NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1161

FOUR SEASONS MOTOR GROUP, LLC

vs.

SELECT BOARD OF SWAMPSCOTT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Four Seasons Motor Group, LLC (Four Seasons) appeals from a 

Superior Court judgment affirming a decision of the select board 

of the town of Swampscott (board) to suspend Four Seasons' class 

2 used car dealer's license for thirty days, with five days to 

be served and twenty-five days held in abeyance provided no 

further violations occur, and impose a fine of $3,000.1 This 

decision was based on the board's finding, after a show cause 

1 The board also ordered that the license Four Seasons 

currently held at that time be modified to include the following 

additional conditions: 

"At no time shall unregistered, used cars be parked on 

Humphrey Street or Cedar Hill Terrace. Any unregistered 

vehicle which is not inspected, prepared for sale and/or in 

need of repair shall be stored in the rear, indoor garage 

or back lot to eliminate congestion in the neighborhood and 

around the property." 
2

hearing, that Four Seasons violated the sole condition of its 

class 2 license, that "[s]ales are limited to six (6) used cars 

to be sold," by having more than six used cars for sale at a 

time. On appeal, Four Seasons claims that (1) the judge erred 

in finding that it waived any argument relating to the board's 

authority to impose a limitation on the license; (2) the 

condition was unenforceable; (3) the judge improperly failed to 

address its claim that it was denied the right to a fair 

hearing; and (4) the board's decision was not supported by 

substantial evidence. We affirm.

Discussion. Four Seasons had appealed the board's decision 

to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 140, § 59. In this 

posture, we must evaluate whether the Superior Court correctly 

determined that the board's decision is not based upon an error 

of law and is supported by substantial evidence. See Ludvigsen

v. Dedham, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 682, 685 (2000); Goldie's Salvage,

Inc. v. Selectmen of Walpole, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 732 (1992). 

The Superior Court may only review the record before the board, 

including the reason for its decision, both as to the facts and 

the law. Goldie's Salvage, Inc., supra. 

Four Seasons first claims that the judge erred in finding 

that it failed to adequately raise the issue of the board's 

authority to impose a limitation on the class 2 license during 

the show cause hearing. We disagree. It is a "long-standing 
3

principle that arguments not made before an administrative 

agency generally cannot be raised on appeal." Rivas v. Chelsea 

Hous. Auth., 464 Mass. 329, 336 (2013). Here, there is nothing 

in the administrative record, or in the letter that Four Seasons 

relies on, that would have put the board on notice of any 

potential issue with the board's authority to impose a 

limitation on the license. Therefore, the judge did not err in 

finding that Four Seasons has waived this argument on appeal. 

Four Seasons next argues that the condition was 

unenforceable because (1) there is no local bylaw or prescribed 

policy, rule, or regulation in place authorizing the imposition 

of a condition limiting the number of cars to be sold; and (2) 

it is facially ambiguous. Neither of these claims have merit. 

First, Four Seasons misconstrues Grenier v. Selectmen of 

Shrewsbury, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 460 (2011), in an improper attempt 

to apply its holding to the facts here. In that case, we held 

that the town of Shrewsbury's policy purporting to set a "per se 

cap" on the number of class 2 used car dealer licenses granted 

in the town was invalid because it conflicted with the 

requirement under G. L. c. 140, § 59, that the granting of a 

class 2 license requires a "case-by-case review." Grenier, 

supra at 461-462. Here, by contrast, the town of Swampscott's 

general licensing scheme is not at all at issue; rather, the 

board has imposed a condition on Four Seasons' license that 
4

limits the number of cars for sale at any one time based on the 

circumstances pertaining to the business. In any event, as Four 

Seasons conceded in its complaint, the intent and purpose of the 

condition is to alleviate traffic and general congestion in the 

immediate area of Humphrey Street.

Second, the board's interpretation of the condition as 

unambiguously limiting Four Seasons to having only six cars for 

sale at any one time is not based on an error of law and is 

supported by substantial evidence. It should be noted that Four 

Seasons did not object to or raise an issue with this 

interpretation of the condition at the outset of the first show 

cause hearing when the condition was first discussed.2

To whatever extent the condition is ambiguous, it is 

nonetheless clear from the record that Four Seasons understood 

the condition as limiting it to only having six cars for sale at 

any one time through its attempts to conceal its violation of 

the condition from law enforcement officers. Four Seasons only 

identified the six cars in the front of the lot for sale by 

means of a "for sale" sticker on the windshield. When asked by 

2 After town counsel presented a quick summary of their 

argument, a member of the board asked, "Six cars per, what's the 

period of time?" The chair of the board and town counsel both 

answered that it was six cars for sale at "any one time." The 

member clarified, "Any one time. So not more than six on the 

property for sale at any one time." Counsel for Four Seasons 

made no attempt to rectify any perceived error with this 

interpretation of the license condition at that time.
5

detectives whether any of the approximately fifty-eight cars on 

the lot other than the six that had "for sale" stickers on the 

windshields were for sale, the owner of Four Seasons said that 

they were not. However, when undercover officers subsequently 

inquired about purchasing cars that lacked a "for sale" sticker 

on the windshield, the owner indicated that those cars were, in 

fact, for sale. Based on their interactions with the Four 

Seasons owner and employees, the undercover officers were led to 

believe that every car on the lot was for sale, regardless of 

whether it was expressly advertised as such. 

Additionally, the owner testified that the approximately 

forty cars listed on the website were stored on the lot, and 

that he occasionally sells cars listed on the website that are 

not one of the six vehicles with a "for sale" sticker on the 

windshield. To do so, the owner or one of his employees will 

remove the "for sale" sticker on one the six vehicles out front 

and place it on the car to be purchased by an already-identified 

purchaser. The owner admitted that this was done to not have 

more than six vehicles for sale at any one time. It is 

implausible that Four Seasons would go to such efforts to give 

the false appearance of having only six cars for sale at any one 

time if it did not understand that it was limited as such. 

Four Seasons also claims that the judge improperly failed 

to address its claim that it was denied the right to a fair 
6

hearing. Even if this is true, the record demonstrates that 

Four Seasons was granted a fair hearing before the board in 

accordance with due process. Four Seasons was provided with a 

"Notice of Show Cause Hearing" approximately eight days prior to 

the hearing, which clearly set forth the allegation regarding 

the license and Four Seasons' rights to attend the hearing, be 

heard, introduce evidence, and be represented by counsel, all of 

which were granted. Four Seasons' claim that the investigation 

into the license violation was commenced in retaliation for a 

letter sent on behalf of Four Seasons to the town administrator 

regarding annual delays in the renewal of the license was 

unsubstantiated at the hearing, and this claim has no bearing on 

the issue of whether Four Seasons violated the condition of its 

license. Moreover, there is no evidence to support Four 

Seasons' claim that it was unconstitutionally "pre-judged" to be 

in violation by at least two board members and a testifying 

witness. 

Finally, the board's decision was supported by substantial 

evidence. The board expressly credited the testimony of the law 

enforcement officers, who testified that every vehicle on the 

lot was for sale, regardless of whether there was a "for sale" 

sticker on the windshield. Despite what Four Seasons claims, 

the mere fact that a car on the lot is not one of the six with a 

"for sale" sticker on it does not preclude Four Seasons from 
7

having the car available for sale, in violation of the license 

condition. Additionally, the owner's testimony regarding the 

switching of vehicles and their respective stickers on the lot 

based on customer inquiries, as well as the advertisement of 

approximately forty vehicles on the Four Seasons website as 

being for sale,3 makes Four Seasons' violation of the license 

condition clear. At bottom, the Superior Court correctly 

determined that the board's decision is not based upon an error 

of law and is supported by substantial evidence. 

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Walsh & 

D'Angelo, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: August 27, 2024.

3 The "disclaimer" on the website providing that vehicles 

posted on the website may not be available for immediate viewing 

and sale and may not reflect current stock of inventory for sale 

is clearly another attempt by Four Seasons to mask its license 

violation, as the owner testified to selling vehicles listed on 

the website that are not one of the six expressly advertised for 

sale on the lot. 

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.