Well, of course it can since the title is merely presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. It confers no rights itself. (?) Acts and intentions confer rights.
And speaking of acts and intentions; let's consider that lg refrigerator. Does title pass at the time of entering into a contract to sell if the intent of the parties is title does not transfer until such time all terms of the contract have been fulfilled?
If we lay such a possibility on the sale of a car; does title transfer upon fully executing the contract or upon some event subsequent to that action? Can title be retained by a seller even if they have delivered the object of the sale until such time all terms of the contract are fulfilled or does the delivery of the vehicle confer a transfer of title as well?
Does the fact the retention of the certificate of title by the seller support a claim the intent was to retain true title until the terms of the contract had been fulfilled or will a court see the retention of the title as nothing more than asserting a lien against the title?
But even with all of that; does the the seller have a right to repossess the vehicle if such an action had not been specifically included in the purchase agreement regardless of whether seller retained or transferred the certificate of title or are his remedies limited to what a court will order, whether it be a money judgment or a right to reclaim the vehicle?
(If the word "title" in your first paragraph is meant to refer to certificate of title to a motor vehicle, then I must disagree that it is only presumptive proof of ownership. Here it is the exclusive proof of ownership of a motor vehicle, the endorsement of which by the seller is the only means of transferring ownership. All of which forms the basis for my dilemma as I hope to explain below.)
__________________
You must agree that at common law the title (ownership) to personal property - depending on the expressed or implied intention of the parities - CAN pass from seller to purchaser notwithstanding that payment of the purchase price is deferred? (The UCC recites numerous examples.)
My question is does this axiom of personal property law apply in the case of the sale of a motor vehicle. Again noting that in my state (and I believe it's the same in others) that such ownership can only be established by the existence of a certificate of title bearing the claimant's name.
And is not the answer to the question central to the case at hand where the OP has retained the certificate title in his name and yet has no writing evidencing a security interest in the vehicle?
Has the OP retained such ownership interest as to permit a court to sanction his repossession of the vehicle (without breaching the peace) and/or ordering that it be returned to him?
And if repossession is permitted, what is the status of the indebtedness?
Here, I suppose we could talk about an election of remedies, but is one choice of remedies the right to retrieve the vehicle, which returns us to square one.
Of course if we remain at odds as to the significance of a certificate of title to a motor vehicle as being the exclusive evidence of ownership, then we are at such opposite poles as to render our discussion for naught. But I think you are occupying the negative pole.
Thanks for you time.
