Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Gregory D. Schneider ( 2019 )

FILED
Nov 22 2019, 8:17 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Indiana Bureau of Motor November 22, 2019
Vehicles, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Respondent, 19A-MI-107
Appeal from the Vigo Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Christopher A.
Gregory D. Schneider, Newton, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner, Trial Court Cause No.
84D04-1712-MI-9013
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Gregory Schneider applied to the trial court for an order directing the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) to issue a certificate of title to a truck he purchased at
an auction. Over the BMV’s objection, the trial court ordered the BMV to issue
a salvage title to the vehicle. The BMV now appeals, raising one issue for our
review: whether the trial court’s judgment is contrary to law. Concluding the
trial court’s order is contrary to Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18, we reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In June 2017, Schneider purchased a 2013 Ford F-250 truck with a vehicle
identification number (“VIN”) ending in 2853 at a salvage auction. The
certificate of title Schneider was given was lost or destroyed, and Schneider
therefore applied to the trial court for an order directing the BMV to issue a
certificate of title. Attached to Schneider’s application, inter alia, was an
Affidavit of Restoration for a Salvage Motor Vehicle signed by a Terre Haute
Police Department patrolman attesting that the patrolman had personally
examined the vehicle and certifying that the “salvage restoration conforms to
Indiana Code [ch.] 9-22-3.” Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2 at 32. The trial
court issued an order on January 11, 2018, instructing the BMV to “issue a
certificate of title to [Schneider] upon receipt of payment of all requisite costs
and fees.” Id. at 23.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 2 of 9
[3] On June 5, 2018, the BMV filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging it
had not been served with the application or a summons and was unaware of the
trial court’s order until receiving a title application packet from Schneider on
May 25, 2018. Upon receiving the packet, the BMV ran the truck’s VIN
through the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (“NMVTIS”)1
and found the title was branded2 as “[c]rushed” in Louisiana as of October 20,
2016. Id. at 24. Such a brand means the “frame or chassis of the vehicle has
been crushed or otherwise destroyed so that it is physically impossible to use it
in constructing a vehicle.” Id. Citing Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18, which
prohibits issuance of a certificate of title for a vehicle that has been designated
junk, dismantled, scrap, destroyed, “or any similar designation in another state
or jurisdiction[,]” the BMV asked that the trial court’s January 11, 2018 order
be vacated as contrary to law. The trial court granted the BMV’s motion “to
the extent it directs issuance of a certificate of title” and set the matter for a
hearing. Id. at 17.
1
NMVTIS “serves as a repository of information related to vehicles that have been in the possession of auto
recyclers, junk yards and salvage yards. This repository is then used by states and consumers to ensure that
junk or salvage vehicles are not later re-sold[.]” National Motor Vehicle Title Information System Reporting
Entities, https://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_auto.html (last visited November 5, 2019). The United
States Department of Justice oversees the implementation and operation of NMVTIS. National Motor
Vehicle Title Information System FAQs, https://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_faq.html (last visited
November 5, 2019).
2
“A ‘brand’ is a descriptive label that states assign to a vehicle to identify the vehicle’s current or prior
conditions, such as ‘junk,’ ‘salvage,’ ‘flood,’ or other designation.” National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System Consumers, https://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_consumers.html (last visited
November 5, 2019). NMVTIS collects brand information but does not change the nomenclature used in
individual state motor vehicle laws. Id. A state’s laws, standards, and terminology are not affected by
NMVTIS. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 3 of 9
[4] Schneider appeared in person for the hearing on July 13, 2018, and the BMV
appeared by counsel telephonically. The BMV stated that as long as the trial
court’s most recent order granting its motion to set aside the judgment stands,
“[w]e don’t have any other interest in this matter.” [July 13, 2018] Petition for
Title Hearing (“July Tr.”), Volume 2 at 6. Schneider asserted the truck was a
“flood vehicle” and stated he wanted “to pay taxes on it so [he] can license it
and insurance [sic] it and drive it.” Id. at 7. The trial court set a review hearing
and took the matter under advisement to “[s]ee if there isn’t something else that
could be done[.]” Id. at 8. At the review hearing,3 the trial court stated,
“[Schneider] said he wants a salvaged title or whatever. I mean, he just wants
to drive the car which is understandable[.] . . . I’ll order the BMV to issue him a
salvaged title and then, let’s just see what . . . they do this time.” [December
10, 2018] Petition for Title Hearing (“Dec. Tr.”), Volume 2 at 7. Accordingly,
the trial court issued a written order that the BMV “shall issue a certificate of
title (salvaged) to [Schneider] upon receipt of payment of all requisite costs and
fees.” Appealed Order at 2 (emphasis added). The BMV now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Initially, we note that Schneider failed to file an appellee’s brief. When the
appellee fails to file a brief on appeal, we do not undertake the burden of
3
Schneider failed to appear for the review hearing set for August 24, 2018. At the BMV’s request, the trial
court dismissed the case without prejudice. Schneider later wrote a letter to the court requesting a new
hearing date. The review hearing was eventually held on December 10, 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 4 of 9
developing arguments for that party. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d
1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). Rather, we will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the
appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error. Id. In this context,
prima facie error is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face
of it.” Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
[6] The BMV contends that the trial court’s order was contrary to law because
Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18 prohibits issuance of any title to this vehicle.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo.
BP Prods. N. America, Inc. v. Ind. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor, 964 N.E.2d
234, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “The primary purpose of statutory interpretation
is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. The best evidence
of legislative intent is the statutory language itself, and we strive to give the
words in a statute their plain and ordinary meaning.” 21st Amendment, Inc. v.
Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 84 N.E.3d 691, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied.
[7] We begin by elaborating on Indiana’s Salvage Motor Vehicles Act. Ind. Code
ch. 9-22-3. Whereas a “salvage vehicle” might be considered in the common
vernacular to be any number of vehicles used for parts or scrap, the Salvage
Motor Vehicles Act allows a salvage title to be issued only to a very specific
category of salvage vehicles described in Indiana Code section 9-22-3-3.
Relevant to this case is that the statute requires a flood damaged vehicle
manufactured within the last seven years to have a salvage title. Ind. Code § 9-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 5 of 9
22-3-3(a)(3).4 If a vehicle for which a salvage title has been issued is later
repaired and made operable, a “rebuilt vehicle title” may be obtained. Ind.
Code § 9-22-3-15. Schneider and the trial court both referred to this truck as a
“flood vehicle.” See July Tr., Vol. 2 at 7; Dec. Tr., Vol. 2 at 6. Schneider
provided proof that the vehicle was inspected by a police officer and deemed
roadworthy. He also showed the trial court a picture of the vehicle at the July
hearing and the trial court observed that “it looks fine.” July Tr., Vol. 2 at 7.
The trial court understandably wanted to offer Schneider some avenue to be
able to drive his vehicle. However, other than Schneider’s assertion, there is no
evidence that this vehicle meets the definition of a flood damaged vehicle such
that it could have been issued a salvage title. See Ind. Code § 9-22-3-2.5.
[8] Moreover, even if this vehicle did meet the definition of a flood damaged
vehicle, it appears that the plain language of section 9-22-3-18 would still
prohibit it from being titled if it also bears a particular brand. Indiana Code
section 9-22-3-18 states, “A vehicle that has been designated ‘JUNK’,
‘DISMANTLED’, ‘SCRAP’, ‘DESTROYED’, or any similar designation in
another state or jurisdiction shall not be titled in Indiana.” (Emphasis added.)
Only one case has addressed this statute. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Majestic
Auto Body, 128 N.E.3d 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), concerned an effort to title two
4
Section 9-22-3-3(a)(1) requires a salvage title when an insurer has determined that it is economically
impractical to repair a wrecked or damaged motor vehicle and has settled with the insured. Section 9-22-3-
3(a)(2) requires a salvage title when the owner of the vehicle is self-insured or acquired the vehicle after it was
wrecked, destroyed, or damaged and the cost of repairing the vehicle exceeds 70% of the fair market value
immediately before it was wrecked, destroyed, or damaged.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 6 of 9
vehicles that had been purchased at an auction in Texas. The vehicles were
branded junk vehicles because they had been damaged during Hurricane
Harvey. The NMVTIS report indicated the vehicles were “incapable of safe
operation for use on the roads or highways and [have] no resale value except as
a source of parts or scrap.” Id. at 467. Upon bringing the vehicles to Indiana,
Majestic had them inspected by the Indiana State Police, which gave both
vehicles favorable roadworthiness reports.5 Majestic then applied to obtain
clean title to the vehicles. The trial court ultimately ordered the BMV to issue
salvage titles to the vehicles.6 The BMV appealed, citing Indiana Code section
9-22-3-18. We held:
The evidence undeniably establishes that the vehicles had been
damaged by a flood, and Texas had designated both vehicles as
junk . . . . Notwithstanding the State Police’s conclusion that the
vehicles seemed roadworthy and showed no apparent signs of
damage, Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18 is clear that a vehicle
which has been designated as junk, dismantled, scrap, destroyed
or any similar designation in another state or jurisdiction cannot
be titled in Indiana. . . . The trial court reasoned that, because
Texas had issued salvage titles to the vehicles, they should
therefore receive similar titles in Indiana. However, under the
plain and unambiguous terms of Indiana Code 9-22-3-18,
5
In both Majestic and this case, the purchasers availed themselves of the statutory procedure for having the
police inspect their vehicles and the vehicles were declared roadworthy. See Ind. Code § 9-22-3-15. If the
legislature intended by this procedure for Indiana to have a say in whether a vehicle continues to meet the
designation given by another state, it should amend the statute to so state.
6
The trial court initially ordered the BMV to issue clean title to both vehicles. The BMV filed a Trial Rule
60(B) motion for relief from judgment claiming the orders to issue clean title violated Indiana Code section 9-
22-3-18. After a hearing on the BMV’s motion, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order directing the
BMV to issue salvage, rather than clean, titles to the vehicles.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 7 of 9
Majestic’s vehicles cannot be titled in Indiana since Texas had
designated them as junk vehicles.
Id. at 470-71. Accordingly, we reversed the trial court’s order requiring the
BMV to issue salvage titles to the vehicles. Id. at 471.
[9] The result in Majestic was clear because another state had branded the vehicles
in question “junk,” a designation specifically referenced in section 9-22-3-18.
Here, the designation is “crushed,” a term not specifically used in the statute.
Nonetheless, the scope of the statute includes vehicles given a “similar
designation” to “junk,” “dismantled,” “scrap,” or “destroyed” by another state.
Therefore, it is the substance of the brand rather than the specific word that
controls whether section 9-22-3-18 applies. The NMVTIS explanation of the
“crushed” designation is that the frame has been “crushed or otherwise destroyed
so that it is physically impossible to use it in constructing a vehicle.”
Appellant’s App., Vol. 2 at 24 (emphasis added). As Schneider has not filed a
brief offering any argument for why “crushed” is not a “similar designation” to
those in the statute and as “crushed” is, in part, defined as “destroyed,” we
conclude the BMV has made a prima facie showing of error. The plain and
unambiguous language of section 9-22-3-18 prohibits the issuance of a title of
any sort to this vehicle.
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 8 of 9
[10] The trial court acted contrary to law in ordering the BMV to issue a certificate
of salvage title to Schneider’s vehicle that had been branded “crushed” by
another state. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
[11] Reversed.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-107 | November 22, 2019 Page 9 of 9