Kinder v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kinder v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

161 S.E.2d 372, 117 Ga. App. 610, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 5, 1968

Docket43483

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 161 S.E.2d 372 (Kinder v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinder v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 161 S.E.2d 372, 117 Ga. App. 610, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The evidence before the trial court showed that the vehicle was brought into Georgia on or before October 27, 1966; that it was subject to a security interest when brought into the State; and that the name of the finance company as the holder of a security interest is shown on an existing certificate of title issued by the jurisdiction where the vehicle was when the security interest attached. Because of these facts, under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, as amended Code Ann. § 68-421a (a), and (d) (2) (A)), the finance company’s security interest perfected in Texas continued perfected in Georgia, and is valid against subsequent transferees. See Capital Automobile Co. v. Continental Credit Corp., 117 Ga. App. 451. The subsection of the Act relied upon by the claimant (Code Ann. § 68-421a (d) (2) (B)) applies “if the name of the holder of a security interest ... is not shown on an existing certificate of title” of the jurisdiction where the vehicle was when the security interest attached, but does not apply in this case. In these circumstances the claimant’s objection to the competency of the evidence presented respecting the absence of recordings in Georgia is irrelevant, and it does not appear that this objection was made in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall, Judge.

The evidence before the trial court showed that the vehicle was brought into Georgia on or before October 27, 1966; that it was subject to a security interest when brought into the State; and that the name of the finance company as the holder of a security interest is shown on an existing certificate of title issued by the jurisdiction where the vehicle was when the security interest attached. Because of these facts, under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, as amended Code Ann. § 68-421a (a), and (d) (2) (A)), the finance company’s security interest perfected in Texas continued perfected in Georgia, and is valid against subsequent transferees. See Capital Automobile Co. v. Continental Credit Corp., 117 Ga. App. 451. The subsection of the Act relied upon by the claimant (Code Ann. § 68-421a (d) (2) (B)) applies “if the name of the holder of a security interest ... is not shown on an existing certificate of title” of the jurisdiction where the vehicle was when the security interest attached, but does not apply in this case. In these circumstances the claimant’s objection to the competency of the evidence presented respecting the absence of recordings in Georgia is irrelevant, and it does not appear that this objection was made in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E.2d 372, 117 Ga. App. 610, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinder-v-general-motors-acceptance-corporation-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack