Idaho title change!!!!!

[hndrsonj]

You guys are in my opinion missing the biggest argument with FMVSS: anything over 25 years old is exempt! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112

 

[commofreq]

You guys are in my opinion missing the biggest argument with FMVSS: anything over 25 years old is exempt! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112

Well, there's that too! Meaning my 1989 M998 (that's tricky to type) is exempted twice.

 

[commofreq]

Okay, so, yesterday was a pretty eventful day it seems. They amended HB 506 in the Senate.

03/06	Placed in the Committee of the Whole
		Amendments ordered printed
		Reported out as amended; filed for first reading
		Amendments reported printed
		Read first time as amended in the Senate; Filed for Second Reading

Here's the amendment:

IN THE SENATE
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.B. NO. 5061 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12
On page 1 of the printed bill, in line 12, delete "even if such vehicle";3 and delete lines 13 and 14, and insert: "because such vehicles were manufactured in accordance with department of defense military safety standards. A5 federal form 97 shall be provided at the time of registration. If no federal form 97 is available, the applicant may apply for a conditional title.".

I bought mine from a dealer next door in Montana, and NOT directly from GovPlanet or any other contractor. For me, there is no form 97. Let's hope the amendment fails - this seems to be a last-ditch effort from the nay-sayers to make it unnecessarily complicated. That said, I'm also happy to get whatever I can.

 

[porkysplace]

Okay, so, yesterday was a pretty eventful day it seems. They amended HB 506 in the Senate.



Here's the amendment:



I bought mine from a dealer next door in Montana, and NOT directly from GovPlanet or any other contractor. For me, there is no form 97. Let's hope the amendment fails - this seems to be a last-ditch effort from the nay-sayers to make it unnecessarily complicated. That said, I'm also happy to get whatever I can.

If you bought from a dealer they should be able to provide a copy of the SF-97.

 

[undysworld]

Be very cautious about the specific wording, so as to make it do exactly what you want, and not do what you don't want done...

I like the line about the vehicles having been manufactured in accordance w/ dod mil safety standards, as it acknowledges the MIL-STD requirements. Even mentioning the SF-97 form is probably okay too, since that's how you get the initial title, and since the govt. sells tractors and boats and stuff and there needs to be some method of keeping them from getting a Motor Vehicle title and registration.

But, requiring an SF-97 for any registration is a problem, because the SF-97 is surrendered in exchange for the initial title. Most owners don't keep copies of the SF-97 before they surrender it. You either have a SF-97 or you have a title. You don't want to be denied registration because you have a title but not a copy of the SF-97.

Perhaps if the bill refers to the SF-97, then it should also refer to a previous title too. For instance: "Federal Form 97 (SF-97) or previous title shall be provided at time of registration. If neither Federal Form 97 nor previous title are available, the applicant ma apply for a conditional title."


Commofreq,
What did you get for proof-of-ownership?

 

[LouWon]

Bump, just want to be in loop
Nice work to all involved

 

[commofreq]

Commofreq,
What did you get for proof-of-ownership?

A nice little story about the serial number on the title being wrong (they just happened to notice as they pulled it out for me) and that it would take them some time to have the state fix it. My guess is that they had two M998s that they were selling, and that only one of them was titled (not mine). I did get temporary tags, which can't be issued without a title. So as long as it's already titled (out of state), then I shouldn't have any problems. I'm just waiting for it to come in the mail. The next nearest M998 for sale was over 1,000mi from where I live. So I opted for the honor system, I guess.


In other news. . .


As was explained to me today, the amendment passed the Senate (it was a compromise measure). This means it can go in only one of two directions from here:

A) The bill + amendment goes to the governor, or
B) The House can kill the bill and the amendment entirely, and we're back at Square 1 (we absolutely don't want that).

I hate that amendment, but yeah. I'm hoping for Option A.

 

[undysworld]

A nice little story about the serial number on the title being wrong (they just happened to notice as they pulled it out for me) and that it would take them some time to have the state fix it. My guess is that they had two M998s that they were selling, and that only one of them was titled (not mine). I did get temporary tags, which can't be issued without a title. So as long as it's already titled (out of state), then I shouldn't have any problems. I'm just waiting for it to come in the mail. The next nearest M998 for sale was over 1,000mi from where I live. So I opted for the honor system, I guess.

Hmmm.
Obviously, it's a good idea to ensure that the VIN matches the title when buying a vehicle. Since you're buying from a (presumably licensed) motor vehicle dealer, it's probably an honest mistake and will be rectified promptly and you get a matching title. Hope it all works out properly.

But this speaks to my comment earlier about the SF-97's. What if the amended bill passes, you get a matching title, but then Idaho DOT refuses registration because you don't have a copy of the SF-97? (I know that's not your intent, but as I read it, that's what the amendment could be interpreted to mean, regardless of your intent.)

The bill should specify that either an SF-97 or a previous title constitutes prima facie (accepted as correct until proved otherwise) evidence that the vehicle is eligible for on-road registration.

This isn't my fight. Idaho laws won't affect me, nor can I do much to change them as an out-of-stater. But I urge you Idahoans to be meticulous about the wording of the bill. Assume it will be mis-interpreted and make sure that mis-interpretation is impossible.

 

[98G]

But this speaks to my comment earlier about the SF-97's. What if the amended bill passes, you get a matching title, but then Idaho DOT refuses registration because you don't have a copy of the SF-97? (I know that's not your intent, but as I read it, that's what the amendment could be interpreted to mean, regardless of your intent.)

The bill should specify that either an SF-97 or a previous title constitutes prima facie (accepted as correct until proved otherwise) evidence that the vehicle is eligible for on-road registration.

This isn't my fight. Idaho laws won't affect me, nor can I do much to change them as an out-of-stater. But I urge you Idahoans to be meticulous about the wording of the bill. Assume it will be mis-interpreted and make sure that mis-interpretation is impossible.[/QUOTE]

Emphatically this!

As written it mandates an SF97 and by extension prohibits a title to be used for transfer. This means MVs are nontransferable after the initial registration and titling.

Seems ridiculous, but do you really want to bet that some left leaning tyrant who doesn't want MVs on the road won't interpret it to mean exactly what it says? "SF97 or no go. Sorry, your title is no good."

 

[commofreq]

Hmmm.
(I know that's not your intent, but as I read it, that's what the amendment could be interpreted to mean, regardless of your intent.)

"SF97 or no go. Sorry, your title is no good."

Those were my thoughts as well, and I spoke with someone this morning who is well-versed on all of this stuff. According to the amendment, if you don't have a form 97, you can get what's called a "conditional title". Outside of Idaho (and also how I was thinking), this could mean anything. When I first read, "conditional title", I thought it meant "we will give you a title, but certain conditions must first be met".

Here, though, all it means is that you get a "temporary title" which lasts for 2 years. If nobody challenges your ownership of the vehicle during that time, then you'll get a permanent title. If anyone does, all you have to do is pull out your receipt, and you're good to go.

 

[undysworld]

When I first read, "conditional title", I thought it meant "we will give you a title, but certain conditions must first be met".

Here, though, all it means is that you get a "temporary title" which lasts for 2 years. If nobody challenges your ownership of the vehicle during that time, then you'll get a permanent title. If anyone does, all you have to do is pull out your receipt, and you're good to go.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.

Here's the definition of "conditional title" straight from Idaho: Conditional title: A title issued for a vehicle ten or more years old when the applicant is unable to present ownership documentation sufficient to satisfy normal titling requirements. Conditional titles are issued with the following brand: “ISSUED ON STATEMENT OF APPLICANT, BRAND EXP: MM/DD/YY.”
(NOTE: Underline was added.)
http://itd.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/conditional_titles.pdf

So a conditional title is issued when there is a lack of ownership documents. Since when is a valid Motor Vehicle title insufficient to prove ownership??? (Hint: Title proves ownership!)

If you already have a title then you have proof of ownership, so why should you need to apply for a conditional title just because you don't have the SF-97?

I still have doubts. If the SF-97 comment can be amended in, then a clearly written allowance for previously-titled vehicles to be titled normally could be also amended in.

Sorry if I'm a hardcore skeptic, but I've been double-crossed before, and it takes way too much effort to pass legislation. Do it right the first time.

 

[Suprman]

Maybe the intent is for a vehicle that just came from gov auction and it details how the buyer would proceed as first registrant with sf97 in hand. They just didn’t word it correctly.

 

[commofreq]

Maybe the intent is for a vehicle that just came from gov auction and it details how the buyer would proceed as first registrant with sf97 in hand. They just didn’t word it correctly.

Yeah, I'd say that sounds about right. Right now, today, without HB 506, you can still register and title a military vehicle in Idaho, if you have a title from out of state. It wasn't until just a few months ago, that things started getting problematic with military vehicles in Idaho. All in all, someone over at the DoT looked at it, misinterpreted what laws were on the books, and here we are today.

So, the bill in circulation was actually written to clarify (and to really solidify) what Idaho had already been doing for the longest time:

1. If you already have a title from out of state, you can simply convert it into an Idaho title.
2. If all you have is a form 97, you can get a permanent title, no problems.
3. If you don't have either a title from out of state, OR a form 97, then you can get a conditional title.

Imagine - it literally takes an act of Congress to set things right again, because of a single illiterate nitwit. Note the beautiful language in the very first sentence:

"Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary. . . " or rather, "We don't really care what the other laws say. . .this will override them. . . "

 

[EasternEmpire]

I would concur with commofreq's take on the amended HB506. Personally, I think the amendment is an improvement over the original bill. Given that the original bill passed the House 65-3-1, and the amended bill passed the Senate 35-0 (it now has to go back to the house, then the Governor), the legislature's intent is clear and I really doubt anyone will try to play games with the interpretation of the wording and intent.

My $0.02s :^)

 

[EasternEmpire]

The amended Idaho House Bill 506a passed the Senate 35-0-0 on 3/8 and passed the House yesterday 67-0-3. Since it includes the emergency clause it takes effect upon the governor's signature.

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Sixty-fourth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2018

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE BILL NO. 506, As Amended in the Senate

BY TRANSPORTATION AND DEFENSE COMMITTEE

1 AN ACT

2 RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES; AMENDING CHAPTER 4, TITLE 49, IDAHO CODE, BY THE
3 ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 49-458, IDAHO CODE, TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS
4 REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND USE OF MILITARY VEHICLES; AND DECLARING
5 AN EMERGENCY.

6 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

7 SECTION 1. That Chapter 4, Title 49, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
8 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and des-
9 ignated as Section 49-458, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

10 49-458. MILITARY VEHICLES. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to
11 the contrary, a vehicle built for the United States armed forces may be reg-
12 istered and operated on public highways of this state, because such vehicles
13 were manufactured in accordance with department of defense military safety
14 standards. A federal form 97 shall be provided at the time of registration.
15 If no federal form 97 is available, the applicant may apply for a conditional
16 title.

17 SECTION 2. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby
18 declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its
19 passage and approval.

 

[Flyingvan911]

That’s good news.

 

[wiggall]

In July 2008 I registered THE BEAUTIFUL BEAST just with the GL Bill of Sale.

 

[BillIdaho]

I was just informed the Gov of Idaho signed HR 506 literally minutes ago!

 

[rbrown225]

Thanks to everyone that got involved and got this pushed thru.

 

[NV555]

Add Nevada to the unfriendly State list