Background

• Great River Nissan (dealer) received written notice from Nissan North America on Nov. 23, 2016 that Nissan would terminate the dealership; the parties' contract required 90 days' notice, so the termination date was set for Feb. 21, 2017.
• Mississippi law (Miss. Code § 63-17-73(1)(d)(iii)) requires manufacturers to notify dealers at least 60 days before an effective termination and allows a dealer to file a verified complaint "within the sixty-day notice period."
• Great River filed a verified complaint with the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission on Feb. 17, 2017 (four days before the contractual termination date; 86 days after receipt of Nissan's notice).
• The Commission dismissed the complaint as untimely, holding the filing deadline was 60 days after receipt of notice; the chancery court reversed, holding the deadline was the 60 days before the effective termination date.
• The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court, holding the statutory phrase "the sixty-day notice period" refers to the sixty days before the effective date of termination.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• King v. Miss. Military Dep't, 245 So. 3d 404 (de novo review of agency statutory interpretation)
• Lutz Homes, Inc. v. Weston, 19 So. 3d 60 (plain-meaning rule; avoid construction when statute unambiguous)
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 990 So. 2d 174 (statutory interpretation principles)
• Miss. State & Sch. Emps.' Life & Health Plan v. KCC, Inc., 108 So. 3d 932 (follow plain statutory terms)
• Miss. Ethics Comm'n v. Grisham, 957 So. 2d 997 (canons of construction applied when statute ambiguous)
• Wayne Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Morgan, 224 So. 3d 539 (give effect to legislative intent)
• Miss. Dep't of Transp. v. Allred, 928 So. 2d 152 (legislative intent governs interpretation)