Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It may be different where DouglasDubh lives, but in California, if you own a car you have to register it and pay fees.> I quoted the California code and a ruling by a California court.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Maybe we're getting stuck on the word "registration." You must report that you own a vehicle and you must pay fees whether or not you plan to operate it in city streets. Here's the info from the DMV website... "If you decide to place a non-operational status on your vehicle, you must do so on or before your vehicle’s registration expiration date (Off-Highway Vehicles must pay the PNO fee on or before the OHV's biennial registration expiration date or the non-operational status option is forfeited. Full registration fees and penalties would be due.) The renewal notice has a box designated for you to check that indicates you want the non-operational status marked on your vehicle’s record. The Planned Non-Operation (PNO) fee must be sent to DMV with the bottom portion of the renewal notice on which you have checked the Planned Non-Operation box." My point is, all vehicles in California are subject to having their vehicle information filed with DMV and must pay fees. The actual "registration" fee isn't required but you still must report your vehicle with DMV and pay fees. Here's a littl more info from CA DMV... "Registration or Non-Operation? Once each year, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) mails you a registration renewal notice for each of your currently registered vehicles (every two years for Off-Highway Vehicles [OHV]). You must decide whether to renew the registration or file for non-operational status. What’s the Difference? California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they are driven, towed, stored, parked on public roads or highways or parked in an off-street public parking facility at any time during the registration period. Non-operational means that the vehicle will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways for the entire registration year." So again, my point is that while you aren't required to pay the "registration" fee, you must still report that you own a vehicle and still must pay fees on it whether or not you plan to use it.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal littl=little The state still requires a record of all vehicles, although the process is different for those being used and those not being used.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The actual "registration" fee isn't required but you still must report your vehicle with DMV and pay fees.> If your vehicle was registered, and you think you might want to use it publicly again in the future, then you pay the non-operational fee so that you can register it again in the future. But if you will never use the vehicle on a public street again, you can simply let the registration lapse. And if you never plan to use a vehicle on a public street, then you don't need to register it. "Owners of historical vehicles, horseless carriages, and vehicles that are part of a collection and are not operated are not required to register or file for the non-operational status. (These vehicles are defined in Vehicle Code §§5004, 5004.5, and 5051.)"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer They can have my unlicensed, non-operational 1964 Dodge Dart when they take it from my cold, dead hands. It's my right as a Uhmurikin to have junk cars in my yard, and ain't no tie-wearing flunkie from Sacramenty gonna take it away.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It follows therefore that all vehicles that are not being parked, moved or left standing upon a highway, or in an off street parking facility do not need to be registered.<< What vehicles would be covered under the above? Imaginary cars that are floating in the air? The code is very plain, unlike the legal case you cite: <a href="http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/sep/b141637.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.law.com/regionals/c a/opinions/sep/b141637.shtml</a> The case of Miraz vs Farmers deals NOT with the registration status of a vehicle, but rather injuries sustained when two individuals attempted to start the engine of a Ford Cargo Van that was being used to store tools. You quoted only a section of what was a rather complex argument. Here's the entire exchange, with the final ruling that the Ford VAn was, indeed, subject to registration: >>Pursuant to the foregoing Vehicle Code section, the Ford van was not required to be registered because the van was not driven, moved or left standing on a highway, and the van was stored in a privately owned offstreet parking facility with the express permission of the owner thereof. Since the van was not required to be registered, it was "not subject to motor vehicle registration." Respondent acknowledges that Vehicle Code section 4000 "requires registration of vehicles that are used on public streets or in public parking facilities," but does not agree that the Code does not require registration of vehicles that are not used on public streets or in public parking facilities. Rather, respondent contends that Vehicle Code section 4604 establishes that the van was subject to motor vehicle registration. Section 4604, subdivision (a) provides: "Except as otherwise provided . . . , prior to the expiration of the registration of a vehicle, if that registration is not to be renewed prior to its expiration, the owner of the vehicle shall file, under penalty of perjury, a certification that the vehicle will not be operated, moved, or left standing upon any highway without first making an application for registration of the vehicle, including full payment of all fees." Respondent argues: "The Ford cargo van was previously registered. . . . Because the van had been registered, it remained subject to registration until the filing of a certificate of non-use. . . . Although [appellant] had the burden of proving his claim fell within the exception to the exclusion . . ., he presented no evidence showing the filing of a certificate of non-use. Accordingly, the undisputed evidence shows the Ford cargo van remained subject to registration at the time of the accident."<< Got it?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But if you will never use the vehicle on a public street again, you can simply let the registration lapse.<< No, you cannot simply let the registration lapse. "...prior to the expiration of the registration of a vehicle, if that registration is not to be renewed prior to its expiration, the owner of the vehicle shall file, under penalty of perjury, a certification that the vehicle will not be operated, moved, or left standing upon any highway without first making an application for registration of the vehicle, including full payment of all fees." Vehicle Code Section 4604, subdivision (a)
Originally Posted By DlandDug (Actually, I was getting ready to demand that the state return the final registration fees I paid on my 1969 Dodge Polara I last saw parked in front of a friend's apartment back in 1989. With interest!)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Maybe you were just wrong about being wrong, 2oony. Whoda thunk that vehicle registrations would be a hot button topic in WE?
Originally Posted By DlandDug I just knew, deep in my heart, that the State of California would NEVER let us get away without paying some sort of fee...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What vehicles would be covered under the above? Imaginary cars that are floating in the air?> Admittedly, my argument is pretty theorical, because who would want a car they couldn't drive on public streets? Maybe rich millionaires who own large garages and private race tracks. Nonetheless, the law states that those vehicles do not need to be registered. <Here's the entire exchange, with the final ruling that the Ford VAn was, indeed, subject to registration:> Sorry Dug, that's not the entire exchange, nor is it the final ruling. The last part of your quote is the argument Farmers Insurance made that was denied. "More fundamentally, however, Vehicle Code section 4604 does not in any way modify the dictates of section 4000, which sets forth which vehicles are subject to registration. Rather, section 4604 simply provides a mechanism by which an owner of a previously registered vehicle may notify the state that the vehicle is no longer subject to registration. That procedure, including the execution of a certificate of non-operation, documents the fact that a vehicle is no longer subject to registration; it is not a condition precedent to that fact. Simply put, section 4604 of the Vehicle Code has nothing to say about whether or not a vehicle is subject to registration."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Maybe you were just wrong about being wrong, 2oony.<< You may be right. But if I was wrong about being wrong this time, I'm sure I was wrong somewhere else. <--- doubles intake of breakfast whiskey.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Simply put, section 4604 of the Vehicle Code has nothing to say about whether or not a vehicle is subject to registration.<< Damn that section 4604! It's so wishy-washy! Why won't it take a stand on registration? In fact, section 4604 really belonged in a bill about farmland subsidies, but it's ill temper left it unpopular among its peers, and it had to eventually sink to the depths of the California Vehicle Code. Section 4604 should be taken out to private property and shot.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal As long as it's not subjected to lethal injection...apparently that's cruel and unusual here in California...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, you cannot simply let the registration lapse.> Yeah, you can. Your quotation of section 4604 left out an important clause, "Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (d)". So Kar2oon was right about being wrong before he was wrong about being wrong, but after he was wrong about being right.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Damn that section 4604! It's so wishy-washy!<< You sat wishy-washy, I say open minded. Just because a section refuses to walk in lockstep with the rest of the Vehicle Code doesn't mean it should be subject to mean spirited characterizations...
