The Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes “Ownership” in Authorized Use of Vehicle Cases
Kin gv. Commonwealth, Record No. 230483 (Va. Oct. 24, 2024)
The Supreme Court issues a published opinion and an unpublished order today. This post discusses the published opinion, which clarifies what constitutes “ownership” in unauthorized use of vehicle cases.
Facts. At a New Year’s Eve party, Kevin Thomas King asked to borrow Isaac Robertson’s car, a Volkswagen Jetta. Robertson refused. King took the car anyway and crashed it. He was charged with the unauthorized use of another’s car under Code § 18.2-102. That statute requires the Commonwealth to prove that the accused took a car “without the consent of the owner[.]”
At trial, when Robertson was asked whether he owned the Jetta, he responded that he did. His brother had given him the car. Robertson had not, however, registered the vehicle with the DMV. King made motions to strike the evidence, arguing that Robertson was not the “owner” of the vehicle for purposes of Code § 18.2-102. He claimed that although Robertson possessed the car, he was not the “registered owner” of the car, which was a necessary element of the crime. The trial court denied the motions and convicted King. King appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, so King appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue. Whether Robertson’s failure to register the car with DMV or obtain a certificate of title prevented him from being considered the “owner” under Code § 18.2-102.
Holding. No. DMV registration and certificate of title are not required to establish vehicle ownership under Code § 18.2-102.
Notes. The Supreme Court distinguished between legal title (the right to control and dispose of property) and a DMV certificate of title (a document evidencing registration). Though a DMV certificate of title can be evidence of a vehicle’s ownership, failure to obtain one does not void an otherwise valid transfer of ownership.
The Court found that this conclusion was also supported by the statute that requires registration of a vehicle with the DMV. Code § 46.2-600 requires that “every person who owns a motor vehicle” must register that vehicle and seek a certificate of title from DMV “before it is operated on any highway in the Commonwealth[.]” Since only an owner can register a vehicle, it follows that ownership interest necessarily exists prior to issuance of a certificate of title.
Finally, the Court rejected King’s argument that the evidence did not establish Robertson as the car’s owner because he never expressly testified that his brother signed over the certificate of title to him when he gave him the vehicle. King’s unchallenged testimony that he had been given the car by his brother was sufficient to find that he owned the vehicle absent evidence that the gift was somehow invalid.
Of note, the Court limited its holding to determining whether a DMV certificate is required to establish ownership of a vehicle. It deliberately declined to define the term “owner,” leaving open the question of whether someone with less than full ownership rights, for example a lessee, could be considered an “owner” under the statute.