Looking for an article or source showing defining "legal title".

J

JimDandy

New member
I'm trying to explain the difference between transfer of title and transfer of possession as it relates to "universal background checks" but the person I'm trying to explain it to can't get past the certificate of title in their glove box, or the deed to their house, and thinks title only applies to those sorts of property. I tried the legal dictionaries online, but they don't make it clear title applies to all sorts of personal property like lawnmowers, jewelry, or a plastic egg of silly putty.
 
I tried all the dictionaries. I've been looking for someplace where someone is acknowledged as having title to tangible movable personal property not a car/boat/ATV/conveyance one must register with the DMV/state/County- a lawnmower, the Hope Diamond, The biggest marshmallow peep collection on record.
 
I guess I'd have to know exactly what argument you're trying to make but as far as I know "title" does apply only to those things for which there is a tangible "title".

For instance, NY Penal Code speaks many, many times about "owner" and "ownership" but never defines that word. It actually uses the word "ownership" in the definition of "property of another". I don't see a single reference to a person having "title" to anything except real property, vehicles, stock-holders and financial instruments.
 
I'm trying to explain the difference between transfer of title and transfer of possession.

For example, if your neighbor sells you his garden hose, you've got title to the garden hose. If you borrow it, you've only got possession.

I've tried explaining that title is a concept not a piece of paper, but we've called that pink slip a title instead of a certificate of title for too long, I guess. I haven't used the Wikipedia article yet, but I may have to.
 
If I were you, I'd change terminology, title-->ownership. If the person is stuck on the tangible nature of the word title for things it commonly gets applied to, remind them that title is just record of ownership and it sounds like you're trying to explain the difference between ownership and possession.
 
Well, if you get down to the nitty-gritty on this, . . . . We can talk about "title" to a car or land, but the document to which we're likely referring is actually "evidence of title." According to Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., is a title which is "cognizable and or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of 'equitable title.' It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title." Black's Law Dict., 7th ed., 1990. Black's cites Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, 597, as support for the foregoing.
 
I don't think the concept exists in the context in which you are trying to apply it.

There is no "title" to a garden hose. You may be ENtitled to it, having paid money and owning it, but there is no "title" to be transferred.

As I said, NY Penal Code makes no reference to "titles" of any kind except for those mentioned in my previous post. It only talks about "owner" and "ownership".

A second point, firearms laws are almost always concerned with "possession" anyway, not transfer of ownership. Ownership is coincidental to possession.
 
No, Brian, I have to disagree. There is a concept of "title" to personal property, which is used largely interchangeably with "ownership." For example, from the UCC, as adopted in Arkansas:

Each provision of this chapter with regard to the rights, obligations and remedies of the seller, the buyer, purchasers or other third parties applies irrespective of title to the goods except where the provision refers to such title. Insofar as situations are not covered by the other provisions of this chapter and matters concerning title become material the following rules apply:

(1) Title to goods cannot pass under a contract for sale prior to their identification to the contract (§ 4-2-501), and unless otherwise explicitly agreed the buyer acquires by their identification a special property as limited by this subtitle. Any retention or reservation by the seller of the title (property) in goods shipped or delivered to the buyer is limited in effect to a reservation of a security interest. Subject to these provisions and to the provisions of the chapter on secured transactions (chapter 9 of this title), title to goods passes from the seller to the buyer in any manner and on any conditions explicitly agreed on by the parties.

(2) Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods, despite any reservation of a security interest and even though a document of title is to be delivered at a different time or place; and in particular and despite any reservation of a security interest by the bill of lading:

(a) if the contract requires or authorizes the seller to send the goods to the buyer but does not require him to deliver them at destination, title passes to the buyer at the time and place of shipment; but

(b) if the contract requires delivery at destination, title passes on tender there.

(3) Unless otherwise explicitly agreed where delivery is to be made without moving the goods:

(a) if the seller is to deliver a tangible document of title, title passes at the time when and the place where he delivers such documents and if the seller is to deliver an electronic document of title, title passes when the seller delivers the document; or

(b) if the goods are at the time of contracting already identified and no documents of title are to be delivered, title passes at the time and place of contracting.

(4) A rejection or other refusal by the buyer to receive or retain the goods, whether or not justified, or a justified revocation of acceptance revests title to the goods in the seller. Such revesting occurs by operation of law and is not a “sale”.

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-401 (West)
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, from what I've been able to gather, title is a concept, for lack of a better term, denoting a collection of rights to property- real or personal.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent page on the thing, but it's not an "official legal source" like Black's Dictionary, or the one at Cornell, etc.
 
Spats,

Is that a general reference to all sales of "goods"? It's kind of confusing, as it seems to suggest in some parts that there is a physical title, in other places that it's only a conceptual title and in one place,
Any retention or reservation by the seller of the title (property) in goods shipped or delivered
Click to expand...
, seems to equate title with the actual "goods".
 
From what I understand, title is always conceptual. That piece of paper in your car isn't a title. It's a certificate of title, or evidence of title, or some other longer name that's been shortened to title.

Edit to add: If you look in other places of the UCC, that may or may not have been adopted by his state, at times title is transferred by delivering goods without a paper instrument, sometimes it's a paper title instrument, and sometimes, it's a bill of lading, or other such delivery documents. UCC text See: § 7-104. Negotiable and Non-negotiable Warehouse Receipt, Bill of Lading or Other Document of Title.
 
Let me see if I can give you a quick, layman's explanation. If a bunch of property lawyers were to go through this, it's not even close to technically correct, but maybe it will be of some help:

Property rights are like a bundle of sticks. If you have all of the sticks, you have all of the rights to the property. When you "own" the whole bundle, it can be said that you "hold title" to the property. In real property terms, you "hold title in fee simple," but I'm not sure if the term "fee simple" applies to personal property or not.

If you hold complete title to something (the whole bundle of sticks), you can pick and choose which sticks to keep, and which to sell, loan, etc. If you and I go to the range, and I loan you a rifle, I still hold title to the rifle, but you get the stick labeled "possession" until I want it back. You have no other interest in the rifle. If you rent the rifle from me, say $10 for an hour, then you have a possessory interest in the rifle. You get the stick labeled "Possessory Interest" for an hour, but I still retain title. I can't take the stick (or the rifle) back for an hour. There are other sticks, too. "Exclusion" allows me to determine who is barred from using my rifle.

If you only have some of the sticks, then you do not have "title in fee simple," but may have some other form of ownership, such as a joint tenancy, or a tenancy by the entirety. For example, if my wife and I buy a home, we both have the stick labeled "Occupancy," and we are both entitled to occupy the entire house, with neither having a stick labeled "exclusion," at least in regards to the other spouse.

Does that help any?

Brian Pfleuger said:
Spats,

Is that a general reference to all sales of "goods"? It's kind of confusing, as it seems to suggest in some parts that there is a physical title, in other places that it's only a conceptual title and in one place,

Any retention or reservation by the seller of the title (property) in goods shipped or delivered
Click to expand...

, seems to equate title with the actual "goods".
Click to expand...
Brian,
Like I said, it's from the UCC. Here's the "scope" clause:
Unless the context otherwise requires, this chapter applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this chapter impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-102 (West)
Click to expand...
Yes, it applies to all sales of goods. Most of us never think twice about these things, because the "contract" is so standard, and formed so quickly and effortlessly, that there's no reason to think about it. Example: I walk into the E-Z Mart, they have a candy bar on the shelf for $1.59. In UCC terms, they've held a good out for sale (an offer). I go to the counter, plop down two dollars, and I've both accepted the contract and tendered consideration. We now have a contract for the sale of goods.

Yes, it's confusing. Think of it this way: I offer to sell you 5,000 widgets for $5,000, a price that you think is pretty good. We sign the contract, which provides that it is my reponsibility to get them to you whole, and undamaged. However, I may provide in my contract that I retain "title" to the widgets until your check clears. If your check bounces, I want my widgets back.

Does that help?
 
Yeah, that stick thing helps a lot, actually.:D

That sort of concept might but what Mr Dandy is looking for, in so far as explaining it to the other person.
 
Believe it or not, I picked up the "bundle of sticks" analogy in law school. That was how my Property Law professor explained property rights.
 
It absolutely is, and I'll be linking her to this forum to read it.

Edit: Oh and Spats, as one of my examples was a Big Mac, which threw her for a loop, if you did purchase that candy bar, would you then have title to it?
 
JimDandy said:
. . . .Edit to add: If you look in other places of the UCC, that may or may not have been adopted by his state, at times title is transferred by delivering goods without a paper instrument, sometimes it's a paper title instrument, and sometimes, it's a bill of lading, or other such delivery documents. UCC text See: § 7-104. Negotiable and Non-negotiable Warehouse Receipt, Bill of Lading or Other Document of Title.
Click to expand...
Yes, the time at which title passes can vary from contract to contract. Going back to my "Spats Sells Widgets to Brian" example, if he and I both agree to the terms of the contract, title could pass:
1) When he pays me for the widgets, prior to shipment;
2) When the widgets arrive at his warehouse in NY;
3) After he has inspected and approved the condition of the widgets;
4) Whenever is mutually agreeable to both Brian and myself.

JimDandy said:
Edit: Oh and Spats, as one of my examples was a Big Mac, which threw her for a loop, if you did purchase that candy bar, would you then have title to it?
Click to expand...
Yes, along with full rights and responsibilities that go with it. Once the cashier has accepted my payment, I have "the whole bundle of sticks" with regard to the candy bar. IOW, I can eat it. I can give it away. I can prohibit another person from eating it. ("Hey, that's mine!") I can sell it out on the street. I cannot legally force someone else to eat it. (In theory, I could loan it or rent it out, though I'm not sure why anyone would rent a candy bar.)
 
I might also suggest the way many people buy stocks.

That frequently happens through brokers; and it is often just a collection of accounting entries. The buyer must pay for the shares, and may dispose of them as property, but few people actually get the certificates of ownership - one 'owns' the stock, but often never 'possesses' it.

Or, that might just be more confusing.
 
Spats McGee said:
Believe it or not, I picked up the "bundle of sticks" analogy in law school. That was how my Property Law professor explained property rights.
Click to expand...

I served on jury duty last February in civil court. The judge used the "bundle of sticks" analogy. [It was a property dispute about a local community park and we had to determine if the whole "bundle of sticks" was transferred].

Thanks guys for the discussion. I don't post often, usually just lurking, but I am always learnin' stuff. Good stuff. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top