Gams v. Oberholtzer

10 Citing cases

  1. In re R R Contracting, Inc.

    4 B.R. 626 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1980)   Cited 3 times

    Washington has followed this view on several occasions. Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957) (Registration of automobile establishes a rebuttable presumption of actual ownership in an action based on vicarious liability); Coffman v. McFadden, 68 Wn.2d 954, 416 P.2d 99 (1966) (Registration of automobile establishes a rebuttable presumption of ownership in an action based on the family car doctrine); Delano v. La Bounty, 62 Wn. 595, 597, 114 P. 434 (1911) (The certificate is prima facie proof of ownership and is itself sufficient to sustain a verdict.) The policy considerations behind the enactment of R.C.W. 46.01 et seq. shed further light on the fact that certificates of ownership are not intended to conclusively establish title as between two competing parties both claiming ownership rights.

  2. Barrie v. Hosts of America

    94 Wn. 2d 640 (Wash. 1980)   Cited 109 times
    In Barrie, the issue was whether the deceased had been served in an obviously intoxicated condition by the defendant cocktail lounge.

    If admissible, Hill's earlier and allegedly contradictory statements can only be used to impeach her testimony or deposition, and not to prove the truth of the facts contained therein. See Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957). Rubstello's recollection of Hill's conversation amounts to hearsay evidence which cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the decedent was in fact intoxicated or "smashed".

  3. Cooper's Mobile Homes v. Simmons

    94 Wn. 2d 321 (Wash. 1980)   Cited 24 times
    Reviewing court will not apply absurd interpretation of statute to achieve desired result

    "Registration and title certificates are only prima facie evidence of ownership, which evidence is rebuttable." Crawford v. Welch, 8 Wn. App. 663, 664, 508 P.2d 1039 (1973), citing Junkin v. Anderson, 12 Wn.2d 58, 120 P.2d 548, 123 P.2d 759 (1941); Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957). Particularly in this case, where Cooper's was aware of the Simmons' marital relationship and of the husband's desire and intention to negotiate the trade-in, and could not be considered a "bona fide purchaser" with no notice of a possible defense to Mrs. Simmons' transfer, the existence of a community property right could preclude sale by one spouse acting alone and overcome the provisions of the certification act.

  4. Beatty v. Western Pac. Ins. Co.

    74 Wn. 2d 530 (Wash. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    There is a definite disagreement in the conclusions which have been reached, but the weight of authority construing statutes similar to ours supports our view that, as between the parties, the sale is valid. Later, in Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957) we considered the impact of a violation of the title and registration act upon the vicarious liability of a registered owner who was, in fact, not the true owner. After reviewing the authorities, we stated, at 179:

  5. Coffman v. McFadden

    68 Wn. 2d 954 (Wash. 1966)   Cited 16 times

    Mylnar v. Hall, supra. Registration in the name of the parent establishes a rebuttable presumption of ownership. Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957); Delano v. La Bounty, 62 Wn. 595, 114 P. 434 (1911). (6) In the determination of whether an automobile is owned by an unemancipated minor child residing at home, or by his parents, the following elements must be considered:

  6. Heinrich v. Titus-Will Sales

    73 Wn. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 15 times

    Title and registration certificates are only rebuttable prima facie evidence of automobile ownership. Wildman v. Taylor, 46 Wn. App. 546, 556-57, 731 P.2d 541 (1987); Baydo's, 32 Wn. App. at 336; Crawford v. Welch, 8 Wn. App. 663, 664, 508 P.2d 1039, review denied, 82 Wn.2d 1009 (1973); see Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 177, 179, 310 P.2d 240 (1957); Junkin, 12 Wn.2d at 75-76. In this state, the UCC provisions, not the certificate of title statutes, govern who holds title to a vehicle.

  7. Wildman v. Taylor

    46 Wn. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 18 times

    We do not agree. In Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957), a registered owner was found not to be the true owner of a car because evidence was introduced to show that another person put up consideration for the car. The court found clear and convincing evidence was introduced to rebut the presumption of ownership in the registered owner for purposes of vicarious liability.

  8. State v. Metcalf

    14 Wn. App. 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 12 times

    We note preliminarily that while the Satiacums' former testimony and statements implicating the defendant were admitted for impeachment purposes, this is not substantive evidence and must be disregarded. State v. Jefferson, 6 Wn. App. 678, 495 P.2d 696 (1972); Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957); State v. Thorne, 43 Wn.2d 47, 260 P.2d 331 (1953). The strongest evidence pertaining to count 3 (events of October 6, 1972) is as follows. Pat Jackson was contacted by defendant concerning a document of unknown content which was awaiting Mrs. Satiacum's signature, and a check was also mentioned. Jack Tanner was offered $10,000 by the defendant for Suzanne Satiacum's signature on an affidavit whose contents were not known to Tanner.

  9. Crawford v. Welch

    508 P.2d 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 7 times
    In Crawford, the court indeed found that delivery of the certificates of title was sufficient to pass title under RCW 62A.2-401(3).

    Title to the vehicles had been delivered to Casey as of December 4, 1970. This is sufficient to pass title under RCW 62A.2-401 (3). Documents of title to the vehicles, however, had not been formally transferred into Casey's name. Registration and title certificates are only prima facie evidence of ownership, which evidence is rebuttable. Junkin v. Anderson, 12 Wn.2d 58, 74-76, 120 P.2d 548, 123 P.2d 759 (1941-42); Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957). It is also true that the physical location of the vehicles had not changed after the transfer; they were not in Casey's physical possession, but only in his legal possession.

  10. State v. Stewart

    468 P.2d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    [2, 3] This was more than impeachment of a defense witness. Mrs. Marsh's testimony concerned a matter which the state had opened up, erroneously, on their direct examination of Mrs. Stewart. Impeaching evidence is not substantive evidence, Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957); the state sought to use it as such in this case. The state's case had to stand or fall on the jury's belief or disbelief of the daughter's testimony.