Automobiles as “Consumer Goods” and “Household Goods”: The UCC, Customs and Will Cases

Why the household goods label matters to the argument

This page is for education, information and intellectual discussion. It explains what each authority says and what each court decided. It does not tell anyone to use these arguments, and it is not legal advice.

The argument runs like this. A private car is household goods, not a commercial motor vehicle. Registration and licensing apply only to commercial vehicles. Therefore a private car needs no registration.

Each court below used the label to answer a different question: which secured-transaction rules apply, whether a carriage owes customs duty, or what a will left to an heir. None of the cases addresses registration or licensing.

UCC “consumer goods”

“Consumer goods” means goods that are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

U.C.C. § 9-102(a)(23) (formerly § 9-109(1))

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code sorts collateral into categories such as consumer goods, equipment, inventory and farm products. The category decides how a lender perfects a security interest and what notice it must give before a repossession sale. The same Article sends security interests in titled cars to the state certificate-of-title statute (U.C.C. § 9-311(a)(2)). In other words, the UCC itself assumes that consumer cars are titled under state law.

• Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966) — a car bought to drive to work was consumer goods, so the lender owed the buyer the consumer repossession protections.
• Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Ass’n v. Administrator, 394 A.2d 820 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1978) — Maryland’s ban on disclaiming warranties in consumer-goods sales covers used cars, and the Motor Vehicle Administration could enforce it against dealers.
• National Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Jones, 108 N.H. 386, 236 A.2d 484 (1967) — “Since Wever purchased for personal, family or household purposes, the Dart is classified as consumer goods.” The bank’s security interest survived a resale. The words that affidavits add after this sentence, about registration and a “use tax,” are not in the opinion.
• McFadden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 273 A.2d 198 (Md. 1971) — two used ice-cream trucks were inventory, because the dealer held them for sale.
• Grimes v. Massey Ferguson (Ala. 1978, a tractor), James Talcott v. Gee (Cal. Ct. App. 1968, a printing press) and Morgan County Feeders v. McCormick (Colo. Ct. App. 1992, cattle) explain that classification depends on use and is a question of fact. None involves a car.

Customs duty: carriages and imported cars

Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495 (1884) and Hillhouse v. United States, 152 F. 163 (2d Cir. 1907)

A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes, in a large degree, to the health, convenience, comfort and welfare of the householder or of the family.

Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495 (1884)

What the case was about: A woman returning from three years abroad brought her family carriage home. The customs collector charged a 35% duty. The Court held the carriage was “household effects” used abroad and exempt from duty. Hillhouse applied the same rule to an imported automobile, but upheld duty on parts newly made during repairs.

How it applies: Affidavits cite Arthur as 113 U.S. The correct volume is 112. These are tariff cases.

Wills, divorces and estates

• In re Will of Burnside, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829 (Sur. Ct. 1945) — the court wrote that “When disassociated from other provisions in the will, the expression ‘personal effects’ clearly includes an automobile.” It then held the car did not pass under the clause in that will.
• Mathis v. Causey, 172 Ga. 868 (1931) — a doctor’s car used for his practice did not pass to his sisters as “household goods.”
• In re Bloomingdale’s Estate (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1955) and In re Mitchell’s Will (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1942) — later courts describe these as holding that particular bequests included automobiles. We could not open the opinions themselves.
• Lawwill v. Lawwill (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973, a painting in a divorce) and State ex rel. Mueller v. Probate Court (Minn. 1948, a will renunciation) define “household goods” broadly. Neither involves a car.

Federal statutes that use household goods

• United States v. Bomar, 8 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1993) — under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, a deployed soldier’s Camaro was “household goods,” so a mechanic could not enforce a storage lien without a court order. The court limited its holding to that section and noted that bankruptcy courts hold cars are not household goods.
• In re Martinez, 22 B.R. 7 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1982) — “motor vehicles are not ‘household goods’ within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A).”
• United States v. Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc) — “it is a jury question whether the prosecution has proved that a pistol introduced in evidence is a firearm or that an automobile identified by a witness is a motor vehicle even though few would seriously debate the contrary.” The point is that juries decide every element of a federal crime.
• Arizona Constitution art. IX, § 2(4) exempts “household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes” from property tax. It does not mention registration.

How to check the household goods claim yourself

If someone offers you a strategy built on household goods, ask for the court decisions that accepted it. In the decisions cited on this page, courts did not accept it. Instead, read the real statute or rule the claim cites, and then read how courts have applied it. Also, look at the cases listed above. They show what happens when people raise the argument in court. For a real dispute, talk to a licensed attorney in your state. You can start with our directory.

Sources and further reading

Official sources used on this page:

• law.cornell.edu
• law.cornell.edu
• static.case.law
• static.case.law

Related reading on Lawtopolis:

• The Right to Travel and Driver Licensing: What the Cases Say
• The "Right to Travel" Affidavit: Every Authority Reviewed