FTC holder rule is broad” and encompasses the MMPA claim. Id.. “And Missouri courts have consistently held that an assignee-holder, ‘by virtue of being an assignee,’ may be liable on an MMPA claim regardless of whether the assignee committed fraudulent or unlawful conduct.” Id. (emphasis added), citing Peel. 

The holdings of the Missouri Supreme Court in Peel, supra, are on point and are still the law. “Not providing a title is fraudulent,” and “Collecting payment on a void contract to purchase a vehicle is also fraudulent.” Peel, supra,citing VAMS § 301.210. There is no authority to support a dealership’s suggestion that a claimant is now limited to voiding the sale. 

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the “primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue.” Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. 2014).  “Courts look elsewhere for interpretation only when the meaning is ambiguous or would lead to an illogical result that defeats the purpose of the legislation.” Id. “Statutory interpretation should not be hyper-technical, but reasonable and logical and should give meaning to the statute.” Id. at 203. 

Subsection 5 of 301.210 merely states that when the parties executed a written agreement for delayed delivery of certificate of ownership, the purchase has the “option” to void the sale, if the motor vehicle dealer does not pass the certificate of ownership with an assignment to the purchaser within thirty days. Giving the effect to the plain language of the statute, the language of subsection 4 and 5 merely confirm that a buyer still has a claim for fraud and violation of the MMPA, as per Peel and progeny, if a valid certificate of title in not delivered within thirty (30) days, as per the form, if signed by the buyer and seller. By stating a purchaser has an “option,” the statute necessarily does not supersede the fraud for failure to timely deliver a certificate of title, nor exclude the option to sue for fraud and violation of the MMPA.

Notably, the Form 5830 of the Missouri Department of revenue for delayed delivery by 30 days, states and represents, “I, the undersigned dealer, affirm that certificate of ownership to the above vehicle will be delivered to the purchaser within 30 days of the date of sale indicated … in accordance with Section 301.210 RSMo.” Pursuant to that Section and Peel, the dealership’s failure to timely deliver title would be fraudulent as a matter of law, especially whether they agreed to a date certain by which they were required to deliver the title, and failed to do so. By signing the Form 5830, a claimant does not agree that his/her only recourse would be to ‘void’ the sale if the Dealership failed to deliver title within thirty (30) days, and does not agree in writing, verbally or by my actions, that they were limiting their rights to make claims against the dealership and others for fraud or other legal claims. 

Peel and progeny continue to be the law in Missouri. A dealership commits fraud and violates the MMPA by failing to timely deliver a valid certificate of title to a potential buyer as promised. Thus, even an uncompleted sale may be actionable under the MMPA under certain circumstances. This is so because the MMPA includes within the scope of its protection offers of sale and attempted sales to a person who purchases, may purchase, or is solicited to purchase. In other words, the MMPA makes unlawful a broad range of conduct beyond that which would be actionable under a common law fraudulent misrepresentation theory.

Each case and circumstances are different. If you have purchased a vehicle, and were not provided with a title, contact reams law to discuss your rights. (405) 285-6878.