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.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.