# Saco Auto Holdings VW, LLC v. Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board

> Superior Court of Maine · February 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10812375

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** February 26, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Michael A. Duddy
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10812375

## Opinion text

STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS & CONSUMER DOCKET
PORTLAND, ss. DOCKET NO. BCD-APP-2020-8

SACO AUTO HOLDINGS VW, LLC )
d/b/a PRIME VOLKSWAGEN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
) ORDER VACATING THE BOARD’S
MAINE MOTOR VEHICLE ) DISMISSAL AND REMANDING
FRANCISE BOARD and SHENNA ) THE COMPLAINT TO THE BOARD
BELLOWS, in her capacity as Secretary ) FOR ADJUDICATION
of State, )
)
and )
)
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., )
)
Respondents. )

On May 6, 2020, Petitioner Saco Auto Holdings VW, LLC d/b/a Prime Volkswagen

(“Prime VW”) filed a Complaint with the Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board (the “Board”).

In its Complaint, Prime VW asserted that Respondent Volkswagen of America, Inc. (“VWoA”)

had violated various provisions of the Business Practices Between Motor Vehicle Manufacturers,

Distributors and Dealers Act (the “Dealers Act”), 10 M.R.S. §§ 1171-1190-A (2020). In response,

VWoA filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing Prime VW lacked standing. Without

adjudicating the merits of the Complaint, and without giving Prime VW the opportunity to amend

its Complaint, in a decision dated September 10, 2020, the Board granted VWoA’s Motion and

dismissed the Complaint on the grounds that it did not have authority to hear the case. In support

of its Dismissal, the Board reasoned that the “gravamen of this matter is a complex contractual

dispute” and the Board “does not sit to construe multi-party contract disputes . . . .” The Board

1
further explained that even if it had authority to hear the Complaint, it would decline to exercise

its authority.

Prime VW timely appealed to this Court pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, and in due course

filed its Brief and the Record on Appeal. On January 26, 2021, VWoA filed its Response Brief,

arguing that the Board’s decision should be affirmed. On that same date, however, the Board and

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (the “Secretary”) filed their Response Brief, arguing that the

Board’s decision cannot be affirmed. According to the Board and the Secretary, the Board’s

decision erred as a matter of law, and the Board did not have discretion to decline jurisdiction.

The Board and the Secretary asked that the case be remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

The Court agrees with the Board and the Secretary. Prime VW is plainly a motor vehicle

dealer, 10 M.R.S. § 1171(12), and as a motor vehicle dealer it had a right under the Dealers Act to

have its Complaint adjudicated. 10 M.R.S. §§ 1174, 1188. Contrary to the Board’s decision

(which the Board now concedes is unsupportable), the gravamen of the Complaint is not whether

Prime VW is a party or third party beneficiary to certain contracts, but whether the conduct of

VWoA, through the use of contracts or otherwise, violated the Dealers Act. VWoA makes many

contractual arguments to salvage its decision below, but VWoA’s arguments go to the merits, not

to the Board’s authority to decide the merits. The Board plainly has the authority to adjudicate the

Complaint, and has no discretion to decline to exercise its authority. 10 M.R.S. § 1189.

Accordingly, the Court concludes the Board erred as a matter of law and abused its

discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007. The Court vacates the Board’s decision dated September 10, 2020

and remands the case to the Board for adjudication consistent with this Order.

So Ordered.

2
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference

on the docket for this case.

Dated:__February 26, 2021___ _______/s/_____________________
Michael A. Duddy
Judge, Business and Consumer Docket

3
BCD-APP-20-08

SACO AUTO HOLDINGS VW, LLC

Plaintiff
v.

MAINE MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISE BOARD,
and SHENNA BELLOWS, SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.

Defendants

Party Name: Attorney Name:

Saco Auto Holdings Daniel Murphy, Esq.
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson
PO Box 9729
Portland, ME 04104-5029

ME Motor Franchise Board Michael Frey, AAG.
Shenna Bellows, Secretary of State Office of the Attorney General
6 State Street Suite 601
Bangor, ME 04401

Volkswagen of America Michelle Schafer, Esq.
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy
One Constitution Center
Boston, MA 02129

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10812375. Public record. Not legal advice.