McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Docket No. 84041

• Decision Date: 05 February 1988
• Docket Number: Docket No. 84041
• Citation: 165 Mich.App. 321,418 N.W.2d 716
• Parties: McDONALD FORD SALES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 165 Mich.App. 321, 418 N.W.2d 716
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 716

418 N.W.2d 716

McDONALD FORD SALES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 84041.

165 Mich.App. 321, 418 N.W.2d 716

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 17, 1986.

Decided Dec. 21, 1987.

Released for Publication Feb. 5, 1988.

[165 MICHAPP 322] Stringari, Fritz, Kreger, Ahearn, Bennett & Hunsinger, P.C. by Roy R. Hunsinger and Martin E. Crandall, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

[165 MICHAPP 323] Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg by Joseph C. Basta and Kathleen McCree Lewis, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before WAHLS, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and WARSHAWSKY, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a Ford dealer, filed the instant declaratory judgment action in Oakland Circuit Court pursuant to Sec. 16 of the Michigan motor vehicle dealers, distributors and manufacturers act, M.C.L. Sec. 445.1561 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 19.856(21) et seq., challenging defendant's proposed relocation of another Ford dealer, Tom Holzer Ford, Inc., within six miles of plaintiff. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied plaintiff's declaratory relief, finding that defendant had demonstrated good cause for relocating Holzer Ford. Plaintiff appeals as of right. We affirm.

We shall first address plaintiff's claim that it was entitled to a jury trial. In an action brought pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 445.1576; M.S.A. Sec. 19.856(36), an automobile dealer who has been notified that an automobile manufacturer proposes to establish or relocate another new motor vehicle dealer of the same "line make" within a six-mile radius of its place of business (i.e., its "relevant market area," see M.C.L. Sec. 445.1566; M.S.A. Sec. 19.856 ) may seek a declaratory ruling as to whether good cause exists for the establishment or relocation of the new motor vehicle dealer. The statute further provides:

"(5) In determining whether good cause exists for establishing or relocating an additional new motor vehicle dealer for the same line make, the court shall take into consideration the existing circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

[165 MICHAPP 324] "(a) Permanency of the investment.

"(b) Effect on the retail new motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the relevant market area.

"(c) Whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare.

"(d) Whether the new motor vehicle dealers of the same line make in that relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of that line make in the market area, including the adequacy of motor vehicle sales and qualified service personnel.

"(e) Whether the establishment or relocation of the new motor vehicle dealer would promote competition.

"(f) Growth or decline of the population and the number of new motor vehicle registrations in the relevant market area.

"(g) The effect on the relocating dealer of a denial of its relocation into the relevant market area." M.C.L. Sec. 445.1576(5); M.S.A. Sec. 19.856(36)(5).

We conclude that a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial in an action brought pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 445.1576; M.S.A. Sec. 19.856(36). First we note that the language of the statute itself indicates that the determination of good cause is to be made by the court as evidenced by the phrasing of subsection (5). More importantly, the relief afforded a plaintiff in such an action is injunctive relief, not monetary damages. There is no right to a jury trial where the relief sought is equitable in nature, as is the case here. Dutka v. Sinai Hospital of Detroit, 143 Mich.App. 170, 173, 371 N.W.2d 901 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 891 (1986); Robair v. Dahl, 80 Mich.App. 458, 460-462, 264 N.W.2d 27 (1978). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff's request for a jury trial.

Having resolved this initial claim of error, we [165 MICHAPP 325] now turn to plaintiff's allegation that the trial court erred in evaluating the statutorily prescribed factors and in determining that there was good cause shown for the relocation. The decision of a trial court in an equity action is reviewed de novo; the entire record is examined, all the evidence is weighed and the trial court's findings are subjected to closer scrutiny than that employed in reviewing a jury verdict. Vergote v. K Mart Corp. (After Remand), 158 Mich.App. 96, 103, 404 N.W.2d 711 (1987). A trial court's decision in an equity action will not be reversed unless its findings are clearly erroneous or the reviewing court is convinced that it would have reached a different result. Dafter Twp. v. Reid, 159 Mich.App. 149, 163, 406 N.W.2d 255 (1987); Vergote, supra; Calvary Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Lake Huron of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 148 Mich.App. 105, 384 N.W.2d 92 (1986).

After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court's findings were amply supported by the evidence and the trial court did not err in concluding that good cause had been shown for relocating Holzer Ford. In evaluating the first statutorily prescribed factor, permanency of the investment, the trial court concluded that the relocation of Holzer Ford represented a permanent investment. This finding was clearly supported by the evidence which indicated that Holzer Ford would be relocated to a modern facility at a new permanent location. Holzer's equity in the current facility would be transferred to the new facility and additional capital would be obtained from the Ford Motor Company Dealer Development Division to finance the relocation. The trial court's finding was not erroneous.

In evaluating the effect on the retail new motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the [165 MICHAPP 326] relevant market area, the trial court concluded that the proposed relocation would be beneficial as it would provide increased interbrand competition and afford the consuming public an additional opportunity to comparison shop and make an informed decision when purchasing a new vehicle. Further, any detrimental effect on plaintiff would be minimal and was outweighed by the benefits of the proposed relocation. The evidence clearly supported the trial court's finding. The evidence indicated that location was not a primary consideration in choosing a dealer. Further, Holzer Ford was remaining within its previous market area. The move would result in Holzer's being located farther to the north and west, in an area not well represented by Ford. More importantly, if the relocation had not been approved Holzer Ford would have had to close down, thus having a detrimental effect on the retail new motor vehicle business in the area.

The trial court also found that the proposed move would be beneficial to the public welfare because increased competition, both interbrand and intrabrand, would help assure better prices and higher quality service for the public. However, plaintiff argues that the area is too sparse to support two dealers and that excessive intrabrand competition will result, leading to the destruction of one or both of the Ford dealers. We find plaintiff's argument to be without merit. Our review of the record indicates that the proposed new location of Holzer Ford is only a few miles from its previous location and still within its assigned market area. Although the new location is within six miles of plaintiff, the evidence indicated that almost all Ford dealers in the Metropolitan Detroit area were within six miles of another Ford dealer. In addition, without the relocation, Holzer Ford [165 MICHAPP 327] would likely close, resulting in a tangible loss of jobs and tax base. The evidence indicated that the relocation to a desirable commercial location would benefit the public interest.

With regard to the fourth factor, whether the new motor vehicle dealers of the same line make in the relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient customer care, the trial court concluded that dealers of the same line were currently providing qualified service; however, the trial court noted that Ford vehicles were underrepresented in the area of the proposed relocation site. Plaintiff argues that because there was adequate service in the area and defendant failed to demonstrate service facility overutilization and consumer dissatisfaction, relocation was not warranted. We disagree. First, we note that this factor appears to be of more relevance when a new dealer is being located in the area. In this instance, Holzer Ford is moving only a few miles from its previous location. Holzer will still be providing service to its existing customers and would be in a better position to service customers to the north and west, an area not well represented by Ford. Although the service provided is currently adequate, relocation will afford more convenient service for customers to the north and west. In addition, without relocation Holzer Ford would likely close, thus...