Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Texas Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division--Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00116-CV Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc., Appellant v. Texas Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-09-004112, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING CONCURRING OPINION I join in the majority s judgment affirming the district court s judgment affirming the Motor Vehicle Division s final order, but depart from the majority s analysis of Dutchman s first issue. Construing subchapter M of occupations code chapter 2301 (a/k/a the Lemon Law ) as a whole, as we are required to do,1 section 2301.606 merely imposes a set of procedural requirements governing the Director s administrative adjudication of the substantive rights and remedies created in sections 2301.603 and 2301.604. See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 2301.603, .604, .606 (West 2012). Consequently, the opportunity to cure the alleged defect or nonconformity contemplated by section 2301.606, subsection (c), entails the reasonable number of [repair] attempts that section 2301.604 makes a prerequisite for the remedy of replacement or return. Compare id. 1 See, e.g., Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Texas Attorney Gen. Child Support Div., 331 S.W.3d 892, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 2011, pet. denied) ( We consider [a statute s] words in context, not in isolation. ) (citing State v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002)). § 2301.604 with id. § 2301.606. But for the reasons stated in footnote 7 of the majority s opinion, I agree that the unchallenged or undisputed facts would give rise to a rebuttable presumption under section 2301.605 that Dutchman (directly or through its agents) was afforded a reasonable number of [repair] attempts here and that substantial evidence would support a finding that this requirement was satisfied here. Id. § 2301.605. I also agree that substantial evidence supports the Director s finding of a substantial impairment in value. See id. §§ 2301.601(1), .604. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson Filed: August 17, 2012 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
