Judges: WRITTEN BY: Don Stenberg, Attorney General Paul N. Potadle, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/3/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Edward D. Wimes, Director, Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles
QUESTION 1: Under Neb.Rev.Stat.
ANSWER 1: The statute was designed to gradually implement having such statements appear on a single document: the title. Therefore, the statute does require dealers to give such statements using the single title forms.
QUESTION 2: Does the Federal Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and its accompanying regulations (
ANSWER 2: No.
QUESTION 3: Does the Federal Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and its accompanying regulations (
ANSWER 3: In certain circumstances the State may accept a separate written power of attorney.
At the outset, we point out that since this is a matter of statutory construction we must first determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary and popular sense. SID No. 57 v. City of Elkhorn,
The statement required by section
60-134 shall be on a form prescribed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Such statement shall be submitted with the application for certificate of title, and the new certificate of title in the name of the transferee shall have recorded thereon the mileage shown by such statement and a notation that the recorded mileage is actual, not actual, or in excess of the mechanical odometer limit. On and after January 1, 1989, the statement required by such section shall appear on the certificate of title. No certificate of title shall be issued unless the application is accompanied by such statement or unless the information required by such section appears on the certificate of title being submitted with the application.
Emphasis added. By way of reference, section
It should be recognized that the statute does indeed allow for certificates of title to be issued if a statement accompanies the title. However, this allowance appears only intended for vehicle titles that overlap the new requirements that went into effect in January 1989, and the older requirements that allowed separate statements. Since not every vehicle with a title not containing the form for such statements would be sold by January 1989, some latitude had to be given so that the statements appearing on the title itself could be gradually implemented. Even so, by January 1999, the implementation process should have been complete.
At this juncture, ten years beyond the effectuation of the new requirements, there should no longer be any vehicles, that require a statement be given, that would have a statement separate from the title. Neb. Rev. Stat. §
Your second question asked whether the Federal Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and its accompanying regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 580) prohibit Nebraska from accepting separate odometer statements? We are of the opinion it does not. The relevant statute provides in particular part:
(b) Mileage statement requirement for licensing. — (1) A motor vehicle the ownership of which is transferred may not be licensed for use in a State unless the transferee, in submitting an application to a State for the title on which the license will be issued, includes with the application the transferor's title and, if that title contains the space referred to in paragraph (3)(A)(iii) of this subsection, a statement, signed and dated by the transferor, of the mileage disclosure required under subsection (a) of this section. This paragraph does not apply to a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle that has not been licensed before the transfer.
The only exceptions to this rule would be in situations where either a lienholder is in possession of the title or where the title is a duplicate due to the transferor having lost the original. This second situation will be discussed in further detail in response to the third question you have raised. In these limited cases, the statute above prescribes a method using a written power of attorney by which vehicles can be licensed. Further, the Secretary of Transportation has the discretion to exempt classes or categories of vehicles from these requirements. However, no exceptions, which would be relevant here, could be detected.
Your last question is whether the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and its accompanying regulations prohibit Nebraska from accepting a secure power of attorney in cases when the title is not with the lienholder and merely unavailable. We are of the opinion that in certain circumstances the state may accept a separate written power of attorney. The relevant federal regulation states:
If the transferor's title is physically held by a lienholder, or if the transferor to whom the title was issued by the State has lost his title and the transferee obtains a duplicate title on behalf of the transferor, and if otherwise permitted by State law, the transferor may give a power of attorney to his transferee for the purpose of mileage disclosure. The power of attorney shall be on a form issued by the State to the transferee that is set forth by a means of a secure printing process or other secure process and shall contain . . . a space for the information required to be disclosed . . .
Having rendered the foregoing opinions, we take this occasion to note that the State of Nebraska, Department of Motor Vehicles is under no obligation to follow federal directives concerning odometer statements. Simply put, the State is not subject to federal direction under the Federal Truth in Mileage Act.
The recent Supreme Court case of Printz v. U.S.,
The Court made it clear in Printz that it will "sustain statutes [passed by the Congress] against a constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves they did not require the States to enforce federal law." Id. at 2380. In the end the Court "never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations." Id. In summary, the federal government cannot force a state or its agencies to do their regulating for them.
Application of the accepted rules of statutory construction and of relevant case law support these conclusions. To conclude otherwise would necessitate either legislative clarification on a state and federal level or clarification from the courts.
Sincerely,
DON STENBERG Attorney General
Paul N. Potadle Assistant Attorney General
Approved By:
Don Stenberg Attorney General