You may be in luck. You quoted from KRS § 186A.530. There is a problem with the statute in that subsection (8) states that disclosure by a nondealer shall be "made in accordance with the procedures provided for in KRS 186A.060." The problem is that KRS § 186A.060 does not provide any specific requirements for that disclosure. So the legislature somehow missed putting in anything specific for the disclosure. Rather, § 186A.060 simply is a general provision stating that the "Department of Motor Vehicle Regulation" (which is now the Department of Motor Vehicle Licensing" is to create forms for motor vehicle titling and transfers. One could infer that the Department should have come up with some form that the seller is to use to make the disclosure, but I could find any such form on its web site.
That problem could result in two possible outcomes: (1) that the failure of the Legislature and the Department to come up with a required way to make the disclosure means that the seller isn't required to do anything or (2) that any reasonable method of disclosure by the seller would work. If its (2), then the issue is whether allowing you to see the title document itself would be a reasonable method of disclosure or whether the seller must do something else.
So I did some digging and there is one case that answers the first part clearly: the seller does have an affirmative obligation to disclose the branded title prior to the sale. The Kentucky Court of Appeals states that as follows:
The statute's disclosure requirements are applicable to individuals (nondealers) as well as to automobile dealers in the mandatory language. KRS 446.010(29) provides that as used in the statutes, “shall” is mandatory unless the context requires otherwise. See also, Alexander v. S & M Motors, Inc., Ky., 28 S.W.3d 303 (2000). Significantly, disclosure must be made “prior to the sale” to “any prospective buyer or transferee.”
Preferred Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Sisson, 44 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). As to the second part, whether the branding on the title is enough to meet that requirement, the case suggests that the answer to that, too, is no. In the case the negotiations for the sale took several days. The car was in the possession of the buyer during those several days and thus the buyer could have looked at the title any time while negotiating it and discovered the title was branded. The seller argued that should be good enough to meet the disclosure requirement. The Court trial court agreed with the seller, but the appeals court did not. It said the seller had an affirmative obligation to make the disclosure — he had to do something himself to tell the buyer of the branded title. As the Court said:
Sisson argues that “[i]f the owner, salesman and bookkeeper all failed to notice on the Certificate of Title that the truck was rebuilt, they should be charged with that knowledge because it was available to them.” We disagree. The plain words of the statute require the owner/seller of a motor vehicle “to disclose the nature of the brand” to the buyer prior to sale and “to procure the buyer's acknowledgment signature on the buyer's notification form.” In no way does the statute permit or countenance the duplicitous conduct involved in this case. The legislative intent can be satisfied only by actual disclosure. Sisson could not be relieved of his statutory duty because he left the title in the glove compartment of the truck but remained silent when he had an affirmative statutory duty of disclosure.
Preferred Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Sisson, 44 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001).
So, if the seller fails to disclose the branded title and the buyer does not sign off on the buyer's notification form the sale becomes voidable at the buyer's election. That means you can return the car and get your money back from the seller. But you must do that within 45 days from the date of the sale.
Note two things though. First, if the car was more than 10 years old the statute does not require the notification. So if it's an old car, you are out of luck. See subsection (10) of the statute. Second, if the sale took place in Ohio rather than Kentucky it is likely that the statute does not apply and that instead Ohio law would govern the sale. So in what state did the actual sale take place?