Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, and TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Office of the Ind. Secretary of State, Auto Dealer Services Div.
2016 Ind. LEXIS 414
| Ind. | 2016Background
- Ed Martin Toyota sought to relocate from Anderson (Madison County) to Fishers (Hamilton County); Toyota Motor Sales filed the relocation with the Auto Dealer Services Division.
- Three existing regional Toyota dealers (Andy Mohr, Butler, Tom Wood) protested under Indiana’s Dealer Services Act, claiming they had standing to challenge the relocation.
- The Statute defines a “relevant market area” as either a six-mile radius for a relocating dealer in a county >100,000 population or a ten-mile radius for a “proposed” dealer or a relocating dealer in a county ≤100,000.
- The Division dismissed the dealers’ protests for lack of standing, concluding Ed Martin’s relocation into Hamilton County (population >100,000) triggered the six-mile radius and the protesting dealers lay outside it.
- The trial court affirmed the Division; the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed (holding Subsection 20(2)(A) covered relocations and therefore a ten-mile radius applied). The Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "proposed new motor vehicle dealer" in Ind. Code § 9-32-2-20(2)(A) includes relocating dealers | Dealers: "proposed" should include any dealer proposing to enter a market (including relocations), so a ten-mile radius applies | Division/Toyota: statutory text distinguishes "proposed" (new) from "relocate" (existing); relocating into a large county triggers six-mile radius under § 9-32-2-20(1) | Court held Subsection 20(2)(A) refers to newly established (not relocating) dealers; relocations into counties >100,000 fall under § 9-32-2-20(1) (six-mile radius) |
| Whether the Division’s statutory interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference | Dealers: Division’s reading is unreasonable and conflicts with related provisions (e.g., § 9-32-13-24) | Division/Toyota: its interpretation harmonizes statutory structure and furthers legislative purpose; it is reasonable and should be given great weight | Court held the Division’s interpretation was reasonable and deferred to the agency; dismissal for lack of standing affirmed |
| How to read "in a county" in subsections addressing relocations | Dealers: should read as intra-county moves only | Toyota/Division: phrase denotes the county in which the dealer relocates (whether crossing county lines or not) | Court agreed with Division: "in a county" refers to the county where the new location is situated and need not mean intra-county only |
| Whether statutory drafting ambiguities require judicial correction or legislative fix | Dealers: ambiguous drafting favors broader protest rights (ten-mile radius) | Division/Toyota: courts should adopt a reasonable interpretation rather than rewrite statute; legislature can amend if desired | Court chose reasonable construction that gives effect to statutory terms and left any redrafting to Legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. 2001) (standard for appellate review of trial court where court has same record)
- Walczak v. Labor Works-Ft. Wayne LLC, 983 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2013) (scope of review where trial court reviewed paper record)
- Amoco Oil Co., Whiting Refinery v. Comm’r of Labor, 726 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (guideposts for administrative review)
- Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 960 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2012) (agency statutory interpretation entitled to great weight)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000) (deference to reasonable agency interpretation)
- Ind. Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 695 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. 1998) (agency expertise and deference)
- Andy Mohr W., Inc. v. Office of Ind. Sec’y of State, 41 N.E.3d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals decision reversing agency; discussed here and vacated on transfer)