purchasers for value. A. Voidable Title We first determine whether Conley had voidable title to the Truck. We noted in McDonald's Chevrolet, Inc. v. Johnson, 176 Ind.App. 399, 403, 376 N.E.2d 106, 109 (1978), that the UCC does not define "voidable title." However, we have held that Ind.Code § 26-1-2-408 is consistent with Indiana's common law, which provided that "legal title passes to a defrauding buyer. This title is not void; it is voidable, which means that when title gets into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value then he will prevail over the defrauded seller." Mowan v. Anweiler, 454 N.E.2d 436, 438 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). Thus, a "defrauding buyer" obtains voidable title. However, a thief obtains void title Seq, eg., McDonald's Chevrolet, 176 Ind.App. at 404, 376 N.E.2d at 109 (<HOLDING>). We addressed the defrauding buyer situation
holding that a renter who stole a motor home had void title not voidable title and could not convey good title holding that title insurer not in business of supplying information in issuing either title commitment or policy of title insurance for purposes of exception to moorman prohi bition against recovery of economic losses in tort further holding that contract defines title insurers liability holding that a title holder has  the superior right to possession over one who holds no title holding that void deed is neither title nor color of title recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim