The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' proposed motorcycle dealership would serve a community or territory in which Respondent's dealership is not presently providing adequate representation of the same line-make vehicles that Petitioners would offer.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 2008, an advertisement was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which gave notice that, unless a protest were timely filed, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("Department") intended to approve the application of Petitioner USA Wholesale Scooters, Inc. ("Wholesale Scooters") for a license to establish a new dealership at 2902 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (the "Proposed New Point"), where motorcycles manufactured by Petitioner Chuanl Motorcycle USA, Ltd. ("Chuanl") would be offered for sale. Respondent Power & Play Warehouse, Inc. ("Power & Play"), which is licensed to operate a dealership, under a franchise agreement, for the sale of Chuanl motorcycles in Pompano Beach, Florida (the "Existing Dealership"), timely filed a written complaint with the Department, protesting the intended approval of the Proposed New Point. The Proposed New Point and the Existing Dealership are both situated in Broward County, Florida. It is undisputed that the population of Broward County exceeds 300,000. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the Proposed New Point would be located within 12.5 miles of the Existing Dealership. Wholesale Scooters failed to present persuasive evidence demonstrating that the Existing Dealership is not providing adequate representation of Chuanl motorcycles in Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Broward County, or any other conceivably relevant community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Wholesale Scooters' application for a license to operate a new dealership at 2902 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where Chuanl motorcycles would be offered for sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Noel Farbman USA Wholesale Scooters, Inc. 2902 East Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Lingbin Chen Chuanl Motorcycle USA Co, Ltd. 9886 Chartwell Drive Dallas, Texas 75243 Thomas McMahon Power & Play Warehouse, Inc. 550 North Flagler Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Respondent, Maserati North America, Inc.’s ("MNA"), proposed 2017 Commercial Policy Program ("2017 Program") is a modification of the franchise agreement between MNA and Petitioner, New Country Motor Cars of Palm Beach, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Palm Beach ("Palm Beach"), or Petitioner Recovery Racing, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Ft. Lauderdale ("Fort Lauderdale"); and, if so, whether it is fair and not prohibited by section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2016). Whether MNA’s proposed modifications to the Existing Franchise Agreements with Petitioners are fair and not prohibited under section 320.641(3).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the Pre-hearing Stipulation of the parties and the record as a whole, the following relevant and material Findings of Fact are made2/:
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: (1) DISMISSING Petitioners’ claims regarding MNA’s 2017 Commercial Policy Bonus Program; and (2) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, Petitioners’ claims regarding modifications in the Proposed New Agreement, as set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether the application of Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors and PC Scooter and Cycle, L.L.C., to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Zhejiang Summit Huawin Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (POPC) motorcycles to be located at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Bay County, Florida 32401, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing POPC dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida 32407. There was no evidence which demonstrated Petitioners’ market share in the motorcycle market. There was no evidence presented analyzing the motorcycle market in the Panama City area. Likewise, there was no evidence presented regarding anticipated growth in the market area. This type of evidence is generally presented by the distributor or manufacturer of the product. As indicated, Petitioners did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Petitioners’ motorcycles cannot be established. Mr. Wooten, Respondent’s CEO, established that Petitioners’ proposed location is within 25 miles of Respondent’s current location. Respondent has the ability to adequately serve the needs of the population of Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach through its sales and service of the POPC motorcycles. In the current economy, the entry of Petitioners into the POPC marketplace would have a significant negative financial impact on Respondent’s ability to maintain its sales, service, and customer base. Respondent has expended significant sums on advertising, both in print and online, and could not afford to continue to advertise the POPC line if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent already works seven days a week to maintain his market share, and would suffer significant financial losses if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent provides low prices for the products it sells and would be forced out of business if Petitioners’ application were approved. Petitioners seek to sell the identical motorcycles sold by Respondent, and the Bay County market is not sufficiently large to support a new entrant. If Petitioners’ application is approved, Respondent will be forced to close its business in Panama City Beach. Respondent is in good standing with the distributors of the products it sells. Respondent’s license with the State of Florida is active and in good standing. There are no barriers to access for customers seeking to purchase the products offered by Respondent. Respondent’s location is centrally located for customers in Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the establishment of Petitioners’ dealership at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Donald Watts PC Scooter & Cycle, LLC 1903 Brown Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Dan Vogel Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors 11 Technology Way Steubenville, Ohio 43952 Barry Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the Petitioners' proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 42, a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population was published. The notice provided that Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors intended to allow the establishment of Beach Cycle of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Summit Huawin Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (POPC) at Ravens Wood Road, Fort Lauderdale (Broward County), Florida 33312, on or after November 5, 2008. On November 12, 2008, the Respondent timely filed a protest of the establishment of the Petitioners' dealership. Respondent alleged that it currently services customers for the line-make proposed by the Petitioners and that its location is within 12.5 miles of the location proposed by the Petitioners. The evidence presented established that the Respondent's dealership is within 8.5 miles of the proposed site. Mr. McMahon verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. The Respondent has served the area for not less than 2 years and has successfully promoted the vehicles proposed to be sold by the line-make proposed by the Petitioners. The Respondent established that its sales are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. The Respondent established that it currently markets the motorcycle to be sold by the proposed dealership. More specifically, the Respondent offered testimony that it has an agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold by the proposed dealer. Notice of the formal hearing was provided to all parties of record at their addresses of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying the approval of the Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Electra Theodorides-Bustle Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Paul J. Lane, Esquire 2755 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Joel Ribler Beach Cycle of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. 2190 Southwest 31st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Ronald Gardner Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors 11 Technology Way Steubenville, Ohio 43952
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner manufactures and sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles to authorized Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealers. Ulm is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ulm sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 2966 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33607. Ferman is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ferman sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 24314 State Road 54, Lutz, Florida 33559. It is undisputed that Petitioner has had four dealers in the Tampa metro market for a significant number of years. Petitioner's primary competitors also have had four or more dealers in the Tampa metro market. By appointing North Tampa as a successor dealer to Bob Wilson Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Wilson), Petitioner seeks to maintain the status quo of four Chrysler dealers in the Tampa metro market. In April 2008, Petitioner had four dealers in the Tampa metro market that each sold and serviced Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The four dealers were: Ulm, Ferman, Courtesy Chrysler Jeep Dodge, and Wilson. On April 25, 2008, Wilson filed a Chapter 11 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court). At or about the same time, Wilson closed its doors and ceased selling and servicing Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The filing of Wilson’s bankruptcy petition precipitated an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson’s franchise and dealer agreements (dealer agreements). But for Wilson’s bankruptcy filing, Petitioner would have sent Wilson a notice of termination when Wilson closed its doors and ceased dealership operations. Wilson’s cessation of business adversely impacted Petitioner. In relevant part, Petitioner lost sales and lacked a necessary fourth dealer to provide service to Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge customers in the Tampa metro market. Petitioner desired to reopen a dealership at or close to the former Wilson location as soon as possible to mitigate or eliminate the economic loss. During the automatic stay, Petitioner was legally precluded from unilaterally appointing a successor dealer to Wilson. Wilson still had valid dealer agreements for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles and, therefore, was still a dealer. During the automatic stay, Wilson attempted to sell its existing dealership assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealer agreements. Any attempt by Petitioner to appoint a successor dealer or even negotiate with a successor dealer, would have undermined Wilson’s efforts to sell the dealerships and maximize the estate for the benefit of the creditors. A sale of the dealership required the consent of Wilson and Wilson’s largest creditor, Chrysler Financial. Petitioner did everything it could to accelerate a sale. However, Petitioner was not a party to the sale negotiations and had no ability to require or force Wilson to sell the dealership or its assets to any particular party or to do so within any particular time period. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner did anything to intentionally, or inadvertently, delay or manipulate the timing of a sale. On July 30, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay. The motion also sought the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to hasten the sale negotiations. Petitioner also wanted to be able to terminate the dealer agreements as quickly as possible in the event that a sale was not consummated. The Bankruptcy Court did not initially grant Petitioner's motion. The court wanted to allow time for a sale of the dealership to proceed. During 2008 and early 2009, Wilson continued to negotiate with potential buyers for the dealership. On January 8, 2009, Wilson's motor vehicle dealer license expired. It became apparent to Petitioner that a sale of Wilson’s assets would be unlikely. Petitioner again asked the Bankruptcy Court to grant Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. On February 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. However, the order did not terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. On February 16, 2009, within a week of the entry of the order lifting the stay, Petitioner sent Wilson a notice of intent to terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. Wilson received the notice of termination on February 23, 2009, and the termination became effective on March 10, 2009. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner attempted to manipulate or delay the timing of the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner began working on establishing a replacement dealership as soon as Wilson’s dealer agreements were terminated. Establishing a replacement dealership is a lengthy process that primarily involves finding a suitable dealer candidate, finding a suitable location and facility, and making sure that the candidate has the necessary capital to start and maintain the dealership. Petitioner talked to several potential candidates to replace the Wilson dealership, including Jerry Ulm, the principal of one of the complaining dealers in these cases. By letter dated June 24, 2009, Mr. Ulm advised Petitioner that he opposed the opening of a successor dealership for anyone else but wanted the successor dealership for himself should Petitioner decide to proceed. Petitioner determined that Petitioner would not be able to locate the successor dealership at the former Wilson facility. Petitioner considered several potential alternative locations for the successor dealership, including property offered by Ferman. Ferman had a vacant site on Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida, which Ferman leased from a third party unrelated to this proceeding. Ferman offered to sublease the property to Petitioner. In a letter to Petitioner's real estate agent dated July 17, 2009, Ferman stated Ferman's understanding that Petitioner intended to use the property to establish a Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealership. Petitioner ultimately decided to locate the dealership at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. It is undisputed that this location is less than two miles from the former Wilson location. Before establishing the successor dealership, however, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department on February 5, 2010 (the letter). The letter requested the Department to confirm that the establishment of the successor dealership would be exempt under Subsection 320.642(5)(a)1. from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3). The letter explained that Wilson had filed bankruptcy and ceased operations and that the bankruptcy had prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson and appointing a successor dealership. The letter also provided the relevant dates of the bankruptcy, the lifting of the stay, and the termination of Wilson dealer agreements and advised the Department of Petitioner's intent to locate the successor dealership within two miles of Wilson’s former location. The letter asked the Department to confirm that the establishment of a successor dealership would be exempt if it was established within one year of March 10, 2009, when Petitioner terminated the Wilson dealer agreements. By separate e-mails dated February 9 and 12, 2010, the Department twice confirmed that it had consulted with counsel and determined that the establishment of a successor dealership to Wilson in the manner outlined by Petitioner would be exempt. Petitioner relied on this confirmation by the Department before proceeding with the appointment of a successor dealership. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner sent a second letter to the Department, stating Petitioner's intention to appoint North Tampa as the replacement and successor dealer for Wilson (the second letter). In the second letter, Petitioner again asserted its understanding that the establishment of North Tampa was exempt from the relevant statutory requirements for notice and protest. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner also submitted to the Department an application for a motor vehicle dealer license for North Tampa. On March 3, 2010, the Department issued a license to North Tampa for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On March 7, 2010, North Tampa opened for business. North Tampa has operated successfully and continuously and employs approximately 30 individuals at the site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the establishment of North Tampa as a successor motor vehicle dealer is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3) pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the two applications filed by the Respondents to establish new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships at Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, for the sale of line-make FSTI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2012.
The Issue Whether Daniels Chevrolet, Inc., is a successor dealer within the meaning of section 320.642, Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and whether Daniels Chevrolet, Inc., and General Motors, LLC, are in compliance with the requirements of section 320.645.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners and Respondents stipulate to the following facts as set forth in this paragraph: Petitioners, Ferman Chevrolet and Gordon Chevrolet, are licensed motor vehicle dealers in Tampa, Florida, and are authorized to sell and service Chevrolet motor vehicles. GM is a licensed manufacturer and distributor of Chevrolet motor vehicles. GM owns 81.9 percent of Daniels Chevrolet. Roland C. Daniels (Mr. Daniels) is an African- American and owns 18.1 percent of Daniels Chevrolet. University Chevrolet was previously licensed as a motor vehicle dealer at 11300 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida (Florida Avenue Location), and was authorized to sell and service Chevrolet motor vehicles. On April 19, 2010, University Chevrolet filed articles of dissolution with the Florida Department of State, stating "the date of dissolution: April 6, 2010." On May 12, 2010, the Dealer Sales and Service agreements between University Chevrolet and GM were terminated. On June 30, 2010, University Chevrolet submitted a Voluntary Relinquishment of License form to the Department. On July 1, 2010, the Department entered a Final Order cancelling University Chevrolet's motor vehicle dealer license, effective July 2, 2011. On April 27, 2011, GM sent a letter to the Department giving notice that GM was approving the appointment of Daniels Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a Summit Chevrolet, as a Chevrolet dealer at the Florida Avenue Location and that the dealership was exempt from notice and protest pursuant to section 320.642(5)(a)1. On May 4, 2011, counsel for Petitioners sent a letter to the Department asserting, among other things, that the establishment of Daniels Chevrolet was not exempt and that Petitioners were entitled to notice and an opportunity to protest. The Department treated the May 4, 2011, letter as a request for administrative hearing and forwarded the letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where the matter was assigned DOAH Case Nos. 11-2273 and 11-2274. On June 22, 2011, Administrative Law Judge William Quattlebaum entered an Order Granting Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Closing Files on the basis that there was no dispute as to any material facts. On May 24, 2011, GM sent a letter to the Department substantially identical to its April 27, 2011, letter, but changing the proposed "d/b/a" to "Daniels Chevrolet." On May 24, 2011, the Department accepted the license application filed by Daniels Chevrolet. On June 1, 2011, the Department determined that Daniels Chevrolet's license application was complete. On June 27, 2011, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition with the Department, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and is the present petition in this case. University Chevrolet, during all times relevant hereto, operated as a Florida limited liability company. By correspondence dated May 24, 2010, University Chevrolet was advised by GM that as of that date, all of the conditions described in the wind-down agreement between GM and University Chevrolet had been satisfied. As part of the process associated with University Chevrolet's petition to voluntarily relinquish its motor vehicle dealer's license, the dealership represented to the Department that: (1) all electronic filing system transactions were finalized at the tag office; (2) there were no outstanding consumer complaints; (3) there were no outstanding sales transactions; (4) there were no pending title and registration applications pending at the dealership or tag office; (5) there were no unsatisfied vehicle liens on trade-in vehicles; and (6) there was no remaining vehicle inventory as of June 21, 2010 (six critical tasks). Had University Chevrolet not completed these six critical tasks to the satisfaction of the Department, its petition seeking to relinquish its license would have been denied. On May 13, 2011, Mr. Daniels, on behalf of Daniels Chevrolet, attempted to file with the Department an application for a license as a motor vehicle dealer. Acceptance of the application was initially refused by the Department, in part, because of the May 4, 2011, protest letter filed with the Department by Petitioners' counsel. Prior to May 5, 2011, the date upon which Mr. Daniels received a copy of Petitioners' May 4, 2011, protest letter, Daniels Chevrolet hired a general sales manager and service director to assist with dealership operations. Additionally, in anticipation of opening for business by June 15, 2011, Daniels Chevrolet, prior to May 5, 2011, interviewed and selected a general contractor. The basic plan for getting Daniels Chevrolet operational by June 15, 2011, included engaging in cosmetic remodeling activities that could be completed within the timeframe of about a month. The operational plan provided that the portions of the dealership that customers would interact with the most and that did not require the issuance of any building permits (e.g., painting), would be front-loaded in the remodeling process so as to accommodate the June 15, 2011, targeted opening date. The initial cost to capitalize the operation of Daniels Chevrolet is $2,761,800.00. In order to fund the capital requirements, Mr. Daniels has invested $500,000.00 in Daniels Chevrolet, which represents an initial ownership interest of 18.1 percent. Motors Holding, an entity within GM, has invested $2,261,800.00, which represents initial ownership interests in Daniels Chevrolet of 81.9 percent. For his initial investment, Mr. Daniels received 5,000 shares of common stock from Daniels Chevrolet. For its initial investment, Motors Holding received 22,618 shares of preferred stock from Daniels Chevrolet. As to the issue of stock dividends and the redemption by Mr. Daniels of the preferred stock held by Motors Holding, the terms of the agreement between the parties provide as follows: Each quarter, [Daniels Chevrolet] will pay out dividends and redeem preferred stock if earnings are available for that purpose (that is, if earnings are not needed to make up prior losses). Generally, the amount available to pay dividends will be one half of [Daniels Chevrolet's] net after-tax earnings for the quarter. [Daniels Chevrolet] will pay dividends only on its preferred stock, and the amount of the dividend will be a pro rata share of the amount available for dividends. All remaining after-tax earnings are available to redeem shares of preferred stock at a price of $100 per share, increasing [Mr. Daniel's] ownership of [Daniels Chevrolet]. There are no dividends paid on the common stock. When [Daniels Chevrolet] has used its operating earnings to reduce the preferred stock held by Motors Holding to 20% of the originally issued preferred shares, it is required to redeem the remaining preferred shares at a price of $100 per share, using any available source of funds. At this time, the Motors Holding representatives will resign from the board of directors and the company will be owned solely by [Mr. Daniels]. The agreement between Mr. Daniels and GM also allows for the expedited purchase of the dealership pursuant to the following contractual terms: Notwithstanding any other terms or conditions of the Investment Agreements or any terms or conditions in the GM memorandum dated August 12, 2004, and March 1, 2005, respecting early buyout parameters, Operator [Mr. Daniels] is not precluded from an expedited purchase of the preferred shares using a monetary source other than profits from the dealership's operation. Operator may purchase GM's shares of preferred stock of the Dealer Company [Daniels Chevrolet] using any legal source of funds at any time within ten (10) years after the date that the dealership opens for business with the public, regardless of the percentage of preferred stock that has been redeemed. The agreement between Mr. Daniels and GM also provides as follows: Candidate/Operator understands that the performance and profitability of the dealership will be affected by not only the Operator's performance, but also by factors outside the control of the dealership, including without limitation, general and local economic conditions, industry auto sales, General Motors' auto sales, and any and all types of risks affecting businesses of the relevant size and type. As with any entrepreneurial activity, Candidate/Operator's and GM's investments in the proposed business forecasted here are at risk. Candidate/Operator acknowledges and understands the potential that he or she could lose some or all of Candidate/Operator's investment if he or she invests in an unprofitable dealership. Candidate/Operator acknowledges and agrees that GM shall have no obligation to provide compensation, payment or reimbursement for any losses, and Candidate/Operator shall have no right to reimbursement for any losses. The revenue projections for Daniels Chevrolet show that during the first year of operations, the dealership is estimating that it will sustain a loss, before deducting for any bonus and taxes, of $130,800.00. In the second year of operations, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting, before deducting for any bonus and taxes, that it will earn a net profit of $110,370.00. In operational years three through ten, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting an average annual net profit, before deducting for any bonus and taxes, of $1,294,050.00. Based upon these projections, the preferred stock owned by Motors Holding will be redeemed in approximately 6.25 years. Prior to joining the automobile industry, Mr. Daniels worked in a managerial capacity for the Sears Corporation for approximately 17 years. At one point during his career with the Sears Corporation, Mr. Daniels became a national buyer for women's apparel. As a national buyer, Mr. Daniels was responsible for forecasting the women's apparel needs for some 750 stores throughout the United States of America. After leaving the Sears Corporation, Mr. Daniels became involved with the automobile industry in 1985, when he entered GM's dealer development program. After successfully completing the dealer development program, Mr. Daniels, in 1987, became part owner of an automobile dealership in Colorado. The Colorado dealership ceased operations sometime around the latter part of 1988. In 1991, Mr. Daniels relocated to South Florida where for a period of about five years, he worked as general manager for two Saturn dealerships. In his capacity as general manager, Mr. Daniels was involved in managing vehicle inventory issues and developing forecasts regarding future vehicle sales. Subsequently, Mr. Daniels left South Florida and moved to Gainesville, Florida, where he owned and operated a Saturn dealership for more than ten years. When GM ceased manufacturing the Saturn line of vehicles, Mr. Daniels switched to selling Mitsubishi vehicles until such time as he sold his dealership around March 2011. Mr. Daniels, through training and experience, is skilled at making forecasts regarding the future sales of automobiles. In support of its revenue forecast, Daniels Chevrolet, relying upon the experience of Mr. Daniels and GM, projects that during its first year of operations, it will sell 500 new vehicles. For the second year of operations, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting 600 new vehicle sales. For the remaining relevant operational period, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting that it will average 850 new vehicle sales per year. The number of vehicles sold by Daniels Chevrolet will not reduce the number of new vehicles allocated to Petitioners by GM. What is generically referred to as "additions and deductions" provides another source from which Daniels Chevrolet expects to generate income. Income from additions and deductions can be derived from sources such as insurance recoveries, factory incentive money, and tax adjustments. During its first year of operations, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting $400,000.00 in income from additions and deductions. In its second year of operations, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting that the amount of income derived from additions and deductions will be $851,000.00. Commencing with its third year of operations, Daniels Chevrolet is projecting that its annual average for income derived from additions and deductions will be $1,099,000.00. For the period January 2001 through November 2009, dealers that occupied the Florida Avenue Location had annual new vehicle sales, not including fleet vehicles, as follows: Year 2001 – 890 vehicles Year 2002 – 863 vehicles Year 2003 – 921 vehicles Year 2004 – 915 vehicles Year 2005 – 977 vehicles Year 2006 – 698 vehicles Year 2007 – 674 vehicles Year 2008 – 367 vehicles 1/2009 - 11/2009 – 348 vehicles Mr. Dennis Slater, from 2005 through approximately April 2010, oversaw business operations and served as either chief financial officer or executive manager for University Chevrolet. During this period, Mr. Slater became very familiar with University Chevrolet's day-to-day business operations, as well as the conditions of the market in which University Chevrolet competed. According to Mr. Slater, for the period October 2006 through December 2008, the dealer/operator in charge of University Chevrolet encountered significant self- imposed challenges that compromised the dealer/operator's ability to successfully manage dealership operations. Those challenges eventually lead to Mr. Slater taking over the day-to-day operation of University Chevrolet in January 2009. After having been affiliated with University Chevrolet for approximately five years, and having worked in the auto industry for more than 35 years, Mr. Slater submitted a proposal to GM to operate the Florida Avenue Location as a successor to University Chevrolet. As a part of his proposal, Mr. Slater estimated that during his first year of operations he could sell 916 new vehicles. During his second year of operations, Mr. Slater projected that he could sell 1,119 new vehicles. Additionally, Mr. Slater projected that during his first year of operations, he would generate $718,998.00 in income from additions and deductions. Albert E. Parziale, CPA, CFF, CFE, Petitioners' expert, testified that in his opinion, Daniels Chevrolet would not be able to achieve profits sufficient to allow the dealership to obtain full ownership of the company within ten years of commencing operations. In reaching his conclusion, Mr. Parziale looked at new vehicle sales data in the aggregate for the Florida Avenue Location for the years 2001 through 2009. Mr. Parziale then "averaged" the data and determined that the Florida Avenue Location annually averaged 740 new vehicle sales during the period in question. Mr. Parziale also analyzed the new vehicle sales data for a narrower period of time (2006 through 2009) and found that the Florida Avenue Location during these later years annually averaged 521 new vehicle sales.2/ Mr. Parziale also noted that during the broader period between 2001 and 2009, previous operators at the Florida Avenue Location averaged $1,194,717 in income from additions and deductions, but it would be unreasonable for Respondent Daniels Chevrolet to rely on this income source to meet its buy-out obligation to Motors Holding because of the erratic nature of income flow derived from this source.3/ Currently, the average Chevrolet dealer in the Southeastern region of the United States, which includes Tampa, Florida, receives 1.1 million annually in net income from additions and deductions and the average Chevrolet dealer in the Tampa market receives $914,000.00 annually in net income from additions and deductions. Mr. Parziale acknowledges that it would not be unreasonable for Respondents to project that Daniels Chevrolet will average $1,099,000.00 in income from additions and deductions for the next ten years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles, enter a final order granting Respondent, Daniels Chevrolet's, licensure application to operate as a successor motor vehicle dealer at 11300 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, and denying the relief sought by Petitioners, Ferman Chevrolet and Gordon Chevrolet, in their Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2011.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 41, three separate Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population were published. The first notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The second notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The third notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. By letter dated October 16, 2008, Respondent filed the following letter of protest with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: In regards to the intent of [Galaxy] to establish a Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group LTD (SHWI) with [Treasure Coast] for the sale of motorcycles at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie, Fl [sic] 34952. This letter represents a written complaint to their application for this dealership, because we already represent said dealership. This letter also represents a complaint on the following conditions: The proposed dealership would be within 20 miles of our dealership, as measured by straight line distance. They are 8.61 miles away per mapquest. The proposed dealership is to be located within the contractual area outlined in our dealer agreement, as we have a 20 mile exclusivity. We have made more than 25% of our retail sales to persons whose registered household addresses are within 20 straight line miles of the proposed dealership during the past 12 month period. We have established three out of four of the conditions exist, so we are submitting this complaint protesting the establishment of the above dealership. By letter dated October 22, 2008, the Department referred this matter to DOAH. The letter of referral provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing a Complaint and supporting documents pursuant to 320.642, Florida Statutes, filed by Wendy and Mark Mourning, on behalf of the above Respondent, thus requiring a hearing under the term of this statute. [Respondent] is protesting the establishment of [Treasure Coast] for the line-make Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South US 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952. The protest filed by Respondent was timely. Respondent's dealership is within 8.61 miles of the proposed site. Mr. Mourning verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. Respondent has dealer agreements to sell various lines of motorcycles, including the following: motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI); motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ); and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG). Although Respondent still has a valid dealer agreement as to motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI), Respondent has discontinued the sale of those motorcycles. Mr. Mourning testified that Respondent has no objection to permitting Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI). As to motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ), and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG), Respondent has served the area for not less than two years and has successfully promoted those two lines of motorcycles within its territory or community. Respondent established that its sales of those motorcycles are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. Respondent adequately represents Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) and Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) in Respondent’s community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order authorizing Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Mark Mourning and Wendy Mourning WenMark Inc., d/b/a All The Wheel Toys 1540 Northwest Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Guy Young J & F South Florida Investments, Inc. d/b/a Treasure Coast Scooters and Things 7320 South US 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344
The Issue Whether the application of Peace Industry Group (Peace) and Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. (Bayside) to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles to be located at Bayside Auto Sales, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Bay County, Florida, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Peace is a licensed distributor of motor vehicles in Florida and is authorized to sell motor vehicles to its dealers in Florida. Petitioner Bayside is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and is located at 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Respondent Moto is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing Astronautical Bashan dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Blvd Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida. Currently, Moto sells the product line of Peace, including the Astronautical Bashan product line. Additionally, Moto has a franchise agreement with Peace. The agreement establishes a franchise territory with a 25-mile radius around Moto’s location. Petitioner Peace proposes to establish Bayside as a dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles. The proposed dealership would be within six miles of Moto’s dealership. The two dealerships are located in Bay County and are separated by the Hathaway Bridge. Both draw customers from Bay County, with at least 20 percent of Moto’s customers located within 20 miles of Moto’s location. There was no consumer data or analysis of sales in the motorcycle industry offered into evidence. However, Moto’s franchise agreement with Peace establishes a market area of at least a 25-mile radius from Moto’s location. Bayside clearly is located within Moto’s market area. There was no evidence which demonstrated Peace’s market share in the motorcycle market. There was no evidence presented analyzing the motorcycle market in the Panama City area. Likewise, there was no evidence presented regarding anticipated growth in the market area. This type of evidence is generally presented by the distributor or manufacturer of the product. As indicated, Peace did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Peace or Astronautical Bashan motorcycles cannot be established. Moreover, a determination that the establishment of a second dealership in the Panama City territory is warranted must be based on the economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the territory. Given this lack of evidence, Petitioners failed to establish that Peace was underrepresented in the Panama City/Bay county area. Since there is no evidence to support the establishment of a second dealership, Petitioners’ application to establish such a dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the establishment of Peace's dealership at Bayside, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Larry Bradberry Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. 1301 Harrison Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Lily Ji Peace Industry Group, Inc. 6600-B Jimmy Carter Boulevard Norcross, Georgia 30071 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether General Motors' decision not to renew its franchise agreement with Gallman Pontiac was "unfair" as the term is defined by Section 320.641(3), Florida statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background On or about October 28, 1988, (general Motors Corporation, Pontiac Division (General Motors) notified it franchisee, Bill Gallman Pontiac, GMC Truck, Inc. (Gallman Pontiac), a licensed motor vehicle dealer in the State of Florida, of its election not to renew the franchise agreement, effective ninety days from the date of the delivery of the notice of its decision. Because the franchise agreement was scheduled to expire on November 20, 1988, Bill Gallman would have the option to void the nonrenewal due to General Motor's failure to notify the motor vehicle dealer ninety days in advance of the proposed nonrenewal. To avoid this result and to comply with the franchise agreement, General Motors informed the dealer in the same notification that the current agreement was being extended for the same ninety day period in which the dealer had been given notice of the proposed nonrenewal. General Motors' extension of the term of the franchise agreement was a unilateral proposed novation that was accepted by Gallman Pontiac when he relied upon the modification and continued to do business under the novation. Gallman Pontiac's acceptance of the novation is clearly demonstrated by the timing of the verified complaint in this proceeding, which was filed on January 12, 1989. The specific reason stated by General Motors for its decision not to renew its franchise agreement beyond the ninety-day period was that Gallman Pontiac failed to fulfill its minimum sales performance responsibilities pursuant to its contractual obligations as set forth in the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement. Gallman Pontiac subsequently filed a verified complaint, pursuant to Section 320.641, Florida Statutes, to contest the proposed nonrenewal of the franchise agreement. The complaint alleges that the proposed nonrenewal is unfair and that the grounds asserted for the nonrenewal were factually untrue and/or legally insufficient for the intended purpose. The Mathematical Formula for Sales Effectiveness The manufacturer's primary purpose for entering into a franchise agreement with a dealer is to have its automobiles sold. To determine whether a dealer is meeting its responsibilities in this regard, the franchise agreement contains a mathematical formula which is used to evaluate the sales performance of all dealers who sell Pontiacs. Pursuant to the formula, which is expressed in the agreement and tide annual sales performance evaluation form, a dealer's sales ratio and registration ratio must be calculated. A dealer's sales ratio is determined by dividing the dealer's actual unit sales of new motor vehicles, wherever registered, by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. A dealer's registration ratio is determined by dividing new motor vehicle unit registrations by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. After these ratios are recorded, the dealer's sales and registration ratios are compared to zone and national registration ratio levels to determine sales and registration effectiveness. If the individual dealer's sales and registration performances reach a comparative level of 85 percent effectiveness to the zone and national levels, the dealer's performance is considered effective by General Motors. When the comparisons were made in this case, the dealer's sales effectiveness was 53.6 percent in 1987 and 68.5 percent in 1988. Registration effectiveness was 56.5 percent in 1987 and 74.1 percent in 1988. These levels of performance do not meet the minimum levels required by the franchise agreement. Other Considerations Under the Agreement In addition to the mathematical formula, the franchise agreement states that General Motors will consider other relevant factors in its sales evaluation, including the following factors: the trend over a reasonable period of time of dealer's sales performance; the manner in which dealer has conducted the sales operations, including advertising, sales promotion and treatment of customers; sales to fleet customers if they have affected registrations; the manner in which dealer has submitted orders for new motor vehicles to the Pontiac Division; the availability of new motor vehicles to dealer; and significant local conditions that may have directly affected dealer's performance. If the mathematical formulas regarding sales and registration effectiveness set forth in the franchise agreement were the sole measure used to determine Gallman Pontiac's sales performance through January 1989, it is clear that the dealer was not meeting its contractual obligations to General Motors in this area of responsibility. However, under the terms of the agreement, General Motors must look to other relevant factors that may have directly affected dealer's performance before a final determination can be made regarding an individual dealer's sales effectiveness. Contrary to the terms of the agreement, the annual evaluation forms show that Gallman Pontiac's performance was evaluated on retail sales only. The other relevant factors in the franchise agreement were not reviewed before the decision not to renew the franchise agreement was made. Other Relative Factors in the Agreement Which Should Have Been Considered in the Dealers Evaluation When the trend of the Gallman Pontiac's sales performance is reviewed, the evidence shows that Gallman Pontiac's sales performance over the life of the franchise agreement has improved relative to market growth by a small percentage (7.51%). This slight upward trend does not demonstrate an effective performance as the sales were below an acceptable standard before the increase in sales, and the improvement barely exceeded the local market growth. The time period over which the trend evaluation occurred is reasonable in this case because both parties agreed to a two-year term in the franchise agreement, which was subject to an overall evaluation prior to a renewal of the agreement. Although there was opinion testimony from a former sales manager from the dealership that Gaillman Pontiac did not order sufficient quantities and mix of vehicles, and imprudently focused the advertising towards the limited, younger group of buyers in Naples, this testimony was not found to be credible by the Hearing Officer. All of the other evidence presented by both sides regarding the manner in which the dealer conducted sales operations demonstrates that Gallman Pontiac met or exceeded his contractual obligations in this area of responsibility. Sales to fleet customers did not affect registrations in 1988. The dealer chose not to compete in the fleet market because the later resale of these vehicles interferes with the sale of new vehicles at this dealership. The manner in which the dealer submitted orders to the Pontiac Division was not criticized by General Motors. The dealer's procedures were continuously reviewed and evaluated through the Dealer Assistance Program. There was no showing that the dealer's ordering procedures directly affected its sales performance. The allocation procedures were applied to Gallman Pontiac in the same manner they were applied to other dealers. The evidence did not show that imprudent selections were made by the dealer in the ordering process, nor was it sufficiently established that manufacturer delays or the unavailability of certain products interfered with the dealer's sales in Naples. A significant local condition that may have directly affected the dealer's sales performance was the lack of receptivity in the Naples market area for linemakes in the class of automobiles offered by Pontiac. Actual sales performance data for all new car registrations in the area show that the Naples market prefers to purchase automobiles from the high group of automobiles such as Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Porsche. Pontiac does not have a linemake designed to compete in this market segment. Application of the Other Relevant Factors To The Decision Not To Renew Because the franchise agreement and the annual sales evaluation form have not made provisions for any adjustments to the original statistical formula based upon the additional considerations mentioned in paragraphs 9-13, these factors are to be considered independently from the initial mathematical calculation. The purpose of the review of these factors is to determine if the statistical analysis is a reliable indicator of the sales performance of the dealer who is being evaluated before General Motors makes its final decision regarding termination. There has been no showing that General Motors ever used the additional considerations for any other purpose in its course of dealings with other dealers in the past or that any other interpretation has been given to these factors. In this case, when the additional relevant factors are reviewed in addition to the ineffective sales and registration performance statistics, the mathematical formula continues to be a reliable indicator that the sales performance at the Gallman Pontiac dealership does not meet required standards. The additional considerations set forth in the franchise agreement which are relevant to this case, do not seriously undermine the fairness of the application of the initial mathematical calculation to the sales performance of Gallman Pontiac. While the local market's lack of receptivity directly affects Gallman Pontiac's performance, the statistical formula takes this into account to a large degree when a dealer is required to meet eighty-five percent of the zone or national average to demonstrate minimum performance. If yet another mathematical formula was created to give additional weight to this local condition beyond the provision in the minimum standards formula, the manufacturer could be harmed by a individual dealer's lack of market penetration efforts. Because it is difficult to determine the primary cause and effect of poor market penetration in a specific area, the statistical formula is generally fair to both sides in most situations. It does not unfairly accuse either the dealer or the manufacturer as being responsible for the lack of sales. One indicator of the fairness involved in the application of the formula as designed can be found in Mr. Anderson's comparative analysis of the Naples automobile market and the Sarasota market. Mr. Anderson is the expert in automobile marketing analysis presented by General Motors. This analysis refutes the opinion of Dr. Ostlund, the expert presented by Gallman Pontiac during the hearing regarding automobile marketing analysis. It is Dr. Ostlund's opinion that Naples is a unique market in which the usual statistical formula becomes unfair if it is applied to all registrations in the Dealer's Area of Responsibility. Based upon this analysis, Dr. Ostlund suggests that a weighted average be applied in the standard formula to all of the sales made by Gallman Pontiac during the franchise period. However, even if this were done, Gallman Pontiac's performance would have been 84.7 percent, which is still below the required standard of 85 percent. Contrary to Dr. Ostlund's analysis, the Naples-Sarasota comparison conducted by Mr. Anderson demonstrates that Pontiac can compete in a high income area with similar demographics to Naples within the same zone along the same Florida coast. Therefore, the usual statistical formula remains a reliable indicator of the sales effectiveness of a Pontiac dealer in Naples, Florida, and should be applied without any further weighting of averages in the statistical analysis required by the franchise agreement. Application of Additional Factors Relevant to the Decision Not to Renew Pursuant to Statute A nonrenewal of the franchise agreement is clearly permitted by the franchise agreement. The nonrenewal has been undertaken in good faith and good cause. The manufacturer has continuously encouraged the dealer to meet sales performance standards and has worked with Gallman Pontiac in an effort to achieve this goal within the time frame agreed to by the parties. Because franchise dealers are the major outlet the manufacturer has for the sale of new automobiles, it is essential that minimum levels of sales performance are achieved on a regular basis. Failure to meet the minimum sales performance over the term of this agreement by Gallman Pontiac is a material and substantial breach of the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing Gallman Pontiac's complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0505 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3. Reject all but last sentence. Conclusions of Law. Accept the last sentence. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Reject that the dealer code problem can be attri- buted to the conduct of the manufacturer. Insufficient proof. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Reject the weighted average basis. See HO #14 and #15.. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Attempt to shift evidentiary burden. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accept that additional factor's need to be considered. Rejected Dr. Ostlund's interpretation. See HO #9 through #15. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted, except for the last sentence which is an opinion or closing argument as opposed to a finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted, except for Nissan. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Closing argument as opposed to finding of fact. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Conclusionary. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected. See HO #17. Rejected. See HO #15 and #17. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO 415. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Redundant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Unreliable conclusion. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside the reasons given for nonrenewal. See HO #8. Rejected. Same reason as given in above. Rejected. Same reason as 49 and 50. Also contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Redundant and argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. The use of "sales reported" was allowed by the Hearing Officer at hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant in these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant and unreliable speculation. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Dr. Ostlund was very credible. Mr. Anderson's analysis, based upon y~he Sarasota- Naples comparison, which tended to refute the testimony of Dr. Ostlund, was given greater weight by the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Adams, Esquire Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Feaman, Adams, Harris, Department of Highway Fernandez & Deutch, P.A. Safety And Motor Vehicles Corporate Plaza, Fourth Floor Neil Kirkman Building 4700 N.W. Second Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 S. William Fuller, Jr., Esq. Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire Fuller Johnson & Farrell Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Post Office Box 1739 Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler Tallahassee, Florida 32302 11 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motors Vehicles William J. Whalen, Esquire Department of Highway Office of General Counsel Safety and Motor Vehicles General Motors Corporation B439 Neil Kirkman Building New Center One Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire General Counsel S. Thomas Wienner, Esquire Departments of Highway Dykema Gossett Safety and Motor Vehicles 35th Floor Neil Kirklan Building 400 Renaissance Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Detroit, Michigan 48243
