CA: New criminal cases filed

[jhv48]

In California, it's simple. With a SPCN Vehicle, the year it is first built and registered is the model year of the vehicle. If your car will not pass smog requirements for the year of construction, then you must apply for and receive an SB100 exemption in order to legally register the car.
Out of state cars, brought in to California and registered, are currently registered as the model year that the other state legally registered the vehicle. So you could have two identical cars, one brought in from another state and one constructed in california with different years attached to them. Who cares what vin number they choose to use. And your insurance company will insure it however they want to. It will still be covered if THEY make a mistake in classifying the vehicle.
That's one of the problems with the State. No continuity! Live with it and if buying an out of state car, its registration is going to be a part of your research. No one but an idiot is going to confuse your 1965 SPF Cobra for an original Shelby. Do your homework and there will be no problems.
Until California changes its laws we're beating a dead horse.

[Excaliber]

It appears Calif is working to close the '1965' out of state title 'loop hole'. While it may work for now, I doubt that will be the case down the road. There is some logic to closing the 'loop hole', as Mr. Morgester noted, 'hot rod' builders will simply move to an accomadting state, register their product as a '1965' or '1932' and thus avoid the Calif smog requirements.

It would seem a better approach would be for the State to simply recognize a way to 'deal with' the 'hot rods' IN State, similiar to what other States have done. Title washing should STILL remain illegal, lowering the real value, illegal. Letting people build hot rods, THATS what the State needs to focus on. 500 SB100 numbers is so low it will only compound the problems.

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by MaSnaka

Sooooo...No SB100 required on those now legal 1965 CA titles?

Again this is a DMV issue. For what it is worth I still recommend full disclosure and to make sure the vehicle was correctly registered in the "65 titling state."

In the Title Unlimited case, everyone lied about what the vehicle was, including in the original out-of-state registration. The key to this exception (if it exists) is that the true nature of the vehicle must be disclosed at the time of the original out-of-state registration and all the requirements for registration must be met. Usually requirement may include that the vehicle be physically present in the jurisdiction and that the registered owner be a resident of the state. If that state chooses to title it under their law as a 1965 then California has to deal with it under our statutes

Note that that there is a fraud exception to the “full faith” provision that allows DMV to reject title. So if you lie in the original title state, the title will not be valid here.

This is a hot button issue and I am sure that clarification, one way or the other will be forthcoming.

[JohnWorthing848]

Originally posted by Morgester:
Note that that there is a fraud exception to the “full faith” provision that allows DMV to reject title. So if you lie in the original title state, the title will not be valid here.

This is exactly where this out of state transfer issue will always return.
When you are asked to fill in the year and make of your car on the CA registration and title application you have to be correct.

A Superformance titled in Ill as a 1965 Ford or Superformance Ford does not make it so. If it was built and completed in 2005 it is a 2005 Specially Constructed Vehicle in the eyes of CA DMV.

All of the good folks who wish to bring cars to CA need to understand this. And for those of us already in CA thank God for SB100.

I am willing to offer any support I can to help the lobbying effort to increase the number of exemptions certificates from 500 a year to ?????. This in combination with a workable amnesty is in the best interest of the hobby, and all of the honest hard working people who support it.

Best of luck!

John

PS: And thank you Mr. Morgester for your clarity.

[CNGreen]

Mr. Morgester,

FWIW when you first started with this thread it was making the hair on my neck stand up...

I now understand where you are "coming from" and I for one really appreciate your input on these issues.

Thanks.

[Excaliber]

Yes, there was a LOT of clarification on these important issues, thanks a bunch Robert for working with us and keeping us informed!

[Excaliber]

If the car was originally titled as a 1965 under FRAUD conditions, simply changing the title to another persons name won't erase the original fraud. Which means, just because you currently have a '1965' Cobra, doesn't make it legal...

[kayakjack]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

If the car was originally titled as a 1965 under FRAUD conditions, simply changing the title to another persons name won't erase the original fraud. Which means, just because you currently have a '1965' Cobra, doesn't make it legal...

But if I understand what Morgester said, if a car was legally titled a 1965 in another state (e.g. - the state titles it as such because the car replicates a 1965), he currently does not have an issue with it if it is brought to California and titled the same. I believe his issue is with folks who use some sort of sham title company to help represent their car as something it is not. That sounds like fraud. I think it sounds like fraud to him. A couple of years ago I had a car offered to me. Very nice car. But the owner used one of these companies to get the VIN from a junked 1965 Ford. That is how he had it titled. He even had a VIN plate made to glue to the dash. He told me all of this. If I bought it, I guess I would now be party to the whole cock-and-bull story. I passed.

Jack

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by kayakjack

But if I understand what Morgester said, if a car was legally titled a 1965 in another state (e.g. - the state titles it as such because the car replicates a 1965), he currently does not have an issue with it if it is brought to California and titled the same...Jack

Please be careful not to confuse the CA AG's office with the DMV or the BAR - all three are separate government entities.

Morgester has made it clear that it is the DMV who determines model year, and the BAR will test to the smog requirements of the model year.

[xlr8or]

BX1,
I thought SB1578 is there to allow you to take a previously titled car and convert it to SPCN. Don't know if that is still valid but you might want to check into it.

[Excaliber]

As it concerns fraud, if the car was originally titled incorrectly in another State (title washed, Titles Unlimited or other fraud) Calif has no obligation to honor what is all ready a bad title.

I would be VERY careful buying ANY car with a 1965 year on the title unless the HISTORY of that car can be adequatly traced back to it's origin.

For instance, I'm the third owner of my 'titled as 1965' ERA, but I have documentation tracing it from Hawaii, to Calif, to Texas to the manufacturer in 1986! It's a straight up and down deal in regards to the title, meeting every State requirement legally.

Does this mean I could legally register my ERA in California tommorow and be subject ONLY to 1965 smog laws? I think so, but the devil is in the details!

[vanoochka]

My car was legally titled in Arizona as a 1965 Ford. Clean. Documented. No fraud. It's SPF #237, so it's been around since 1999.

I've tangled with a couple of government agencies over the years, and both experiences were expensive and frustrating. In my experience, loopholes can become nooses without notice. So, I am going to grind my way through this SB100 process and not have to worry about my car's status.

On that topic, does anyone know of a SB100 savvy DMV location in Northern California? Mine is clueless.

[dlang14]

Van,

A lot of guys had good experiences at Santa Clara. I went to Gilroy where I live, they were clueless but got the job done. Perhaps someone who went to Santa Clara can give you a name to ask for.

[SL]

I read with interest the tangled web that has happened, as my friend is caught in it. He bought his Backdraft from Armand at Cali Cobra in San Diego. Armand took his money for the roller and later registered it for him. The problem he has, is Armand provided a counterfeit 67 Ford Mustang VIN / title to DMV. The next problem is, Armand filled out the DMV paperwork and stated the value of the car as being under a $1000, (also signing my friends name to the DMV forms). Armand turned around and charged my friend the true sales tax and licensing fees, well over $4000, yet gave DMV less than $70. Crooks like Armand and California Cobra are the real vilians here. My friend is now stuck having to pay DMV again and try and get his title squared away....

[imagine2frolic]

SL, and what is your friend doing about Armand? Sounds like charges need to be brought. Not even including the grief of dealing with the state!

[brobehr]

So,
It looks like an out of state purchase ( for use in Ca. ) is a possibility, granting the out of state ( non Ca ) car /owner has all legitmate records and registrations on the up and up. However as earlier posted camping out for an SB100 cert would not be a bad idea. Is this sound thinking?

[Excaliber]

Yeah I think an out of state purchase would work, following your guidelines of history of the car, etc. I also think that 'loop hole' may be closed in the future. I would guess a 1965 titled car would still have to be 'smogged' once a year? Which shouldn't be a problem as the requirements are pretty lax for 1965.

PS My car is no longer for sale. A guy offered me a fair price AFTER I pulled my Ad, and when it hit me I could really actually loose the car, it scared the crap out of me. No sale!

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Yeah I think an out of state purchase would work, following your guidelines of history of the car, etc. I also think that 'loop hole' may be closed in the future. I would guess a 1965 titled car would still have to be 'smogged' once a year? Which shouldn't be a problem as the requirements are pretty lax for 1965.

Ex-there were no standards in '65.Therefor there couldn't(shouldn't?)be any requirements.It would be interesting to see them come up with arbitrary numbers,though.After-all, it is Kalifornia.

[Randy Rosenberg]

There are many "1965" recently built SPCNs in CA, which were legal out-of-state purchases, where the 1965 title was simply transfered and registered, based upon pink slip and bill of sale (pretty standard practice). Some of the owners of these vehicles are changing the titles to a "year of build" SPCN, and applying for SB100 Smog Exemption, but not all.

At some point in time the CA DMV will need to decide how to handle these vehicles with respect to model year. If the CA DMV chooses not to accept the model year for Smog Requirements purposes, then it may take someone with deep pockets to initiate legal action to argue (and win) differently.

Given that any/all decisions are going to made in Sacramento, where is SEMA to help ensure that Hot Rod and Custom Car Hobbiests are being represented fairly, like they have done in other states?

[Excaliber]

Well thats good news. I would think they at least would check for a PCV though, surely THAT would be required?