Stewart Pontiac Co. v. State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles
Docket: No. 87-0337
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 5, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding the Division of Motor Vehicles' decision to grant Art Moran, Palm Beach Pontiac GMC, Inc. a motor vehicle dealer license in Palm Beach County. Stewart Pontiac Company, Inc., an existing General Motors dealer in the area, opposed the new dealership, citing Florida Statutes § 320.642, which mandates denial of a dealer license if existing dealers provide adequate representation in the community. The statute places the burden of proof on the existing dealer to demonstrate inadequate representation.
Following a hearing, the officer concluded that existing Pontiac dealers in West Palm Beach provided inadequate representation, leading to a recommendation for granting Moran's application. Stewart Pontiac appealed, focusing on whether the hearing officer erred by excluding evidence of the financial impact on existing dealers as relevant to determining representation adequacy. The court noted that the statute's intent is to prevent manufacturers from overwhelming a market with dealers but does not aim to protect existing dealers from competition justified by market potential.
The burden on the appellee is solely to prove inadequate representation, which can be demonstrated by showing insufficient service or unexploited market potential, regardless of the financial health of existing dealers. The court deemed financial impact irrelevant to this determination, disagreeing with Stewart Pontiac's reliance on a prior case that suggested otherwise. The appeal was affirmed based on these findings.
The applicant in Sorensen sought to establish a dealership in Lake Wales, where a previous dealership had failed. The existing dealer had been actively developing the area since the previous closure. The hearing officer noted that opening a new dealership would likely reduce sales for the existing one, but this was not the main reason for the officer's decision. Instead, the officer concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate insufficient representation by nearby dealers for the manufacturer in Lake Wales.
In contrast, in the current case, the appellee aimed to open a dealership in a rapidly growing area, paralleling the circumstances in Re: Application of Fischer Olds-Cadillac, Inc. In Fischer, the hearing officer rejected findings regarding the financial impact on Nash Pontiac-Cadillac, indicating such considerations were outside the statutory framework. Similarly, in the current case, the financial implications for the appellant were deemed irrelevant to the statutory standards, and the hearing officer confirmed that the appellee met the burden of proof as outlined in Florida Statutes § 320.642 (1985). Consequently, evidence of financial impact was excluded, and the order was affirmed. Judges Glickstein and Stone concurred.
