Double Tree RV, L.L.C. VS Atchafalaya RV, L.L.C and The Louisiana Recreational & Used Motor Vehicle Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 0587 DOUBLE TREE RV L C VERSUS ATCHAFALAYA RV L C THE LOUISIANA EATIONAL USED MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 578 115 The Honorable William Morvant Judge Presiding Dennis John Hague Prairieville LA Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant Hoai T Hoang Lafayette LA Attorney for Defendant Appellee Atchafalaya RV L C Double Tree RV L C Robert W Hallack Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Recreational Used Motor Vehicle Commission BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J CARTER C J In this appeal brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act APA Double Tree RV L challenges a judgment of the district court C partially modifying and affirming an order of the Louisiana Recreational and Used Motor Vehicle Commission which ordered Double Tree to repurchase two RVs from Atchafalaya RV L to pay penalties and to pay court C costs The APA specifies that judicial review shall be confined to the record as developed in the administrative proceedings LSAR 49 The S 964F reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency decision if substantial rights of the appellant are prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences conclusions or decisions are 1 in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions 2 in excess of the agency statutory authority 3 s made upon unlawful procedure 4 affected by other error of law 5 arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion or 6 not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court LSAR 49 In re Ferrara Fire Apparatus Inc 030446 S 964G La App 1 Cir 12 868 So 762 763 764 On legal issues the 03 31 2d reviewing court gives no special weight to the findings of the administrative tribunal but conducts a de novo review of questions of law and renders judgment on the record In re Ferrara Fire Apparatus Inc 868 So at 2d 764 At the outset we note that this matter was decided by The Recreational Used Motor Vehicle Commission prior to Acts 2009 No 403 which renamed that Commission The Used Motor Vehicle Commission and assigned jurisdiction over new recreational vehicles to The Motor Vehicle Commission The statutory provisions at issue herein LSAR 32 et seq were also repealed by Acts 2009 No 403 S 811 However we find nothing in Acts 2009 No 403 which would render an order validly entered by the former Recreational Used Motor Vehicle Commission a nullity Thus we proceed with reviewing this matter pursuant to the APA 2 The Commission determined that Double Tree a recreational vehicle manufacturer violated LSAR 32 by terminating its franchise S 812A c 2 agreement with Atchafalaya a former dealer of Double Tree products s without just cause and without the required ninety day notice The Commission found that the termination was without just cause because it was based on failure to meet stocking requirements when no such requirements were set forth in the franchise agreement termination letter did not give the required notice Further the These findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and will not be disturbed Double Tree was ordered to repurchase 2007 and 2008 inventory from Atchafalaya pursuant to LSAR 32 the mandatory repurchase statute S 821 Under LSAR 32 a manufacturer was obliged to repurchase from the S 821 dealer all new and recreational vehicles and travel trailers of the current and immediate prior model year when the dealer ceased to engage in the business of being a recreational vehicle or travel trailer dealer or ceased to sell a particular make of recreational vehicle or travel trailer Double Tree i contends the Commission order was erroneous because Atchafalaya did s not cease doing business and because it was ordered to repurchase 2007 inventory after 2009 models were being manufactured and sold The Commission found that Atchafalaya held three of Double Tree s models while the parties disputed which models were required to be repurchased and whether Atchafalaya discontinued its attempts to sell them in October 2008 However in January 2009 a customer from a prior year returned and expressed interest in a 2008 Double Tree model The model was sold after Atchafalaya contacted Double Tree Considering the 2 The statute also sets forth certain notice requirements that are not at issue herein 3 unique circumstances presented we agree with the Commission and the trial court that the 2009 sale did not invalidate the repurchase requirement of the statute In finding no error in ordering the repurchase of the 2007 model the trial court noted that in May of 2008 the manufacturer began producing and selling 2009 units but the last order placed by Atchafalaya was March 11 2008 It was delivered on June 14 2008 and it was for a 2008 model They were still ordering and receiving the 2008 models Our review leads us to likewise conclude that the order to repurchase the 2007 model is supported by the law and record After reviewing the record of the administrative proceedings we find no basis for modification or reversal under LSAR S 964G 49 Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with URCA Rule 2 16 Costs of this appeal are assessed to Double Tree RV B 1 C L AFFIRMED 3 The trial court modification of the Commission order to eliminate fines for s s failing to repurchase the 2007 model has not been raised and is not before this court rd
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.
