## Facts

- Kenneth James West agreed to sell his 1975 Corvette to a buyer using the name “Robert Wilson.”
- West delivered the car and signed over the certificate of title in exchange for what appeared to be a valid cashier’s check.
- The check was later determined to be counterfeit, and West reported the car as stolen.
- Nearly two and a half years later, a vehicle identification number search showed Tammy Roberts held title to the Corvette.
- Roberts bought the Corvette from her brother, who had purchased it through a newspaper advertisement; there was no allegation Roberts or her brother knew of the fraud.
- West sued Roberts seeking return of the car under Colorado’s stolen-property statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-405.

## Issues

1. Whether Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-405 allows an original owner to recover property from a subsequent good-faith purchaser when the owner voluntarily transferred possession and title in a sale induced by fraud.
2. Whether U.C.C. § 2-403, as enacted in Colorado at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-403, governs such a transaction by treating the fraudulent buyer as having voidable title capable of passing good title to a good-faith purchaser for value.
3. How to resolve any conflict between § 18-4-405 and § 4-2-403 in fraud-induced “transactions of purchase.”

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Roberts.
- The court held § 18-4-405 does not apply when the owner intends to part with the property in a transaction of purchase, even if induced by fraud.
- The court held § 4-2-403 controls in this setting and limits § 18-4-405, so the fraudulent buyer acquired voidable title.
- Because Roberts was an undisputed good-faith purchaser for value, she obtained good title, defeating West’s claim for return of the Corvette.

## Legal Principles

- In a voluntary sale induced by fraud (including delivery in exchange for a check later dishonored), the transferee obtains voidable title, not void title, under U.C.C. § 2-403(1).
- A person with voidable title can transfer good title to a good-faith purchaser for value.
- Colorado’s stolen-property recovery statute, § 18-4-405, does not reach property the owner voluntarily transferred in a transaction of purchase; in that category of cases, the U.C.C. provisions governing sales control.
- When statutes conflict, more specific and later-enacted commercial code provisions governing voluntary sales transactions prevail over a more general stolen-property remedy.

## Conclusion

Colorado treated West’s fraud-induced sale as a voluntary transaction of purchase that gave the fraudulent buyer voidable title, enabling a later good-faith purchaser to take good title under U.C.C. § 2-403; therefore, West could not use the stolen-property statute to recover the Corvette from Roberts.


West v. Roberts, 143 P.3d 1037 (Colo. 2006)