No. 3–09–0260

______________________________________________________________________________ File d March 23, 2010 IN THE A PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2009 CLAR K INVESTMENTS, INC., an ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Ill in ois Corpo ration, d/ b/a R and R RV Sal es, ) of th e 2 1s t Ju

di ci al Ci rc ui t, ) I r o qu o is C o un t y, I llino is Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) No. 06-L-17 v. ) ) AIRS TR EAM, IN C. , a Neva da C or po ra t ion, ) Ho no r ab le ) Susan S. Tungate, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

____________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Pla int iff, Clark In

ve stm en ts, Inc ., d/b

/a R& R RV Sales (R &R ), f iled a co mplaint se eking
mone y da mag es ag ai n st d ef en da n t, Airst re am, I nc. (Airs t re am), alleging that Airstream had v iolated t he Ill i noi s M otorVehi cle Franchi se Act (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq . ( West 200 8) ) ( Fra nchise Act ) a nd the Illi nois Franch

ise Dis cl osure Act (815 ILCS 705/1 et seq . (West 20 08 )) ( Di sc l osu reA ct) i n i ts busi ness dea lings with R &R. Airst re am fil ed a mot ion fo r su mmary judgment as to both statutory clai ms, and the trial

court granted the motion. R& R appeal s, arguin

g that t he t r ial co ur t er r ed in gr ant ingsummary judg ment fo r Airs t re am on R &R’s Fr anchise Ac t claim. We af f i rm the t rial court ’s ruli ng. FA CTS The mat er ial fa ct s inv o lve d in t his cas e ar e no t in disput e. Airst re am, a Neva da c or po ra t ion,
was a man

ufacturer o f recreational v ehicles (RVs), in

cludi ng m ot or ho mes, vans, and t railers. R&R1 The contract descri

be d the product as , “L

AN D YACHT M OTOR

HOM E [ sic ] (GAS & DIESE L).” Depo siti on test im ony, however, esta bl

ish ed that the vehicles i

n question were Class A m ot or ho mes an

d that they were the largest and most expensiv e moto r homes. 2 Mos t of th e i m por tan t sp ec i f i c i n f orm ati on wa s a ctual l y l i ste d i n a dea l er da ta sh eet, wh i ch wa s a ttach ed to an d i n cor porate d b y re f er en ce i n to th e c on tra ct. 2 was a de ale rt ha t so ld R Vs an d w as lo ca t ed in I llino is in Iroquo is County. In May

of 2000, Ai

rstream and R&R e nt er ed int o a co nt ra ct (t he firs t co nt r ac t ) , wh ich au t ho r ize d R &Rt o se ll one o f Ai rst ream’s pro ducts. Of r ele va nc e t o t his a pp ea l t he firs t co nt r ac t pr o vid ed t ha t : ( 1) R& R w o uld be al lowed to se ll A i rs tre am ’s Cl as s A motor h om es (the l arge st a nd m ost expensi

ve type of m

ot or ho mes) 1 ; (2) R&R would ha ve the State of Ill

in ois as i ts excl usi ve sal es territory; (3) R& R w o uld maint ain ce r t ain i nv en tory re qui re men ts;(4 ) R& R w oul

d h av e a s i ts sales goals to sell

8 uni ts the fi rst year an

d 12 uni ts the second y

ear; an d (5) the fi

rst contr act would expi

re on Jul y 31, 2002. 2 In Ju ly of 2002, abo ut t wo weeks before t he f irst co nt ra ct was due t o e xpire , Airs t re am sent R&R a repl ac em

en t con tr act (t he second c ontract ). For t he m ost part , the second contract was si mi la rto th e f i rs t. However, there were some n ot ewort hy

chan ges. The second contractprovided th at: (1) the agreemen

t would not have an

expi ration date and woul d continue until the parties en

ded t he ir relationshi

p; (2) no sales goals

were l isted for R& R; an d (3) no excl

usi ve sal es territory was li stedfo rR& R. R& R d id n o t ac ce pt t he se co nd co nt r ac t as it wa s w r it t en . Ra t he r , R& R ma de so me chan ges t o t he se co nd

contract, signed

it , an d f o rwa r de d i t t o Air st r ea m fo rap pr o va l. Mo st no t ab ly, R&R adde d l an gu ag e to the

se con d c ontr ac t to aga i n gi ve i t the State of Ill in ois as i ts excl usi ve sal es t er r it o ry. Ai

rstream rej ected the change s tha t R &Rha d ma de an d n o t ified R& R b y let t er t ha t it ge ne r ally did no t ag r ee t o su ch a la r ge t er r it o r ial p r o visio n. Due to t he ex cl usi on of any

defi ned3

ex cl us i v e s al es ter ri tory , R& R ref us ed to s i gn th e s ec on d c on

tra ct. The fi rst contr act expi

red by it s o wn t er ms a t t he en d o f Ju ly o f 20 02
. Fr o m t ha t po int un t il March of 2003, there wa s n o w ritt en agr eement bet ween Airst rea m and R&R. H ow ever, R&R continue d to sell A irstream product s and A

irstream continue d

t o p ro vide R&R wit h t he sam e su pport as it had unde r t he first co nt ra ct . D ur ing t hat per iod , t he pa rt ies co nt inued ne go t iating in an attempt to re ach an ag re em en t. In March of 2003, faced

wi th the po ssibil

ity of losi ng i ts abil ity to sell Ai rstr eam product s, R&R entered i nto an new wri tten con tract (the thi rd con tract) wi th A i rstream . The thi rd contract was backdated

to Augus t of 200 2. A s wi

th t he se co nd co nt ra ct , fo r t he mos t par t , t he pr ovisio ns o f the thi rd contr act wer e sim

il ar to the pro vi sions of the f irst co nt ra ct . H ow ever , t he fo llowing pr ovisio ns were chan ged: (1) the provisi

on in the third contract listin

g R&R’ s excl

usi ve sal es territor y was left blank so th at th e third cont ract did not pro vide R&R wi th an exclusive sal

es te rrito ry; (2) R&R’s i nv en tory requi rem en ts were reduc ed; (3 ) n o sales

goals were l

is ted for R&R; a

nd (4) R&R was al lowed t o se ll an a dd it io na l Air st r ea m pr o du ct , t r aile r s. Alt ho ug h t he t hir d c o nt r ac t did no t specifi cally provide as

such, at som e p oi n t, R&R was

al so all owed to sel

l a third ty pe of Ai rstream product, van s (Cl

ass B m otor home s). At some poi

nt thereafter prior to July

of 2006, R&R l

earned that Ai

rstream ha

d en tered i n to an agreem ent wi th another deal er to locate an A irstream fran chi se i n Bolin gbrook, I ll

in ois, about 90 mi le s fro m R&R’s fr anchise lo cat ion. Pu rsu ant t o it s co nt ra ct wit h Airst re am, t he Bol i ng br ook deal er was au t ho r ize d t o se ll Air st r ea m t r aile r s a nd va ns b ut no t Air st r ea m Cla ss A mo to r ho mes. R&R
su bse qu en t ly

fil ed t he inst ant co mplaintseekin g money damages, including t re ble damag es, “pur sua nt to se cti on 1 3 of the [F ran ch i se ] A ct.” Sec ti on 13 of the Fran

chi se Act al

lows“ [a] ny

f ran ch i se e or4

m otorvehicle de aler w ho su f f ers an y l oss of mone y or prope rty , re al

or pe rs ona l , as a re sul t of t he
use or em pl oy men t by a m an uf ac ture r, w hol es al er, di stri bu tor, ** * or

any agent, servan

t o r empl oyee t her eo f, o f an un fair me

thod o f com

petition or an un

fai r or decept iv

e act or pract ic e declared unl awful by this Act , or an y ac t io n in v io lat io n o f t his A ct , ” t o “br ing an ac t io n fo rda mag es an d e qu it ab le
re lief, including injunct ive relief, in t he circ uit co ur t of t he co unt y in which the obje cting f ranchi see hasits pri nci pal pla ce of bus in

ess or, if the partiesha ve so ag r ee d, in arbi trat ion.” 810 ILC S 710/13 (West 200 8). ; Bell

evill e Toyot a, Inc. v. T oyot a Mot or S ales, U.S.A., Inc. , 199 Ill . 2d 325, 343, 770 N.E.2d 177, 18 9 (200 2). Under section 13 of the Fran chi se Act if the vi olator’s misconduct is

wil lf ul
orwan ton, treb l e dam

ages may be awar ded. 8 15 IL CS 71 0/13 (W est 20 08). Ai

rstream f il ed a
m oti on f orsum ma ry j udgme nt. R&R f

il ed a response opposin

g sum ma ry j udgme nt, and Ai rstream f i l ed a re pl y to that resp onse . Attached to t he summary judg ment p leadings wer e var iou s de po sitio ns, a ffi davit s, a nd fi nan ci al do cument s (t he sup po rt ing do cument s). In a ddit ion t o t he abo ve fact ual infor matio n, t he sup po rt ingdo cument s est ablished t hat : ( 1) t he sal e goals l i sted f or R&R i n the f i rst con tract were not re qui re men ts and wer e, in fact , no t hing mor e t han go als; (2 ) d ur ing t he f i rs t con tract, R& R d i d n ot me et i ts s al esgoa l s, d

i d n ot kee p t he required am

ount o f i nve ntory, and, at one point, had a probl em wi th its f in anci ng; (3) R&

R di d not suf

f er any da mag e a s r esul

t of the ch an ge s i n s al esgoa l s or i nv en tory f rom the f i rst con tract to the thi

rd co nt r ac t ; a nd ( 4) R& R b en efit t ed fr o m it s a bilit y t o se ll addi ti ona l ty pe s of Airst re am pr od uct s and its s ales o f Airst re am pr od uct s we nt signifi cantl y h igh er as a r es ult t her eo f. A heari ng was h eld o n Airst re am’s mot ion fo r su mmary judgment . Aft er hear ing t he
argu men ts of the atto rney

s , the trial court to ok t he m

atter under advi

sem ent. The trial

court la ter5

issued a wr itt en r ulinggran tin g sum mary jud gme nt fo rAir st r ea m as t o R& R’ s F r an ch ise Ac t cla im and as to R&R’s Disclosure Act clai m. R& R appealed the grant of sum ma ry j udgme nt, but only

as t o it s F r an ch ise Ac t cla im. AN AL YSIS On appe al, R&Rarg

ue s th at the tri al cou rt er red i n g ran ti ng su m mary j udg men t f orAi rstream on R&R’ s Fran

chi se Act clai m. R&R ass erts t hat pro per application of the Franch ise Act, as well a s t he exi sten

ce of sub stan tia l i ssues of material f act, sh oul d ha ve prev en ted the en try of sum mary j udg em en t f orAirst re am. Airs t re am arg ues t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s r uling was pr op er and s hou ld be aff irm ed. A i rs tre am as se rtsth at s i n ce th e u n di spute d f

ac ts s h owe d th at A i rs tre am di d n ot v i ol ate t he Fr an ch i se A ct, A i rs tre am wa s e n ti tl ed to a g ra n t of su m mar y j udgm en t. The pu r po se o f su mmar y ju dg men t is n o t t o t ry aque st ion of fac t , bu t t o d et er mine if one exi sts. A da

m s v . Nor the rn Ill i noi s G asCo. , 211 Ill . 2d32, 42- 43, 809N.E.2d 1 248, 12 56 (20 04). Sum mary judg ment sho uld be g ra nt ed o nly where t he plea dings, dep os itio ns, a dmissions, and affid av it s o n file , wh en vie we d in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le to the non movi ng p arty , show that the

re is no genui

ne i ssue as to any

ma terial fact and t hat t he moving p ar t y is clearly ent itled t o a judg ment as a matt er o f law. 735 ILCS 5/2 -10 05( c) ( West 200 8); Ad ams , 211 I l l . 2d at 43 , 8 09 N.E.2d at 1256. A tr ial cou rt ’s gr ant of su m mary j udg men t i s s ub j ec t to de novo rev

i ew on appe al
. Ad ams , 211 I ll . 2d at 43, 809N.E .2d at 1 256 . The c ons

tructi on of

a s tatute i s a n a ppr opri atematte r f

or sum mary judg ment and i s also subj ect to a de novo standard of revi ew on appeal . See Vi

l l ag e of Ch atham v. Cou nty of San ga mon , 216 Il

l . 2d 402 , 433, 83 7 N.E.2d 29, 47- 48 (20 05). In support o f i

ts argumen

t, R&R asserts fi

rst t hat A i rs trea m vi ol ate d s ec ti on

4( e) (8 ) o f the Franchise Act when

it located anot her

deal er wi thi n R &R ’srelev an

t ma rket are a. Sec

ti on 4 (e) (8) of3 In 200 7, th i s s ec ti on of

the sta tute wasam

en de d a nd the l an gua ge , “ or th e a

rea of responsi bi li ty as def in ed i n the f ranchi se agreem ent, whichev

er is greater,” was removed. 6 t he Franch

is e Act prohibits a m

anuf acturer from granti

ng “ an addi

t io na l f ra nchise in t he r elevant
ma rket ar ea o f an exist ing franc hise o f the same line make” or fro m relo cat ing “an exi sti n g m oto r ve hic le de ale r ship wit hin or into a r elevant mark et ar ea o f an exist ing franc hise o f the same line ma ke” withoutpr ovid ing t he r equ ired st at ut or y not ice t o t he exist ingfranch ise so that t he existing f

ranchi se hasan o ppo rt unit y to fil e a p ro t est be fore t he propo sed change takes place. See 815 ILCS 710/4(e)(8) (W es t 200 8). For a f ran ch i se l oca ted i n a cou nty wi th a popu l ati on of less than

300,000 persons, “rel

evan t marketarea” i s def

in ed in the Franch

is e Act as “

the area wi

thin a radius of 15 m il es fro m the pri

nc i pal l oca ti on of sa i d f ran ch i se or de al ers hi p; ort he ar ea o f r es po nsib ilit y as de fine d in the f ranchi se a greem en t, whi ch ev er i s gre ater.” 8 15 IL CS 71 0/2(q)(We st 2006 ). 3 In t he present case, the thi rd contract contained no exclusi ve sales terr itory li

sted for R&R. Thus, un der the statu

te, R& R’ s r el ev an t market area was l i

m i ted to a 1 5 m

i l e r ad i usaroun d i ts prin ci pal location in

Iro quois County. See 815 ILCS 710/ 2(q) (West 2006) . Airstr eam’sl oca ti on of a n ew f ra n ch i se wi th i n th e S tate of Illi nois , but appr ox i

mate l y 90 m i l es aw ay , c l ea rl y di d n ot v i ol ate t he sta tute . Al th oug h R& R a ss er ts that t he thi

rd contract was void, that asserti on, even i f true, does not ad v an ce i ts positi on. A f

in din g that t he thi

rd contract was void would not in any way bri ng ba ck t he fi rst contr act, wherein

R&R h ad a r elevant mark et ar ea o f the Stat e of Illi nois . The fi

rst contr act ex pi re d b y i ts ow n t er ms and w ou ld no t so mehow be reenacted by a fi ndi ng that the third contract was void. Thus, we m

ust reject thi s particul

ar assertion b

y R &R on thi s i ssue. As i ts n ex t as se rti on i n su pp ort of i ts a rgum en t, R& R a ss er

ts that Airstream vi

olated se cti on 4(d)(6 ) of th e Fr a nch

is e Act when

it ref used to extend the fi

rst contr act, wherein

R&R h ad an7

exclus ivesa

l esterr i tory of the State of Il l i noi s. Section 4(d) (6) o f the Franch ise A ct pr ohibi ts a ma nuf acturer f rom doing a ny of the f oll owing three thi

ngs wi thout st at ut or ily

defined g oo d ca use and notice: (1) “to cancel or t ermi nate the franchi se or selling agr eement of a m ot or vehicl e dealer”; (2) “to f ail or ref use to exten

d the f ranc his e o r se lli

ng agree men t of a m otor v eh i cl e d eal er u pon i ts e xp i rati on” ; or (3) “to offer a ren

ewal , replacem

en t or succee din

g franchi se orse l l i ng agree men t con tai ni ng term s a nd prov i si ons the ef f ec t of whi ch is t o su bst an t ially

c han ge or modif

y the sales and s ervice obligat ions or cap ital r equ irement s o f the mo t o rve hic le deal er.” 815 ILCS 710/4 (d)(6) (W

est 200 8). In determi ni ng the m eani ng of a s tatut e, t he pr imar y ru le is to asc er t ain and g ive effect t o t he intent of the legi slature. Town & Country Utili ties, Inc . v. Il

l i noi s Pol l uti on Con trol B oard , 22 5 I ll. 2d 103, 117, 866 N.E. 2d 227, 235 (20 07) . The m ost re l i ab l e i

nd i ca tor of that intent i s the language of th e statu te i tself
. Town & Country Utili

ties, Inc. , 2 25 I ll. 2d a t 117 , 8 66 N .E .2 d at 235 . I f the statutory la nguageis cl ear and un

am bi guous, it must applied as wri tt en, wi thout resort in

g to further ai ds of statutory c onstruc

tion
. Town &

Coun try Util ities, Inc. , 225 Ill . 2d at 117, 866 N.E.2d at 235; A cour t may n

ot depart from the plai

n language of the stat ute and read in to it exceptions, li

mi tat ions,
or co ndit ions t hat ar e no t co nsist ent wit h t he exp re ss legislat ivei nten t. Town & Country Utili ties, Inc. , 225 Ill . 2d at 117, 866 N. E.2d at 235. In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he sta

tute is clear and u nambiguo us. Co nt ra ry t o R &R’s a sser t ion, t he8

statut e provides

three categories of co nduct that are pr ohibi ted . Airstr eam’sco nduc t in the inst ant case fal ls un der t he t hi rd c ate gory be ca us e i t of f ere d R&R

a re pl ac em en t agree men t an d di d n ot mer ely al l ow R& R’s

f i rst con tract to expi

re. Thus, we cann

ot agree wi

th R&R’ s asserti on that Ai rstream v iolat ed t he sta

tute , un der the s ec on d c ate gor

y , by f ai l i n g to exten

d th e f i rs t con tra ct. R& R’s ass erti on i

n that rega

rd si m pl y does n ot comport wi

th the f acts of thi s ca se. Mor eover , Airstr eam’sco nd uc t un de rt he t hir d c at eg o ry did not violate the st atut e because Ai rstream did n ot “sub stantial

ly chan ge o r modi fy

the sales and s ervice obliga tions or capi

tal requiremen

ts” of R &R
. Again, t he st at ut or y languag e as t o t his cat ego ry is clear and unam biguous. The sta tute prohi bi ts on l y certai n ty pe s of conduct, none of whi

ch Ai rstream i s guilty

of i n thi s case. R&R co nt en ds t ha t su ch an int er pr et at io n is i n con si ste nt with the i ntent of the statute–t o pro tect
m otorvehicle de alers and c ons umer s fro m the ne gat ive i m pa ct of agg re ssive fra nchising pr act ices by
m otorvehi cle m anufacturers. See 8 15 I LCS 7 10/ 1.1 (West 200 8); Gene ra l Mot or s Co rp . v. Sta te Motor Veh

i cle Revi ew B oard , 22 4 I ll. 2d

1, 7, 862N.E.2d 2 09, 215 -16 (20 07). Howe ver, where t he pla in lan gu ag e o f t he st at ut e is cl ea r an d un am bi guou s, we c an

not read e xc ep ti ons

orco ndit ions i n to t he st at ut e t hat t he le gis la ture did not express. See Town & Coun try Util ities, Inc. , 225 Ill . 2d at 117, 866 N.E .2dat 235 ; Kun kel v. W al ton , 179 Ill . 2d 519, 533-34, 689 N. E.2d 1047, 1053-54 (1997). No r can we f

in d in this case, that any

of the cha

ngesin the agreem

ent between the parti es as expresse d in

the contracts served

t o su bst an t ially

ch an geor i nc rea se R&R’ s s erv

i ceobl i ga ti ons or capi talrequirem

ents. Thus , R& R c an no t pr ev ail o n t he ir a ss er t io n he r e. T he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly gr an t ed su mmar y jud gme nt fo rAir st r ea m o n R &R ’s Fr an ch ise Ac t cla im. For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e affirm the judg ment o f the ci rcui t court o f I r o qu o is C o un t y. Af fi rmed.9

SCHMIDT, J. concurring. File d March 23, 2010 CORREC TION Cl ark Investments, Inc. v . Ai rstream, Inc. , No. 3- -09--0260 PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissen ting: I wo uld r emand this

ma tt er to the ci

rcuit court with i

nstruction that

the cause b e di sm

is sed f orl ac k of

j urisd i cti on ov er the su bj ect matter. Subject m atter jurisdi ction can

not be wai

ved,
con f er re d b y sti pul ati on , or c on se

n ted to by the p arti es. Ci

ty of Ma rsei ll es v. Radke , 287 Ill . App. 3d 757 , 7 61 ( 199 7) . S ubject matt er jurisd ictio n can be ra ised a ny t ime, ev en o n a pp ea l, and may be rais ed by a court o f rev

ie w s ua spo nt e . Jones v. I ndust rial Comm ’n , 335 Ill . App. 3d 340, 343 (2002 ). Here, pla in tif f, Cl ark In ve st men t s, I nc . , filed a c o mpla int in t he cir cu it co ur t o f I r o qu o is County al le gin g that defend ant , Airs t re am, I nc. , vio late d se ct ions 4 (d )( 6) and 4( e) ( 8) o f t he I llino is Motor Vehi cle Franchi se Act (Franch is e Act) (815 ILCS 710/1 et seq. (West 2008)). Section 4(d)(6) of the Franchi se Act prohib its a m anuf acturer from doin

g any of the f oll owing three a

cts without proper not ic e: (1 ) " to ca n ce l or term i n ate t he fra nchise o r se lli

ng ag re ement of a mot or vehicle dealer wit hou t g oo d cau se"; (2) "to f ai l or re f us e to exte nd t he franc hise o r se lli ng agr eement of

a m otorve hi cl e d eal er u pon i ts e xp i rati on w i thou t good
ca us e" ; or (3) "t o o ffer a r en ew al, rep l ac em en t orsucc ee di

ng f ran ch i se or selling agr eement co nt aining t er ms andprovisi ons the ef fect of wh ic h is t o su bst ant ially cha nge o r mo dify t he sa les and ser vice o bligat ions10 orca pi ta lre quir ement s o f the mot or vehicle de aler a rbit ra rily and wi thout good cau se." 815 IL CS 71 0/4(d) (6) (West 200 8). Sec ti on 4(d)(6) further provides that the m anuf acturer’s propo sed

ch an ge s wi l l b e s ub j ec t to reviewfor go od cau se by

the Ill in ois Motor Vehicl

e Revi ew Board ( Review Board ). See 8 15 ILCS 710/4 (d)(6)(B ), ( d) ( 6) ( C) ( We st 20 08 )
. Lik ew ise , se ct io n 4 ( e) ( 8) pr o hibit s a man uf ac ture r f rom gr ant ing"an a ddit ional fra nchise in t he re levant mark et ar ea o f an exist ing franc hise o f the same line
ma ke" or fro m relo cat ing"an e xisting motor vehicl e dealershi p withi n or in to a rele van t market area of an exist ing franc hise o f the same line make" wit hou t pr ovid ing t he re quir ed s t at ut or y not ice t o t he
exi sti ng f ranchi se. 8 15 IL CS 71 0/4(e ) (We st 2008 ). The pur pos e of the se proh i bi ti ons i s to al l ow t he exist ing franc hise t o c hallenge t he pr op os ed c hange s befo re t he Re vie w B o ar d, at wh ich t ime t he
ma nuf acturer wo uld be requi

red to establ i sh

good caus e f

or the propos ed ch

anges . See 815 ILCS 710/4 (e)(8) (W

est 200 8). Moreov er, dispu t es be t wee n a ma nuf acturer and a

franc hisee r ega rd ing co mpliance wit h t he Fran ch i se A ct a re a dj udi ca ted pur su an t to se cti on 12 of t he Fr anchise Ac t , w hich pr ovid es t hat t he fran chi ser an d f ran ch i se e m us t agree to su bm i t a di sputei

nv ol vi ng se cti on 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 9 , 10 .1 or

11 of t he Fran chise Act to arbitrati on or to t he R evi ew Board. 815 IL CS 710/1 2(a), (b ) (We st 2008 ). More specifi

cally , section 12(e) of the Fran

chi se Act li mi ts direct act ion i

n the circui

t co urt as foll

ows: "(e) If the f

ranch i se r a n d th e f ra n ch i se e h av e n ot ag re ed to su bmit a di sp ute to a rbi

trat ion, an

d the dis pute did not

aris e under paragraph (6) of sub section

(d) or para

graph (6), (8), (10), or (1 1) of
su bs ec ti on (e) of Sec ti on 4 of this Act, then a proceedi

ng f or a remedy ot her than dam ages m ay be com me nced by t he o bje ct ing fr an ch ise e in4 Altho ugh Be l l ev i l l e T oy ota wa s dec i de d by

our s upr em e c ourt i n 2 002 , th e l

i ti ga ti on 11 t he circu it co ur t of t he county i n wh ic h the obj ectin

g fran chi see has it s prin ci pal pla ce of bus in

ess, wi thin 60 da y s of th e date the fran chi see recei ved no t ice in wr iting by

the fran chi ser of i ts determi nation un der any pr ov i si on of th i s A ct ot her tha n p ara gra ph (6) of su bs ec ti on (d) or paragraph (6), (8), (10 ), or ( 11)of

su bse ct io n ( e) o f Se ct io n 4 o f t his Act." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 8 15 IL CS 71 0/12(e) (We st 2008 ). The Franch

is e Act clea r ly

provides that disputes i

nvol vi ng section 4 of the Fran

chi se Act "ma y" be su bmitt ed t o a rbit ra t ion u nder sec t ion 1 2( a) or ot her wise "s hall" be co mmenced by t he Revi ewBo ar d und er sec t ion 1 2( b). Mo re spe cifically , o nly disput es u nd er the Fran ch i se A ct n ot involving sections 4(d

)(6) or 4(e) (8) m

ay be com menced i n the ci rcui t court. Moreov er, sec t ions 4(d)(6) and 4 (e )( 8) bo t h sp ec if i cal l y men ti on th e R ev i ew Boa rd a s th e f orum f or ad j udi ca ti on of di sputes i nv olv i ng th ose speci f i c se cti ons of

the F ranchi se A

ct. The ma jori ty m ai ntain s that section 13 of the Franchi se Act (815 ICL S 710/ 13 (W est 200 8)) permi ts a franc hi see to file

a co mplaint in circ uit co ur t see king mone y da mag esf or an y vi ol ati on of t he Fra nchise A ct. In sup po rt of t he pr op os itio n t hat t he circ uit co ur t has jur isdict ion o ver any cla ims f ordam ages under the F

ranchi se Act, the m

aj ority ci tes Be l l ev i l l e Toy ota, Inc . v . Toy

ota M otor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , 19 9 Il

l . 2d 325 (20 02) . I w oul

d f i nd tha t ne i the r s ec ti on 13 nor Be l l ev

i l l e T oy ota su pp ortsthe holdin

g that a franch

isee can by pass the Revi

ew Board and rai se al

le ged vi ol ati ons of
se cti on s 4 (d)(6 ) a

n d 4 (e )(8 ) i

n an ac ti on f or d am ag es i n th e c i rc ui t cou rt. 4began

with the f

ranchi see f il in g a compl ai nt in the ci rcuit court in 1989 an

d the ma tt er was reso lved under t he pre- 1995 st atu te. Thus, it did not inv olve a quest ion of the Review Bo ard’s jurisdi ction. See Be l l ev

i l l e T oy ota , 199 Il

l . 2d at 33 0. 12 The Franch

is e Act underwen

t extensi ve re vision i n 1995 af

ter o ur supreme c ourt decl ared form er sections 4(e)(8) and 12(c) (815 ILCS 710/4(e)(8), 12(c) (West 1992)), which lef t go od- cause det er minatio ns to the

tri al cou rt, un con sti tutiona l vi ol ati ons of the doc tri ne of se pa rati on of power s. Fiel ds Jeep-Eagl e, Inc. v. Chry sl er Corp. , 163 Il

l . 2d 462 , 473 (1 994); Yak ubinis v. Ya mah a M ortor Corp. , 36 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 12 8, 13 2 ( 20 06 )
. T he ne w s t at ut e, wh ic h becam e eff ective Jul y 14, 1995,
cr eat ed the Revi ew Board and gave

it j urisdi ction to deter mi

ne wh ether good cause exi sted under
am ended section 4(e)( 8) o f the Franch ise Act. Ya ku binis , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 132 -33 ; Gen eral Motors Corp. v. Mo t o rVe hic le Rev i ew B oard , 36 1 I l l . A

pp . 3d 27 1, 2 77 (2 00 5) . L i

kewi se , the g ood- f

ai th de term i na ti on required un

de r s ec ti on4(d)(6) was given to the Revi ew Board under the revi sed statute. Ya ku binis , 36 5 Ill. App. 3d at 139 ; Ford Motor Co. v. M otor Vehi

cle Revi ew B oard , 338 Il l . Ap p. 3d 88 0, 889 ( 2003)
. The majo r it y po int s o ut t ha t se ct io n 1 3 o f t he Fr an ch is e A ct appears to provide f or direct
access to the ci

rcuit court for a franch

is ee seeki ng m onetary dam

age s for any "unf

ai r m eth od of
co mpet itio n or an unfair or dec ept iveac t or prac ti cede cl are d un l aw f ul by thi s A ct, or an y ac ti on in vi ol ati on of thi s Act." 815 ILCS 710/13 (Wes t 200 8) . H ow ever , t o a llow a c aus e o f act ion in t he cir cu it cou

rt wh ere the cou rt wou l d have to a ddr

es s th e q ue sti on of good c au se

un de r s ec ti on s 4( d) (6 ) a nd

4(e)( 8) wo uld i

gnore t he purpose o f the 1995 amendm ents, whi ch created the Rev

ie w Board. I would f

urther note t hat section 13 wa s a l so a men de d i n 2 002 , wh

en the f ol l owi ng prov i si on was added:13 "The chan ges t o t his S ec t io n ma de by t his am en da tory A ct of t he 92 nd Ge ne r al As se mbly ( i) a pp ly only to causesof a ct ion ac cr uing
on or aft er its e ffect ive dat e and (ii) ar e int end ed onl y to provide an addi tional venue for dispu t e r eso lut ion w i t hou t chang ing any subs t ant iverigh

ts under this

Act." Pub. Act 92-0272, eff . January 1, 2002 ( am endi ng 8 15 IL CS 71 0/13). The 199 5 amend ments pr ovid ed t hat allegat ions of vio latio ns o f sect ions 4 (d )( 6) and 4(e)(8)
wo uld be r es o lve d b y a ne w v en ue ( t he Re vie w B o ar d)
. Cla ims fo rda mag es o rin jun ctive reli ef
wo uld h av

e to wai t un ti l th e Revi ew Bo ar d had made a det er minatio n t hat sec t ions 4 (d )( 6) and 4(e)(8) had b ee n violat ed. If a c ou rt wer e t o d et er mine that a violat ion o f the se se ct ions ha d
occurre d, i

t woul d be

i nf ri ngi ng u pon the j uri sdi

cti on of the R evi ew B oard. Here, pl ai ntif f’ s compl ai nt sought relief f

rom def endan t’s al le ged vi

olations of secti ons 4(d)(6) and 4( e) ( 8) o f t he Fr an ch ise Ac t . Cle ar ly, the ci rcuit court lacked sub

je ct matter juri sdi ction over t he cl ai ms at issue as the m atter sho uld have eithe r be en su bmitt ed t o a rbit ra t ion o r c ommence d by t he Revi ewBo ar d. The Fra nchise Act pr ovid es fo r jur isdict ion o ver t he inst ant dispu t e o nly by submissi on t o ar bit r at io n o rco mmenc eme nt be fo r e t he Re vie w B o ar d, wit h a dmin ist r at ive r ev ie w o nly by the c i rcui t courts of

San gam on or C oo k Co unty. See Ge ne ral Motors Corp . v . Motor Veh i cle Revi ew B oard , 224 Il

l . 2d 1, 19(2007 ). Because th e Iroq

uois C oun ty ci rc ui t cou rt l ac ke d sub j ec t m atte r j uri sd i cti on , i ts order gr ant ing
sum mary jud gme nt t o de fen da nt s w as vo id. T he mat t er sho uld be re man de d to th e c i rc ui t cou rt w i th di rection to di sm

i ss th e com pl ai nt f or la ck of sub j ect m atter j uri sdi

cti on.