Grant executed a retail installment contract for the purchase of the Porsche. The retail installment contract granted a security interest in the Porsche to P. The Secretary of State issued an original certificate of title for the Porsche, naming P as the first lienholder. Grant later submitted a 'lien release letter' to the Secretary of State. P did not execute the lien release nor did it ever authorize the release of its security interest. The Secretary of State issued a duplicate certificate of title to Grant. The duplicate certificate did not name P as a lienholder. The duplicate certificate stated, 'This is a duplicate certificate and may be subject to the rights of a person under the original certificate.' Grant sold the Porsche to D for $47,000. He executed the assignment of title on the duplicate certificate. D conducted computerized searches of the Secretary of State's records. They did not reveal the existence of any liens on the Porsche. D sold the Porsche to Felice (D) for $59,000. P advised the Secretary of State that the lien release letter submitted by Grant was fraudulent. D brought a mandamus action in the circuit court to compel the Secretary of State to issue a certificate of title naming Felice (D) as the owner. The court entered judgment in favor of D, and the Secretary of State issued a certificate of title to Felice (D). P was not a party to the mandamus action. P commenced the replevin action giving rise to this appeal. D repurchased the Porsche from Felice (D) and he was dismissed from the action.