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

[Frank Ettin]

Good job, Spats. And good discussion.

Having been involved in similar discussions I've concluded that it's probably best to avoid using "title" to describe "ownership." It is a correct use of the word, but many people are so used to thinking in terms of pieces of paper (e. g., deeds, pink slips, bills of sale, bills of lading, etc.) as "title" it becomes confusing. As has been pointed out, those pieces of paper aren't actual "title" but are really evidence of title (i. e., ownership).

Most people have a decent, intuitive understanding of ownership. Of course as Spats has discussed "ownership" is itself complex and layered in the law.

 

[Librarian]

I think the common usage of 'title' involves some kind of notice to another party about ownership, and many things just do not need something official.

For example, land 'title' has lots of documents associated (and is implemented a little differently in different states), but is intended to give notice to the world that A has transferred 'real property' to B, and any conditions that may exist on that transfer or on the use of the property. The existence of a loan is often part of the public record. (Used to work for a California 'Title Insurance' company, many moons ago.)

Automobiles have 'title', but that, too, is most often used in association with loans - the lender is secured by an ownership interest in the vehicle, until the loan is repaid.

Things like your shoes have no need of any notice to third parties that the transfer has taken place, from the store to you the buyer. That isn't usually challenged. Picking on California law, Evidence Code says

Evidence Code 637 The things which a person possesses are presumed to be owned by him.

Evidence Code 638 A person who exercises acts of ownership over property is presumed to be the owner of it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Things like your shoes have no need of any notice to third parties that the transfer has taken place, from the store to you the buyer. That isn't usually challenged. Picking on California law, Evidence Code says

Evidence Code 637 The things which a person possesses are presumed to be owned by him.

Evidence Code 638 A person who exercises acts of ownership over property is presumed to be the owner of it.

It depends on the situation. Like presumptions generally, those presumptions are rebuttable. So if you're standing in the parking lot of the mall with a pair of shoes, you might have trouble enjoying the benefits of those presumptions when the clerk from the department store has a security camera tape of you walking out with those shoes without paying for them.

Basically what those statutes mean is that if you have possession of something you can keep it and act like you have Spats' entire bundle of sticks -- unless and until someone can show a superior claim, or as we sometimes say downtown, "better title."

So you might be able to defend your continued possession of that watch on your wrist against everyone in the world -- until I establish that I reported that watch stolen three years ago.

"Title" really does mean "ownership" even if folks sometimes try to make it mean something else.

 

[kilimanjaro]

You hold title to everything you own, from forks to houses.

The requires you to have a certificate of title, or a deed, to certain things to prove your ownership. Cars, houses, and land, in general.

Requiring written conveyances of land is centuries old law, the old English Statute of Frauds is the basis.