Voltage Vehicles v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission
2012 Ark. 386
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Voltage appeals an order requiring repurchase of six 2008 electric vehicles sold to Rainbow Cycle & Marine and Rainbow Cycle & Marine (Rainbow) in 2008.
- Rainbow bought six 2008-model vehicles for $8,750 each plus $800 freight per vehicle; total $57,300.
- Rainbow notified Voltage and the Commission of termination of the licensing agreement on November 2, 2009; the Commission set January 1, 2010 as the termination date.
- Voltage did not repurchase the vehicles by April 5, 2010, prompting Rainbow to file a complaint with the Commission.
- The Commission found Voltage must repurchase under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-112-403(a)(2)(K) and to pay transportation costs and interest, based on its interpretation of current model year.
- This court reversed and remanded for findings tied to the correct termination date, due to lack of explicit factual determination of the current model year as of termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2008 vehicles fall within current or prior model year. | Voltage: 2008 not current or prior as of 2010 termination. | Rainbow: 2008 vehicles within current/previous model year per statute; Commission may define term. | Reversed; remanded for proper factual findings on termination date and model-year determination. |
| Whether termination date controls model-year determination. | Voltage: termination date fixed Jan 1, 2010 defines current/prior year; 2008 excluded. | Commission may interpret term despite lack of statutory definition and rely on industry practice. | Reversed; remanded for factual findings on termination date and its effect on model-year status. |
| Adequacy of agency findings of fact and proceedings on review. | APA requires specific findings tying model-year to termination date. | Commission acted within its authority; substantial evidence supports repurchase. | Remand for additional findings; insufficient record to review conformity with the law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ark. Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 357 Ark. 125 (2004) (agency scope and substantial evidence standard of review)
- Holloway v. Ark. State Bd. of Architects, 352 Ark. 427 (2003) (importance of specific factual findings in APA review)
- Nesterenko v. Ark. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 69 S.W.3d 459 (Ark. App. 2002) (judicial review considerations in administrative decisions)