NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ca/driving/2709

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 1.9 KB | 39 lines

Newsgroups: ca.driving
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!dman
From: [e-mail] (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:38:53 GMT
Lines: 26

Michael D. Maxfield ([e-mail]) wrote:
>  Ah Ha,  This explains why our DMV (and state) is in such a bad state.  If
>  the different testers can't get their facts straight, how do we expect the
>  other state officials to get a budget.

No, it was Devesh (the previous poster) whose facts were wrong.  Though
his mistake is understandable, given the language that "[a]ny change
of registered owner . . . must be recorded . . . within ten (10) days."
The missing piece of information is, "recorded by *whom*?"  The answer
is that the buyer is the party responsible for recording a transfer
of ownership, and is subject to the 10-day rule.  A *seller*, otoh,
is responsible for filing a "Notice of Release of Liability," and that
is what must be done withing 5 days.  A Notice of Release of Liability
is not technically a Transfer of Ownership notice, because the latter
is something that must be done buy the buyer.

It may indeed sound confusing if you're not paying attention; and it's
easy to see how the first notice can be misconstrued to mean there is
no 5-day limit for sellers to report.

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |[e-mail]  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |[e-mail]    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: [phone]| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_