Certificate of Title v. Muniment of Title

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Of course.

The first proof is verbal: "hey, thats mine!"

the second proof is certified: a receipt or bill.

the third proof is testimony: a verified allegation (affidavit)

controversies get settled accordingly, weighing competing claims in the balance- but affidavit beats certified which may beat verbal.

If you need to prove anything.

[palani]

How do you own a baseball?

Popov v. Hayashi, two fans argued about who owned the the 73rd home run ball hit by Barry Bonds. According to the court:

it landed in the upper portion of the webbing of a softball glove worn by Alex Popov. While the glove stopped the trajectory of the ball, it is not at all clear that the ball was secure. Popov had to reach for the ball and in doing so, may have lost his balance.

Popov was overwhelmed by a crowd as the ball entered his glove, and he went down.

Some people intentionally descended on him for the purpose of taking the ball away, while others were involuntarily forced to the ground by the momentum of the crowd.

In the melee, Popov lost the ball.

Hayashi, an innocent bystander, was knocked down by the mob, saw the ball, and grabbed it. He and Popov wound up in court over the ball. The court acknowledged the rule of capture discussed in Pierson (including the possible exception for mortally wounded animals), and other cases that relaxed the control requirement. It noted that baseball cases were different from many of the exceptions. "It is impossible to wrap ones arms around a whale, a fleeing fox or a sunken ship." Baseball requires different treatment. "Not only is it physically possible for a person to acquire unequivocal dominion and control of an abandoned baseball, but fans generally expect a claimant to have accomplished as much. The custom and practice of the stands creates a reasonable expectation that a person will achieve full control of a ball before claiming possession."

The court found that Popov did not achieve full possession: "the actor must retain control of the ball after incidental contact with people and things. Mr. Popov has not established … that he would have retained control of the ball after all momentum ceased and after any incidental contact with people or objects." According to the court, Hayashi was the first to possess the ball. But here is where we come to the final point, or tenth, of the law.

Sometimes bare possession doesn't win the day. In this case, the court found that someone who does his best to capture a piece of property, but fails because of the illegal acts of third parties, has a right to possess the property. The crowd had interfered with Popov's attempt to capture the ball. But the court also found it unfair to give the ball to Popov. The court reasoned that Hayashi would have owned the ball by virtue of being the one who wound up with it had it not been for Popov's claim. Because the court found problems with awarding the ball to either party, it awarded it to them both equally.

[netwrkranger]

From Palani's previous post:
Because the court found problems with awarding the ball to either party, it awarded it to them both equally.

Heh, equity in action.

- netwrkranger

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Heh, equity in action.

- netwrkranger

That sounds almost like or at least akin to the wisdom of Solomon.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[netwrkranger]

This NetTwerpRngr, to whom are you referring?

I know of no such individual who has posted in this thread. Would you be so kind as to point this individual out for me?

- netwrkranger

[palani]

Whether baseballs, TV's, lawn mowers or motor vehicles possession is still nine tenths of the law:

The court found that Popov did not achieve full possession: "the actor must retain control of the ball after incidental contact with people and things. Mr. Popov has not established … that he would have retained control of the ball after all momentum ceased and after any incidental contact with people or objects."

Popov is an "actor" who did not achieve "full possession".

To own your motor vehicle have a photo taken of you behind the wheel.

Record it at the courthouse.

Now you have a muniment.

Have the local paper run a copy of the photo. Save a copy of the newspaper. This would even be considered self-authenticating since it was published.

[ThomPaine]

not sure if the photo would prove anything but I guess it could be evidence of legal title if questioned and no one could prove anything to the contrary.

I would tend to lean towards administrative action by recording a declaration or affidavit for the car, claiming it as your legal property and divesting it of all other interests or claims, including those of the state.

if the state claims an interest in 'your' car they must explain how and why, if they dont, in some reasonable time, you should be good. maybe sending a letter to DMV or publishing it in the paper is the way to go, but I have never done either one..

Thom

[palani]

We 'real' men and women have a major advantage over a fictional corporation; they can never have possession of anything since they lack the requisite hands and body.

Why are they winning?

[hints - being represented; failure to raise the proper arguements]

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Certificate of Title, which is given for cars and I imagine other property, IS NOT a muniment of title.

This is of course,true.

Black's 6th

Certificate of title - Document evidencing ownership.

Muniments of title - Documentary evidence of title.

In order for one to obtain the former, one must first possess the latter. Once this occurs, the certifier will then insure that which it certifies.

How anyone could infer that an ownership interest has been transferred is beyond me. When one applies for a CoT and registration, you are merely asserting that your vehicle will be used in commerce and you wish to abide by the law accordingly.

Likewise with an MSO. How does a simple statement of facts transform into an ownership interest? It cannot. The MSO is a document mandated by the state from the maufacturer and concerns only them. It does not belong to you or concern you whatsoever.

gldskr

[netwrkranger]

Dynamite info, gldskr.

Thanks for sharing.

- netwrkranger