Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s still being operated on Ca streets, and Ca needs their pound of flesh.
When there's a legal avenue to get it. Under those circumstances, as long as the car is currently registered in its home state, there isn't much else that can be done. California will get its gas tax while the car is here.
When there's a legal avenue to get it. Under those circumstances, as long as the car is currently registered in its home state, there isn't much else that can be done. California will get its gas tax while the car is here.
As CA4NOW said already, OP might want to read 4000.4 CVC before taking this advice. The law is very clear. If OP allows the vehicle to be operated in CA for longer than any other single state it must be registered in CA. Based on the scenario he has outlined, he would not meet one of the exceptions listed in 4000.4
As CA4NOW said already, OP might want to read 4000.4 CVC before taking this advice. The law is very clear. If OP allows the vehicle to be operated in CA for longer than any other single state it must be registered in CA. Based on the scenario he has outlined, he would not meet one of the exceptions listed in 4000.4
To the OP and other posters remember that definition of “Living” in an official or state legal terminology may be vastly different from how most people casually or socially use it.
Apparently based on the post the vehicle is only “planned” to there temporarily. And that his son is not officially planning to officially “live” in CA. Also The vehicle probably had been in the home state for much longer than it would ever be in CA. I don’t know how old/new the family vehicle is but it appears the OP had moved out of CA since 2014 thus it likely had been operated out of state much longer than one year. Even if it’s new I don’t think it would made too much a difference.
Based on what I heard it appears this law in practice typically targets those who buy vehicles out of state register it there for the lower registration cost but the vehicle stays in CA pretty much permanently or for years and years. And especially if the owner has CA drivers license and/or files for CA tax exemption as a CA tax resident. Or those who keep expired out of state vehicles in CA to hide from avoid paying registration fees since only home states have juristication. Small business fleets(Ie rentals, RVs, vans) with location out of state are often the worst offenders where they have locations in multiple states they will register all their fleet at the cheapest of their choosing regardless of which location of business where the vehicle stays.
It’s understandable that people do go to different states and stay for different lengths of time without establishing official residency. Ie snowbirds, military, out of state students, long staying tourists, business people, etc. Obviously these are not expected to change plates every time they go back on breaks or sent back since they are still domiciled at home states and would legally need their home plates ever time they set foot or should I say venture a wheel in their state.
To the OP and other posters remember that definition of “Living” in an official or state legal terminology may be vastly different from how most people casually or socially use it.
Apparently based on the post the vehicle is only “planned” to there temporarily. And that his son is not officially planning to officially “live” in CA. Also The vehicle probably had been in the home state for much longer than it would ever be in CA. I don’t know how old/new the family vehicle is but it appears the OP had moved out of CA since 2014 thus it likely had been operated out of state much longer than one year. Even if it’s new I don’t think it would made too much a difference.
Based on what I heard it appears this law in practice typically targets those who buy vehicles out of state register it there for the lower registration cost but the vehicle stays in CA pretty much permanently or for years and years. And especially if the owner has CA drivers license and/or files for CA tax exemption as a CA tax resident. Or those who keep expired out of state vehicles in CA to hide from avoid paying registration fees since only home states have juristication. Small business fleets(Ie rentals, RVs, vans) with location out of state are often the worst offenders where they have locations in multiple states they will register all their fleet at the cheapest of their choosing regardless of which location of business where the vehicle stays.
It’s understandable that people do go to different states and stay for different lengths of time without establishing official residency. Ie snowbirds, military, out of state students, long staying tourists, business people, etc. Obviously these are not expected to change plates every time they go back on breaks or sent back since they are still domiciled at home states and would legally need their home plates ever time they set foot or should I say venture a wheel in their state.
Really well put together post, but the problem is you are mixing together legal terms that don’t apply to this code. First is that it only applies to non-residents. So if you meet the definition of a resident there are other codes that apply. This code is written for exactly the loophole that some here are advising the OP to pursue. Second is the vehicle must only be operated in CA for greater time than any other single state during the registration period, which is 365 days. It matters not where the car was two years ago, five years ago, or 366 days ago. Everything OP put into his post says 4000.4 applies and he does not meet one of the listed exemptions. Military has an exception written in, but this law covers snowbirds and students 100%
Now remember I am only describing the law. Not saying it can’t be worked around or even flat out ignored! However with the proliferation of license plate readers and combined databases it would be fairly easy to prove in court. Ten years ago it might be downright impossible. I just want the OP to understand what the law is and not be ignorant to it. Like all laws, it’s an individual choice to comply or not.
Son should keep a copy of this thread for when he goes before a traffic judge. As soon as a LEO hears the story they will immediately write a ticket for a registration and DL violation, and say "tell it to the judge." In my experience, traffic judges in CA will let you off easy if you have well established confusion. Judge can pretty much interpret the codes and situation however they like. If you feel the judge is in error, there is no real appeal.
Think of it this way: You loan your spare car to your brother-in-law for a week while he's moving to California. He promises to return it on time. When you don't hear from him, you call and he says--"well, it was in California so I had to title it to myself. Sorry."
Wouldn't your first thought be--it wasn't his car. He had no right to register your car in his name. He didn't have the title. And you've possibly lost the right to your car because it's now titled in another state to another person. Does that seem logical and correct to you?
No it isn't. You can't register or title someone else's car to yourself just because you're borrowing it--no matter the length of time.
Please stop with all the "California demands that any car be titled here" stuff. California demands that YOUR car be titled here. Borrowing is just that. Borrowing. It doesn't constitute a transfer of ownership, so doesn't fall under proof of residency or anything else. Those laws are all for cars that YOU OWN.
cb73 Why do you keep talking about someone else registering the OP's car? Because s/he is the owner, it is the OP that has the liability to register the car, no one else...
OP is a non-resident and said he is letting the car be used in CA for a period of time to exceed the time it is in any other single state. End of story, OP must register the car in CA under the law.
Read the first post again, and you will see it clearly meets the elements of 400.4 cvc.
Registering may be optional, but insurance is not. If he gets in an accident, the insurance company may refuse to provide cover, as it was not properly insured, as a CA vehicle. I would call your insurance agent & be honest & see what they say.
Really well put together post, but the problem is you are mixing together legal terms that don’t apply to this code. First is that it only applies to non-residents. So if you meet the definition of a resident there are other codes that apply. This code is written for exactly the loophole that some here are advising the OP to pursue. Second is the vehicle must only be operated in CA for greater time than any other single state during the registration period, which is 365 days. It matters not where the car was two years ago, five years ago, or 366 days ago. Everything OP put into his post says 4000.4 applies and he does not meet one of the listed exemptions. Military has an exception written in, but this law covers snowbirds and students 100%
Now remember I am only describing the law. Not saying it can’t be worked around or even flat out ignored! However with the proliferation of license plate readers and combined databases it would be fairly easy to prove in court. Ten years ago it might be downright impossible. I just want the OP to understand what the law is and not be ignorant to it. Like all laws, it’s an individual choice to comply or not.
Thing about California is that there is a lot of vagueness and ambiguity in its legal system. Makes things really confusing. Though sometimes it helps fighting tickets as the legal ambiguity can be an advantage for the judges to back down. Hence how trail by written declaration is successful enough that there are companies that actually specialize in it. You end up paying them instead of the corrupt government.
In this case one example of ambiguity and contradiction is how CVC 4000.4 does say with "except as provided in sections 6700, 6702 and 6703." Which 6700 does appear to spell out all the exception of those who does not become a resident of the state and have lawful registration in another state. And also seems to clarify that CVC 4000.4 applies to non resident owners who rents, leases, lends, or furnishes the vehicle to a "California Resident" which doesn't seem to be the case to the OP that is unless his son has the intent of becoming a officially domiciled California resident during or after his intern.
As I mentioned above normally "in practice" 4000.4 is generally used to clamp down on those who by all means domiciled in state who try to get away with purchasing/leasing/renting and/or consistently registering a vehicle under an out of state's resident's name to take advantage of cheaper registration. And are usually triggered by so called CHP CHEATER lines that helps nosy neighbors have a hotline report to neighboring homeowners who pulls this scheme.
It appears U haul seems the biggest offender of this cheating scheme. If only they could stop Uhaul from doing so.
What many people are probably unaware of is that "Living" in an official or "legal" standpoint is quite different from a social point of view. So always state that your purpose/stay in the state is temporary to any official personnel, i.e DMV, court, CHP, police etc, never tell them you "live" here if its not your intent to domicile in the new state, especially not in writing, in the worst case scenario this may be construed as perjury if you happen to be under oath in a court proceeding, if they notice you had no record of efforts to establish domicile ie registering to vote. Some people may state they "live" in a hotel for a month, while thats ok in a casual social talk but not anywhere else.
I am surprised though California does not have provision that students especially out of staters who attend school in an accredited facility in state and bringing vehicles from out of state be required to have the vehicle listed in accredited facility for temporary use registration. Some states such as MA require that, and most accredited facilities in CA and elsewhere does already require all students bringing vehicles to campus register their vehicle information with campus so it shouldn't be too hard.
Insurance is a totally different animal than registration though but reporting to insurance doesn't require changing the registration or license.
As to the other poster I be curious, aside from a few states like South Dakota is it even possible for an nonresident owner who never set foot in a state and have no proof of address to even register a car in a different state away from home state? Think about it. Also if its ever possible this means the car would not be legally allowed to venture a wheel into its home state again since the owner is a domiciled resident. This could be a real issue if the son has to drive that car back alot during that year of internship.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 01-25-2021 at 05:40 PM..
Thing about California is that there is a lot of vagueness and ambiguity in its legal system. Makes things really confusing. Though sometimes it helps fighting tickets as the legal ambiguity can be an advantage for the judges to back down. Hence how trail by written declaration is successful enough that there are companies that actually specialize in it. You end up paying them instead of the corrupt government.
In this case one example of ambiguity and contradiction is how CVC 4000.4 does say with "except as provided in sections 6700, 6702 and 6703." Which 6700 does appear to spell out all the exception of those who does not become a resident of the state and have lawful registration in another state. And also seems to clarify that CVC 4000.4 applies to non resident owners who rents, leases, lends, or furnishes the vehicle to a "California Resident" which doesn't seem to be the case to the OP that is unless his son has the intent of becoming a officially domiciled California resident during or after his intern.
As I mentioned above normally "in practice" 4000.4 is generally used to clamp down on those who by all means domiciled in state who try to get away with purchasing/leasing/renting and/or consistently registering a vehicle under an out of state's resident's name to take advantage of cheaper registration. And are usually triggered by so called CHP CHEATER lines that helps nosy neighbors have a hotline report to neighboring homeowners who pulls this scheme.
It appears U haul seems the biggest offender of this cheating scheme. If only they could stop Uhaul from doing so.
What many people are probably unaware of is that "Living" in an official or "legal" standpoint is quite different from a social point of view. So always state that your purpose/stay in the state is temporary to any official personnel, i.e DMV, court, CHP, police etc, never tell them you "live" here if its not your intent to domicile in the new state, especially not in writing, in the worst case scenario this may be construed as perjury if you happen to be under oath in a court proceeding, if they notice you had no record of efforts to establish domicile ie registering to vote. Some people may state they "live" in a hotel for a month, while thats ok in a casual social talk but not anywhere else.
I am surprised though California does not have provision that students especially out of staters who attend school in an accredited facility in state and bringing vehicles from out of state be required to have the vehicle listed in accredited facility for temporary use registration. Some states such as MA require that, and most accredited facilities in CA and elsewhere does already require all students bringing vehicles to campus register their vehicle information with campus so it shouldn't be too hard.
Insurance is a totally different animal than registration though but reporting to insurance doesn't require changing the registration or license.
As to the other poster I be curious, aside from a few states like South Dakota is it even possible for an nonresident owner who never set foot in a state and have no proof of address to register a car in a different state? Think about it.
Lawyers write laws in order to keep lawyers employed, right?
Looking at 6700, (a) does not apply because the OP is not the one operating the car.
(b) would apply only if OP's son does not become a resident. That is a whole other ball of wax because the son is technically accepting full time employment. An internship that exchanges work for rent and wages is definitely employment.
So, in this scenario, there is no exemption for 6700. In my opinion....LOL
For your last question, it is very simple in CA. You register the car and merely use your home address for mailing. No residence needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
