GMC v. BANNINGS PONTIAC
Decision Date | 01 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1225,1225 |
Citation | 773 A.2d 584,138 Md. App. 671 |
Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. BANNINGS BELTWAY PONTIAC. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Lawrence Buonomo, Detroit, MI (Kathlee A. Ellis and Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, LLP, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Peter H. Gunst (Julie Rubin Goldberg and Astrachan, Gunst, Goldman & Thomas, P.C., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before HOLLANDER, JAMES R. EYLER and RAYMOND E. BECK (Specially assigned), JJ.
In this judicial review of a decision by the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), we are faced with an issue of statutory interpretation. Md.Code (1977, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Transportation § 15-209 prohibits the wrongful termination of an automobile dealer's franchise by an automobile manufacturer.1 Section 15-209(a) provides that a manufacturer may not terminate, cancel, or fail to renew the franchise of a dealer unless (1) the dealer has failed to comply substantially with the reasonable requirements of the franchise and (2) the manufacturer gives the dealer at least 90 days prior written notice of the termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal and provides the MVA with a copy of that notice. We interpret the provision to require that the relationship remain in existence for 90 days after the notice is given, even if the contract term expires prior to that time. We do not interpret it as requiring that 90 days notice be given prior to the expiration date of the contract term in order to effect a termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal.
Bannings Beltway Pontiac, appellee, entered into a dealership agreement with General Motors Corporation, appellant, in 1981. A series of dealership agreements followed, each with a definite term. Beginning in 1986, appellee's sales performance started to decline. The parties attempted to address the problems with the dealership. Appellee was placed in appellant's Dealer Development Assistance Program in 1986 and remained in that program for ten years.
The last long-term dealership agreement between the parties expired on October 31, 1995. At that time, the parties entered into a short-term dealership agreement, which expired on April 30, 1996. The parties again entered a short-term agreement, which expired on August 31, 1996. Because appellee's sales continued to decline, appellant decided to terminate the relationship. By letter dated July 3, 1996, appellant informed appellee that it was terminating the relationship, effective 90 days later, on October 3, 1996.
On August 13, 1996, pursuant to Transportation § 15-209(e)(2), appellee requested a hearing to determine whether it had "failed to comply substantially with the reasonable requirements of the franchise." A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on January 7 through 9, 1998. Appellee raised various arguments challenging the purported termination of the relationship, including an argument that the notice given by appellant did not comply with the statute. Appellee argued that the statute required that notice be given at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the term of the agreement, rather than 90 days notice.
The ALJ, in a proposed decision, rejected all of appellee's arguments and found that appellee was not in substantial compliance with the requirements of the franchise.2 The ALJ also found that notice had been properly given. On October 19, 1999, the MVA adopted the proposed decision.
On November 4, 1999, appellee filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. On July 17, 2000, the circuit court reversed the MVA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The circuit court held that appellant had failed to provide adequate notice of termination of the parties' agreement in accordance with § 15-209.
In reviewing an administrative agency's decision, we must defer to the agency's fact-finding and drawing of inferences so long as they are supported by the record. Board of Physician Quality Assur. v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68, 729 A.2d 376 (1999). In our review, we apply the substantial evidence test to determine "whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached." Id. (quoting Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apartments, 283 Md. 505, 512, 390 A.2d 1119 (1978)). When an administrative agency's decision is founded on an erroneous legal conclusion, however, "we will substitute our own judgment for that of the agency." Mayberry v. Board of Educ., 131 Md.App. 686, 701, 750 A.2d 677 (2000). The issue before us is more appropriately categorized as a question of law, rather than a finding of fact.
128 Md.App. at 216-17, 736 A.2d 1185 (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 305 Md. 145, 501 A.2d 1307 (1986) (alteration in original)).
The ALJ's proposed decision was issued following a contested adversarial proceeding, and it is apparent from a reading of that decision that the ALJ focused specifically on § 15-209 and interpreted that provision through a sound reasoning process. The MVA subsequently adopted the proposed decision of the ALJ. We shall give the MVA's interpretation of § 15-209 significant weight, see Solomon, 132 Md.App. at 455,
752 A.2d 1217, and absent authority to lead us to a contrary conclusion, we shall affirm the MVA's decision.
We believe it would be helpful to begin our analysis by setting forth § 15-209 in full.
Wrongful termination of dealer's franchise prohibited.
(ii) Provides the Administration with a copy of that notice.
(ii) Provides the Administration with a copy of that notice.
(2) Is not required, if the dealer waives in writing.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burke v. Md. Bd. of Physicians
...475 ("We review factual findings and inferences therefrom under a substantial evidence standard."); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bannings Beltway Pontiac , 138 Md. App. 671, 773 A.2d 584 (2001). The entire record is reviewed to determine whether the final order is "supported by substantial evidence......
- JUDD FIRE v. Davidson
-
Rockville Harley-Davidson v. Harley-Davidson Motor
...of a comprehensive state regulatory scheme intended to protect consumers and foster competition. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bannings Beltway Pontiac, 138 Md.App. 671, 773 A.2d 584, 590 (2001). That scheme establishes a critical role for the MVA as regulator and licensor of businesses in each ......
-
Burke v. Md. Bd. of Physicians
...Md. at 137 ("We review factual findings and inferences therefrom under a substantial evidence standard."); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bannings Beltway Pontiac, 138 Md. App. 671 (2001). The entire record is reviewed to determine whether the final order is "supported by substantial evidence and cor......