Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 118 of 1981
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576 (2026)

Establishment or relocation of additional dealer; notice; declaratory judgment action; exception; judicial determination of good cause.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISE ACT


Act 118 of 1981


445.1576 Establishment or relocation of additional dealer; notice; declaratory judgment action; exception; judicial determination of good cause.

Sec. 16.

    (1) As used in this section, "relocate" and "relocation" shall not include the relocation of a new motor vehicle dealer within 2 miles of its established place of business.

    (2) Before a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing or relocating a new motor vehicle dealer in a relevant market area where the same line-make is represented, the manufacturer or distributor shall provide written notice of its intention to establish an additional dealer or to relocate an existing dealer in that relevant market area to each new motor vehicle dealer that represents that line-make in the relevant market area on the date the notice is provided.

    (3) Within 30 days after receiving the notice provided for in subsection (2), or within 30 days after the end of any appeal procedure provided by the manufacturer or distributor, a new motor vehicle dealer may bring a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court for the county in which the new motor vehicle dealer is located to determine whether good cause exists for the establishing or relocating of a proposed new motor vehicle dealer. Once an action is filed, the manufacturer or distributor shall not establish or relocate the proposed new motor vehicle dealer until the circuit court has rendered a decision on the matter. A court shall give precedence to an action brought under this section over all other civil matters on the court's docket.

    (4) This section does not apply to the reopening or replacement in a relevant market area of a closed dealership that has been closed within the preceding year, if the established place of business of the reopened or replacement dealer is within 2 miles of the established place of business of the closed dealership.

    (5) In determining whether good cause exists for establishing or relocating an additional new motor vehicle dealer for the same line-make, the court shall take into consideration the existing circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    (a) Permanency of the investment.

    (b) Effect on the retail new motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the relevant market area.

    (c) Whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare.

    (d) Whether the new motor vehicle dealers of the same line-make in that relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of that line-make in the market area, including the adequacy of motor vehicle sales and qualified service personnel.

    (e) Whether the establishment or relocation of the new motor vehicle dealer would promote competition.

    (f) Growth or decline of the population and the number of new motor vehicle registrations in the relevant market area.

    (g) The effect on the relocating dealer of a denial of its relocation into the relevant market area.

History: 1981, Act 118, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1981 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 188, Imd. Eff. Nov. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 668, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 4× “This section, MCL 445.1576(2), provides: Before a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing or relocating a new motor *30 vehicle dealer within a relevant market area where the same line make is represented, the manufacturer or distributor shall…”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Fox Hills Motor Sales, Inc., 776 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 10× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576 (5); Nev.Rev.”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 4× “For example, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576 provides that before a manufacturer enters into a dealer agreement “establishing or relocating a new motor vehicle dealer within a relevant market area where the same line is represented,” the manufacturer must provide written notice of…”
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 418 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “In an action brought pursuant to MCL 445.1576; MSA 19.856(36), an automobile dealer who has been notified that an automobile manufacturer proposes to establish or relocate another new motor vehicle dealer of the same "line make” within a six-mile radius of its place of business…”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “” Though Chrysler’s right to establish other dealers was not limited under the SSAs, it is limited by the MVDA Specifically, MCL 445.1576(2) provides that “[b]efore a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing.”
Kia Motors Am., Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., 706 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2013). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576 . This provision requires a car manufacturer to give notice to an existing dealer before establishing a new dealer in the same vicinity.”
Andy Mohr West, Inc. v. Off. of the Indiana Sec'y of State, 41 N.E.3d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1576 (2); W. Va.”
Century Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 398 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff filed the action in reliance upon MCL 445.1576; MSA 19.856(36) which provides in relevant part: (2) Before a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing or relocating a new motor vehicle dealer within a relevant market area where the same…”
Liberty Hyundai, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “4 The Michigan Dealer Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576 , allows a neighboring dealer of the same line-make to protest a relocation that proposes to place a competing dealership within nine miles of the protesting dealer’s location.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576(2) — 2 cases
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “This section, MCL 445.1576(2), provides: Before a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing or relocating a new motor *30 vehicle dealer within a relevant market area where the same line make is represented, the manufacturer or distributor shall…”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” Though Chrysler’s right to establish other dealers was not limited under the SSAs, it is limited by the MVDA Specifically, MCL 445.1576(2) provides that “[b]efore a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576(3) — 8 cases
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “This section, MCL 445.1576(2), provides: Before a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing or relocating a new motor *30 vehicle dealer within a relevant market area where the same line make is represented, the manufacturer or distributor shall…”
LaFontaine Saline Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 828 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” Though Chrysler’s right to establish other dealers was not limited under the SSAs, it is limited by the MVDA Specifically, MCL 445.1576(2) provides that “[b]efore a manufacturer or distributor enters into a dealer agreement establishing.”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC (Mich. 2013). “1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1576(5) — 1 case
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 418 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “In an action brought pursuant to MCL 445.1576; MSA 19.856(36), an automobile dealer who has been notified that an automobile manufacturer proposes to establish or relocate another new motor vehicle dealer of the same "line make” within a six-mile radius of its place of business…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.