Brondes Ford Maumee Ltd. v. KJAMS, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 4015
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brondes Ford (Maumee dealership) sought Ford's approval to relocate from Reynolds Road to Arrowhead; Ford approved without notifying nearby dealer Rogers (Steve Rogers Ford).
- Ohio law (R.C. 4517.50) requires franchisor notice to franchisees within a 10-mile "relevant market area" unless exceptions apply, including when the relocation site is "within one mile" of the existing location (R.C. 4517.50(C)(1)).
- Rogers learned of the move and filed a protest with the Ohio Motor Vehicles Board claiming the "within one mile" exception did not apply; a hearing examiner recommended dismissal using a straight-line nearest-point measurement.
- While the administrative protest was pending, Brondes filed a declaratory-judgment action in Lucas County seeking an interpretation of "within one mile" (advocating straight-line nearest-point measurement) and a declaration that Rogers had no protest rights.
- The trial court denied Rogers’ motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment for Brondes adopting the straight-line nearest-point rule (relying on M6 Motors). Rogers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brondes) | Defendant's Argument (Rogers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brondes’ declaratory-judgment action presents a justiciable controversy and should survive dismissal | A present, real controversy exists; speedy relief needed to protect relocation rights; no administrative remedy was available because Ford gave no notice | No justiciable controversy: dispute is between Ford and Rogers; court ruling would not bind Ford or terminate uncertainty; administrative proceedings/control preclude the suit | Reversed: no justiciable controversy; trial court abused discretion in denying dismissal |
| Proper forum and jurisdiction to interpret "within one mile" (statutory interpretation) | Court may interpret statute to resolve parties' rights; administrative forum lacked authority because no notice was given | Board has authority over relocation disputes and should resolve distance questions; exclusive or primary administrative path | Court declined to reach on appeal after finding no justiciable controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. City of Middletown, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (elements for declaratory judgment: real controversy, justiciability, speedy relief)
- M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of North Olmsted, LLC, 14 N.E.3d 1054 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (trial court may resolve statutory distance question where manufacturer’s denial left dealer effectively prevented from relocating)