Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. D. C. Orem Oplnlon HO. v-1049. State Highway Engineer Texas Highvay Department Re: The legality of iasaling Austin, Texas a motor vehicle certif- icate of title to *John Doe ~~Mary Doe" o* "John Dear Sir: Doe and/or Mary Doe". Your request for an oplnlou Inqulres aa to wheth- er your Department Is authorized to issue a certlilcate of title of a motor vehicle based upon an applicationwhich in- dicatee ownership thereof to be alteruatlvelyjoined between two or more pemona joined by "or' or joined by "and/or". We are not called upon to aonstrue certificate8 of'title already iseued~in the foregoing manner, but you only inquire as to t&e propriety of future limumce. It is reoognited in Texas that a certiiicatc of' title constitutes the primary and controlling evidence of title after a motor vehicle has been Bold for the firsttime. Elder Chevrolet Go. v. Bailey County Motor tl Tex. Clo. A 1 41 Ma 1 Mill gex! Cio. App. F&T): 6!iC.Jf\i.%zi M otor Vehicles, Sec. 42. Title ?f a motor vehicle mean8 kershhip, and of necea- requlrea certainty and definlteneaa. Upder Article :&-1 v P c the "Certificateof Title Act', provieion is mad; ikr,r'a'iontinuous chain of title .orovnerahlp Srom manufacture to junking or deetruction. The Certlf'icateof Title A& provides that before s&lling any motor vehiole required to be registered or 12- tensed in this State "the owner shall~make&pblicati6i3.-.. for a certliicate OS title-and "no motor vehicle may be diaposed of at a eubbsequent'saleunless the owner~deslgnated in the certificate of title" ahall transfer %he certiricate oi title on the rorm prescribed by State Highway Department. See Artiole 1436-l,'Sect.ions27 and 33, V.P.C. Under Section 4, “Ovner” is defined as lqcluding: Hon. D. C. Qreer, Page 2, V-1049. "The term 'Owner1 Includes any person, fly%, asaoclatlon,or oorporatlon other than a manufacturer,importer, distributor, or dealer clalmlng title to, or having a right to operate pursuant to a lien en a motor vehl- cle after the first sale,as herein defined, except the Federal Government and any of Its agencies, and the State of Texas and any gov- ernmental subdlvlslonor agency thereof not required by law to register or license motor vehicles owned or used thereby In this State.' Under Section 24, the "Certificateof Title" must Include: "The term 'Certificateof Title' means a written Instrumentwhich may be Issued sole- ly by and under the authority of the Depart- ment, and which must give the following data tog&her with 'suchother data as the *p-t- ment may require from time to time: "(a) The nsme and address of the pur- cwser and seller at first sale nortransferei and transferer at any subsequent sale. n. . . "(1) A space for the signature of the owner and the owner ahall writehlu name with pen and Ink In such space upon receipt of the certificate." An examlnatlon of the foregoing Indicates that certainty of ownership is required under Article 1436-l. Use of the conjunction "or" between two.representedper- aono in the capacity of the “owner” creates an alterna- tive or choice between such expressed persons, and does z;zt;;istltutethe certainty which Is required under that Of course, joint ownership Is not precluded, but use'of the conjunction *or" does not create joint own- ership, it creates an alternative ownership, l.fanything, which would lead to uncertaintiesof conveyanolngand of creditors'rights which were precisely intended to be elim- inated by Article 1436-l. You next inquire whether you may lsnue a certlf- lcate of title in the name of persons joined eonjunctlvely on the applicationby the phrase "and/or". Hon. D. C. Greer, Page 3, V-1049. In American General Insurance Co. v. Webster, 118 S.W.2d 1082 (Tex. Clv. A 1936 di I th following language is found %ch ls'q~~?ap&riatee to the use of 'and/o$' in a certificateof title or else- where: "Incidentally,we will remark that we would probably be warranted in considering that part of the sentence followlng'and/orl as meaningless, for to our way of thinking the abominable Invention, *and/or',Is as, devoid of meaning as It Is Incapable of classlflcatlonby the rules of grammar and syntax." The Supreme Court of Missouri condemned the use of "and/or" In State v. Douglas, 339 MO. 187, 95 S.W.2d 1179 (19361, saying: 11 . . * I confess I do not know what Is meant by the use of the phrase 'and/or.' mere Is no reason why a statute, contra&, or legal document of any kind cannot be stated in plain English. The use of the symbol 'and/or'has been condemned by some ;~::a and should be condemned by every In CogDptonv. State (TexiCr.App.) 91 S.;.(2d) 732, 733, a Texas court had the rOii0mg to 8ay 0s its use: 'At the very threshold of this case, we are confronted with the onerous task of determini what Is meant by the word or symbol "and7 or" ap- pearing In the Indictment. If the pleader meant the conjunctive,he should have em- ployed the wo+ "and"; but If he meant to ~~~~~t~~r~lsjunctlve, he should have used ; to use both leads to uncer- tainty and confusion. The primary requisite of criminal pleading Is deflnltenessand cer- tainty, so that nothing la left to inference or lntendment. The American Bar Association Journal, in commenting on the growing use of "sand/or,"said: "It Is Indicative of con- fused thought and should have no place in either a statqte or legal document as 'and/ or' makes confusion worse confounded.'. . '.* Such an vpression Is neither conjunctive nor disjunctive,and 18, we think, without that degree of - r Hon. D. C. Gtieer,Page 4, V-1049. certainty required under Article 1436-l for the expres- sion of ownesshlp of a motor vehicle. SUMMARY The State Blghway Department Is not authorized to Issue a certificateof title to a motor vehicle In the name af.multlple owners joined disjunctivelyas owners on the certificate of title by "or" or by "and/ or" . Art. 1436-1, Sets. 4,24,27,33,V.P.C. Yours very truly, APPROVED: PRICE DARIEL Attorney General Red McDaniel ~_ - State Affairs Dlvlslon I . I\ Joe R. Greenhill First Assistant DJC:jmc