CA Nonresident Vehicle Registration, Commerce Clause and P&I Clause

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I am not a California resident. My son, a California resident, has been driving my car for his own personal and regular use in California for several years now. I visit for a few days a year and at that time I drive the car. The car has remained in California since it entered the state, but the car has been properly registered in my state the whole time. I pay my own insurance on the car, and my son has recently purchased his own insurance on the car. My son is not a student and is not in the military

CA Vehicle Code 6700 & 4000.4 essentially say that nonresidents do not have to register their car with CA, however 6700b says that the car must be registered with CA if a nonresident "furnishes" the car to a resident for regular use.

Is this constitutional? This law essentially forces me to register my car in two different states, one of which I am not a resident of. I'm looking at the Dormant commerce clause and/or Article IV privilege and immunities clause to fight this.

I suppose you could file a lawsuit in the Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.

I question if your vehicle is "properly" registered in your state if it has not been there for several years, and if it needs to be registered in your state if you register it in California.

Stevef said:

I suppose you could file a lawsuit in the Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.

I question if your vehicle is "properly" registered in your state if it has not been there for several years, and if it needs to be registered in your state if you register it in California.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Isn't the standard test where the vehicle is regularly used and garaged? The CA resident son seems to have primary use and possession of the vehicle in CA. If the son only had temporary residence in CA, such as school or military service, that would be one thing, but OP has already stated that neither of those apply.

No one is saying that Dad has to sign over title to his CA resident son, but it sounds like he DOES have to register the vehicle in the state where it is regularly garaged and where the primary driver resides. That clearly is going to be California.

I'm also wondering if maintaining an out-of-state registration isn't some ruse to lower the car insurance premiums. If OP is claiming that the vehicle belongs to HIS state, is the son trying to claim the registration state as the garaging location and his own residence for insurance purposes? I know all too well how high CA insurance premiums can be, especially in certain metropolitan areas, and significantly higher than rates in other more rural states. I smell insurance fraud as the intent here.

sandyclaus;3163821]Totally agree. Isn't the standard test where the vehicle is regularly used and garaged?

Click to expand...

Not in all states. Some allow the use of an out of state vehicle for unlimited time if the owner of the vehicle is not a resident of the state the vehicle is kept. California is one the states that do not allow this.

I know all too well how high CA insurance premiums can be, especially in certain metropolitan areas, and significantly higher than rates in other more rural states. I smell insurance fraud as the intent here.

Click to expand...

Possibly but not necessarily. Often times a parent will provide a vehicle for their child but retain ownership of the vehicle. I have loaned cars to my children for years at a time. I simply did not choose to give up ownership for whatever reason and because the laws of the states involved did not require it to be treated as an in state vehicle, I could maintain plates and insurance from my state.

Is this constitutional? This law essentially forces me to register my car in two different states, one of which I am not a resident of. I'm looking at the Dormant commerce clause and/or Article IV privilege and immunities clause to fight this.

Click to expand...

No. They only require you to register it in one state. California requires you register a car that is regularly domiciled in California to have a California registration and the basis is quite simple: if you are using the California roadways and infrastructure, it is only proper you pay California taxes for that use. If you register it out of state, the state does not gain whatever money a California registered car pays. As well, since it is treated as an "in state" vehicle, they prefer to enforce the "in state" vehicle laws; smog, window treatment, insurance, and anything that is state specific.

Of course, if you have the money and time to fight this, by all means, support the attorneys of California and have at it. I am sure there is somebody willing to accept your money to mount a case for you.

Regardless of registration, a car always needs to be insured where it is primarily garaged and driven.

ecmst12 said:

Regardless of registration, a car always needs to be insured where it is primarily garaged and driven.

Click to expand...

The insurance company is allowed to demand to be informed of the normal place of use but unless the specific state where the vehicle is typically used requires it, the insurance in place on the vehicle is based on the state of registration. As an example; if you have a MI registration, you are required, by state law, to have insurance that complies with the very specific laws of MI. It is not generally available from an out of state provider since we have some very specific "funds" that have to be paid to the state that are not actually part of your insurance providers charges.

What's funny is; insurance companies immediately across the state line typically do not provide insurance for MI drivers because they do not provide MI qualified insurance.

but to add to that;

if you do maintain the car in MI, you are required to obtain MI qualified insurance, even if you have an out of state registration.

go figure.

Let's not even discuss Michigan.

sandyclaus said:

I'm also wondering if maintaining an out-of-state registration isn't some ruse to lower the car insurance premiums. If OP is claiming that the vehicle belongs to HIS state, is the son trying to claim the registration state as the garaging location and his own residence for insurance purposes? I know all too well how high CA insurance premiums can be, especially in certain metropolitan areas, and significantly higher than rates in other more rural states. I smell insurance fraud as the intent here.

Click to expand...

I told my insurance lady that the car is going to be in CA. And my son bought his own insurance in CA.

Gerulz04 said:

I told my insurance lady that the car is going to be in CA. And my son bought his own insurance in CA.

Click to expand...

OK, but did you tell her it was going to STAY in California? Does the insurance you carry meet the insurance requirements and minimums for California? Did your son use his own California residence address as the garaging address for his own policy? Do BOTH of these policies coexist, and who is named as the payee in the event of an accident - you, your son, both of you, or is there a lienholder/finance company?

(for other seniors, how does the fact that there are two separate insurance policies covering the same vehicle affect this scenario?)

It needs to be registered in CA:


Your son had 20 days to get the registration taken care of (VC 6700 et seq.) - as you already pointed out. I don't see that you have any choice in the matter but to have it legally registered in CA. And, unless the cost to litigate is less than the cost of registration, I suspect the registration process is the wiser path. Or, you can wait until he is cited for this offense before you take action. However, be certain that your insurance company knows that the vehicle is registered out of CA and may be illegally registered. You might find that if something happens, and it is improperly/illegally registered, they may not cover some or all of a claim. I don't know that this could happen, but it might be worth raising the issue with your insurer.