Appeal of Hoyt Rental and Leasing Co., Inc., 86-410

• Decision Date: 04 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-410,86-410
• Citation: 130 N.H. 130,536 A.2d 172
• Parties: Appeal of HOYT RENTAL AND LEASING COMPANY, INC. (New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles).
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 172

536 A.2d 172

130 N.H. 130

Appeal of HOYT RENTAL AND LEASING COMPANY, INC. (New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles).

No. 86-410.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Dec. 4, 1987.

Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green P.A., Manchester (Peter W. Leberman on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Stephen E. Merrill, Atty. Gen. (Stephen J. Judge, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and orally), for State.

THAYER, Justice.

This is an appeal pursuant to RSA 541:6 brought by Hoyt Rental and Leasing Corporation, Inc. (Hoyt) from a decision of the department of motor vehicles (DMV) finding Hoyt in violation of the New Hampshire Dealer Registration Rules and Regulations. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Hoyt is licensed within the State of New Hampshire as a motor vehicle dealer (Registration Number 850). Hoyt conducts its business at its South Willow Street location, in Manchester. On June 21, 1986, Hoyt moved some of its vehicles and office staff to the Federal Credit Union's parking lot in Concord for the purpose of conducting a private, one-day sale to credit union members. Prior to the sale date, Hoyt sent notice of the sale to credit union members and posted sale information in buildings where credit union members worked.

The Concord Automobile Dealer's Association became aware of the sale through the advance advertising and on June 20, one day before the sale, filed a written complaint with the DMV. On June 20, that same day, an inspector from the department of safety contacted Hoyt and indicated to one of Hoyt's employees that Hoyt would be in violation of agency rules if it conducted the sale. Hoyt went ahead with the sale on June 21. On July 16, the DMV issued a notice of hearing to Hoyt alleging, inter alia, violations of certain New Hampshire statutes and agency regulations.

Hoyt appeared at the DMV hearing on August 6 to respond to the complaint. Its alleged violation of N.H.Admin.Rule SAF-M 1101.09 is the subject of this appeal. The rule states:

"Whenever a dealer intends to go out of business, relocate any portion or all of his business, change the mailing address or change the name of his business he shall so notify the director, in writing, no less than 30 days prior to such action. In the case of relocation the director shall be notified of the proposed new location by the dealer, and the director shall verify that the new location meets all applicable statutory requirements prior to the conduct of business there."

The hearing officer found, inter alia, that Hoyt has an established place of business in Manchester, that Hoyt had sold cars on June 21 at the Federal Credit Union in Concord, and that Hoyt intended the sale for Credit Union members only. He found that thirty-six cars were sold and that Hoyt's dealer plates were attached to the cars for demonstration purposes. He further found that Hoyt's regular employees assisted in the sale and that security guards were hired for the day.

Based on these findings, the hearing officer concluded that Hoyt's conduct of the sale in Concord constituted a partial relocation of its business and that, since Hoyt neither provided the DMV with requisite advance notice nor obtained prior DMV approval, Hoyt was in violation of N.H.Admin.Rule SAF-M 1101.09. The hearing officer then ordered the revocation of Hoyt's dealer plates for a thirty-day period. On August 22, 1986, Hoyt requested a rehearing, which was denied, and this appeal followed.

This dispute centers around the interpretation of the word "relocate" as it appears within Rule SAF-M 1101.09. Hoyt contends that the hearing officer's determination that a one-day private sale constituted a partial relocation of its business was erroneous. Hoyt argues that "relocation" contemplates permanancy and continuity beyond the duration of its one-day sale. The DMV, on the other hand, argues that Hoyt's movement of inventory and staff to the Credit Union parking lot for the purpose of selling cars constituted a partial relocation of Hoyt's business and that the time period involved is irrelevant.

In order to prevail, Hoyt must demonstrate, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the order was unreasonable or unlawful. RSA 541:13. E.D. Swett, Inc. v. N.H. Comm. for Human Rights, 124 N.H. 404, 408, 470 A.2d 921, 924 (1983); Appeal of John Denman, 120 N.H. 568, 572, 419 A.2d 1084, 1087 (1980).

Since the DMV dealer registration rules and regulations do not provide a definition of "relocate," we will interpret the word according to its plain meaning. RSA 21:2; King v. Sununu, 126 N.H. 302, 490 A.2d 796, 800 (1...