MVC Quarterly meeting - July 28, 2026

Yep. Okay, good morning. It's Tuesday, July 24th, 9 o'clock, and this is the legal committee meeting of the Motor Vehicle Commission. I'm Commissioner Carl Kramer, Chairman of the Legal Committee. I'm noticing some visitors in attendance today. If you'd like to introduce yourself for the record. Yeah. Yeah.

Hi, I'm Phillips, and I'm a legal intern, and I worked on some of the legal reports for Tedra and Erica. Good morning, everybody. My name is Aya Sivaya, and I'm also a legal intern here. I'd also like to note the chairmen in attendance, Chairman Robert, Commissioner Levy, Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Andrews, and myself. Additionally, we are joined by Executive Director Denise Lawrence.

Jason Gilliam, Assistant Director, and our Disciplinary Counsel, Erica Cable and Taylor Hilton. I'd now like to open up the floor for discussion from any member who would like to make comments specific to any case on the report. David, you want to go first? Yes, sir. Yes, I'll go first. Commissioner Norton here. My first is case number 48.

And there's a similar case to 182, and it's related to the scratch-off games, right?

to where the consumer is confused about what the end game is as far as the prize money. At least they believe they win money and they get there and they don't win anything. And in these two cases, there were complaints filed by the consumers. This has been in previous hearings as well. It seems to be an ongoing problem that the people that provide these types of sales are not going away.

As a dealer, I am called upon to participate in these. I refuse. But the last one we had, last year we had a case. We were going to refer it to the AG's office. And my question to the staff, is the AG's office fully aware of these sales and the problems they're causing for the consumers? And that's case number 48 and 182, scratch-offs.

I think the, I know that sometimes we get cases from the AG's office. So we're, we very much have referred some back and forth. I don't know that all have that started with us have been referred over to the attorney general's office, but I know the executive director will do that. Well, I'll, I'll double check and make sure, but yeah,

I'm fairly confident these two on this report came to us from the AG, and I'll go back and look at the others and make sure that they've received it as well. It seems to be more recurring, and our job as the commission is to protect the consumer, and this is one that I think we need to deal with as quickly as we can to refer to what it needs to do to be monitored and possibly stop it.

All right. That's all I had on that. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner, while we're on 48, I had one question on that one. It took them several months to respond to the office, but there doesn't seem to be any additional penalty for failure to respond. To be consistent with the others, are we sure we didn't want to add something for their delay in responding?

We can generally, I will recommend a civil penalty if I don't get a response and I have to send an investigator out because that that costs us money. Obviously, in this case,

I didn't recommend one because they eventually responded. I didn't have to send an investigator out, but I'm very much open to penalizing anybody who doesn't respond just to our certified mail, which in this case, that is what happened. So it's really up to the commission to.

If you want to penalize them. I just want to be consistent. Maybe I've missed that nuance of the other ones required. Do you know what we have been doing when we have a respondent who responds eventually before we have to send an investigator out? Typically, I believe we've been doing a letter of warning if we've received a response prior to taking any further action. So maybe just add a letter of warning in this one for failing to respond. Definitely. For 48...

2026022041, I will add a letter of warning with the $5,000 civil penalty. Thank you. Actually, let me correct that or amend that. I will include those details in the consent order so we don't have to do two separate disciplines. They just won't get an extra civil penalty within that.

Excuse me, Chairman, Denise Lawrence, Executive Director, and I wanted to make back on the scratch off ticket. I wanted to let everyone know we actually did send out an email blast to all of our licensed dealers at the end of April.

letting everyone know they should be aware this was a violation and we took it very seriously. We also posted a bulletin on our website. We actually got a couple of news stories, I think in East Tennessee, in Upper East Tennessee, about that. But we will make another effort and send out another mailing to try to notify all of our dealers about the commission's feelings on that.

These instances were before the mailing. I mean, I don't know that that makes any difference, but... And then, is there anything we can do? Can we go...

I guess this came from the AG. Is there anything they can do about the company that administers it, or does it all fall on the door? I'm honestly not sure. I know a lot of these companies, and you all may want to chime in, are from out of state. So I don't know what kind of authority our –

attorney general would have. But that's a question. I'll have a discussion with their director, Claire Marsalis, and see if she can provide some guidance. Nelson Andrews, Commissioner. Just speaking of the communication, and you make a good point about the responsibility of the promotional companies. We've had several cases in this particular legal brief where

where promotional companies have recommended things. In some cases, like I know one dealer didn't even proofread it. And when they actually saw it, they were as appalled as we were. But is there a communication? And I should look back at it probably myself, but are we including reminding our dealers that they are responsible for the content of their advertising, not the promotional company?

Yes, I'm sorry. Legal counsel advises me. It says that in the bulletin. I thought that it did, but thank you for the confirmation. Taylor and Erica. There we go. Thank you. We had a lot of closed on this report. Is there anything we can do? And I don't want to leave us from having the scrutiny of these cases, but it's like some of them are like,

You I mean, they were like two or three sentence ones that were closed and it was like we they weren't responding. And then they did really quick after you got them. I mean, something happened, triggered them. They got with you. They got the problem resolved immediately. And then is there any way that that wouldn't just be closed and not sent to us to review?

I don't have a number on me. I just saw, I do know a number, but I had to go back and look for it. Once complaints are opened and sent over to legal, unless they are outside of our jurisdiction in distinct instances, they will go to the commission and come before us, and we will just give you the information and then recommend closure. Once the process starts, you can't really walk it back. Okay. I'm with you.

Denise Lawrence, executive director. One question that I actually intended to ask legal about that came up yesterday in a conversation I had was, would there be anything wrong with us grouping all of the closed schools?

first or second later and then the ones that actually have penalties just i'm not suggesting that you not look at them um but just for ease reading ease yeah we can do something called a consent agenda where it has the closures listed first and then under that uh where you take action on for disciplinary matters and then in your review if you determine something needs to be moved from the consent agenda down and discipline needs to be taken those adjustments can be made in the meeting

Commissioner Andrews, to kind of ask Chairman Roberts' question in a different way, I'm fairly new to the legal review. Are we seeing more of those cases outside of our jurisdiction than we used to? And part of the reason I ask is it feels like at our retail stores, we've been seeing an uptick in the number of customers who, if they get sick,

A burr under their saddle, so to speak, they'll get on some search engine and find every way they can copy and paste the same story. So it'll come across multiple platforms and multiple things. And it seems to me on our side, we're seeing a more common.

where they'll copy that into different government agencies and copy essentially a negative review into a legal proceeding. And are we seeing more of that? And is that creating more of these closes? I don't know that there's necessarily a pattern or an uptick. I think it depends on the report. Some reports we have...

five or 10 that are outside of jurisdiction. And then the next one we're getting 50 complaints that are outside of the jurisdiction. So I think it's just seems to be like a case by case basis for each report. How many of those we have? I'll say for me, Erica, you can speak. Yeah. I think I've seen maybe an uptick in the information that is being alleged because I think maybe consumers are using AI and getting, um,

wording that I wouldn't typically see. So there might be more complaints just because they're able to go in and put a sentence into an AI program and get this very sensical complaint and then just file it with everybody that they can, like you said, because they're upset about something. But it doesn't mean there's a violation there. But unfortunately, we have to open it and we have to give that dealer a chance to respond and then it comes to you.

Commissioner Norton, while we're on that topic, case number 97, where the consumer...

I'm okay with an excess penalty on this, but there's confusion. And I'll bring this up again because the consumer has different pathways to vent, one's through Consumer Affairs, one's through the Motor Vehicle Commission. And I find in every hearing where there are these cases, there's several people caught in the fact that they think they responded to the proper channels, and they did not. They replied to Consumer Affairs or vice versa, and they get penalized for not responding to the other channels.

So I'd like to ask the staffers, and I ask this I think every quarter, is there anything we can do to clear that up as far as the pathway for responses? I mean, I think if, in my opinion, if a respondent reads the letter from us, it is very clear.

that it is from the Motor Vehicle Commission. It has very, we even bold, you know, a sentence outside of, you know, a separate paragraph stating, you know, what you need to do. And on top of that, I know that I, and I think Taylor would say the same thing. We really try to, if we don't get a response, reach out to them, explain to them that we're a different agency, give them a chance to respond then. And that is what you see a civil penalty. Because I,

In that case, I don't know what else we can do besides drive up there

and personally ask them for a response. Right, but I'm arguing the other side. It's the state of Tennessee. That's who, the dude, I think, she's dealing with the state. So I'm just going to make a record of that until one day maybe we have a resolution for that. A little better than that. So enough for 97. On 86, I think, I'd just like to clear something up on this one. It's related to consignment, a consignment situation, which happens from time to time. And I'll clear up the fact that a couple of things.

A consignment, the consignor, my understanding, does not have to have the title present to sell it. They have to have because the consignment form, the state form, shows a payoff where the title resides as a lien payoff. So I thought this was not correct. I wanted to verify that position on a consignor because he was penalized for that, I think $3,500 for not having a title present. My understanding on that form, you're not required to have a title present, only a name payoff.

My understanding, I thought that you did have to have a title. At least you had to know that it was valid. And in this case, the dealer didn't even know who the correct owner was. They...

They just believe the salesperson who's, we've had issues in the past with this commission, that salesperson said that this is my car, I will give you the title. And the dealer didn't do any kind of due diligence and it ended up not being titled in the salesperson's name. It was somebody else. And it caused a lot of, I think, problems for the complainant. Right.

There was just a lot of misrepresentation by the dealer in this, but I can pull up the law and

And and read that off was very clear, very clear. There's a responsibility here on the on the dealer's part and everyone involved. But the one underlying factor is the law is the law. You know, I'd like to clarify on this particular case that it's not required to have the title present because they were fined thirty five hundred for that for that particular one. And if that's what it is, that's fine. But I'm challenging that that's correct.

Because I'm familiar with that form. You're going to have to give me a moment, though. Okay, that's fine. So that's the one I had. And also, the gap proceeds absolutely go to the lien holder. They don't go to the dealership or the individual. So that needs to be clarified as well. That's right. So the gap goes always to the lien holder. So in this case, the lien holder did not get the title because of all of these issues. So the dealer paid the lien.

original lien holder off and all of the money that the consumer had paid towards that went back to the dealer and they said they didn't get it and it just disappeared. That's a different case. It follows the money, but the money that's not with the lien holder, it can go wherever it's supposed to go. And then the dealer became the lien holder after that. So it's just like that money disappeared. I'm trying to find that. Are you going to get back with us on the consignment form? Yes, I'm looking right now. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Are you going to get back with us now or are we going to keep moving? Okay, all right, that's fine. All right, we're going to move on. Just a couple of quick things. On 175, there was a situation where a consumer ran out of options, the dealer closed, and it was going to refer to the Department of Revenue. Is there a bond in this matter that could be afforded to the consumer?

Typically, centralized complaints does send the bond out in these situations, but I can double-check and confirm everyone to them. I mean, that would be a route for the consumer to go to to seek relief. So it's a department of revenue. If it gets there, they're going to do the same thing, but sometimes that bond information can be passed along. I'm pulling up the folder now. The bond was sent. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. And then 203, page number 203.

It looks like we didn't send an investigator out on this particular case, but should we have sent an investigator out? We did not send an investigator out for this complaint, but I am happy to defer this to the next legal report and send an investigator out if you think it would be prevalent. I thought so, yes.

203? 203, yes. I had that circled. Commissioner Andrews, also on 203. I mean, Tennessee has branded titles. Was this vehicle, if it was flood damaged and salvaged, did it not have a branded title? And if it didn't have a branded title, was it actually flood damaged and salvaged? We were not given information about a branded title. This is just the complainant's allegations, and then we did not.

receive a response from the respondent. Yeah, it was illustrated. There was something on their website that alluded to the fact that that was a disclosure, but disclosures lie in the deal jacket where the forms that are required by the state to sign. That's why I'm saying we should probably should pull that file. And you might find other things there upon investigation. If you've got to once again, protect the consumer, you might find a dealer's doing other things as well. So yeah, I think it's worth it to send an investigator out. Yeah, this can be referred to the next report and deferred to the next report. And then I can send an investigator out.

Executive director Denise Lawrence, interestingly, along those same lines, we had a case and I won't be able to point to the number that caused us all to look to see if there was a requirement in the law that says.

that the as-is statement has to be signed, and there isn't one. You all always do that. That's all we ever see. So we just assumed, because we talked about it for a long time, well, is this a penalty because it's not signed? It's obviously in the deal file, but that's just an interesting aside. Well, an as-is not signed is the same thing as no as-is.

Well, there's not a signature line on that as is. So you just signed it on the back. We've always been required and been told that. Yeah.

So it's not the rule? No, and there's no place for it to be signed. So the document, if it was to be signed, there'd be a signature line for it to be signed. How could you keep the consumer from doubting that they got an as-is? Well, the law is you have to display it on the windshield. That's the law. So it has to be there. So that's the only, everybody's assuming is everybody's putting one on the windshield. But me, personally, I want to make sure they saw it.

I do make them sign, but there's no requirement for them to sign it. At my store, they sign it. Well, like you said, signing it, Commissioner Andrews, it's a best practice, but that might be a gap in the law that we want to talk to one of our legislators about fixing. Absolutely. That was my point because, as Taylor just pointed out, if you have a dealer who's less than honest, they might send you a deal file after receiving this complaint that includes an as-is document.

That's just not signed. So I do think it merits further discussion. Because it also allows you to state what mechanical breakdown or not mechanical breakdown, but factory, whatever is left on the factory warranty. It lets you state what that is.

So I think it really needs to be signed. Well, I mean, if I'm not mistaken, that's a federal document, federal requirement. I don't know if the state can even weigh in on that, but it is. It does. I mean, I've been doing this 40 years. It needs to be clarified because it's always been unclear on what to do because a lot of the cases in this particular reading, it was basically the cases were tossed out because it was signed as is.

I mean, to me, if I'm a consumer, I'd want to know what's it as is. And then if I have a problem with the deal, well, I didn't see anything. I didn't sign anything to that effect. But if we're fining them for not doing them, can we not do that? Great question. Can you restate that question? In other words, if we're getting, if we're fining someone for not having as is, not complying, the federal fine would be a lot more.

But we're finding them, which is a lot less fine. But we're also checking that. Can we legally do that? We can assess civil penalty for lack of the as-is form if the vehicle is sold as-is, yes. Is that the question? Even though it's a federal law.

Yes, because we have things in our statute that require them to follow federal regulations that we can assess a civil penalty on. Okay. And just to clarify on this one, the complainant is the only person that provided any information, and they provided us that they knew the vehicle was sold as is. I'm not sure if they signed a form or if they were given a form or if it was just on the windshield, but they told us that they bought the vehicle as is in 203. Okay. Okay.

So Commissioner Andrews, just on the branded title thing, part of the reason I mentioned that is I know in Tennessee and several areas, we've seen an uptick in storm intensity and we've seen more flood events. So I think we're probably going to see more water damaged vehicles coming into the market over the next few years. So making sure that we're really aware of the branded title process and the salvage titles and being sure that we're

tracking this and once upon a time, and you all may know, once upon a time, I think it was Mississippi, didn't have a branded title law or might be Louisiana where people were washing titles through some of those states. So I know our team is trained to look out for titles from certain states, you know, after flood events or different, different things, but since I've seen more and more of those, I think we need to be really aware of that, that potential issue that they kind of kind of walk up to in this case, but not really cross the line.

Well, while you're on the topic of titles, Commissioner Norton, I don't have an update on e-titling for the state of Tennessee, but most of the issues we have on this read is related to title problems, title delays, title issues. So hopefully by October, we'll have something more clear on what we're doing on that, because to your point, I think if we had e-titling more in place, it would mitigate a lot of the fraud, the

The issues and timing of how we're processing these titles, papers is antiquated. It leaves a lot of opportunity to do things, especially AI that can create documents, fake documents that we need to, as a commission, be aware of that. And we were supposed to have e-titling in place by I think it's June 30th, and I don't believe it's not in place at this point. But that's something I think we need to continue to push on to make sure we get that done. Very good. Anything else?

I have an update on the consignment form. So I've pulled it up and towards the bottom it has a sentence that states consignee will not sell any vehicle on behalf of consignor without a good title in its possession. The consignee will not sell any vehicle on behalf of the consignor without a good title in its possession.

So in the body of that, I don't have the form in front of me, but does it have a place for that? I mean, you've got to interpret that. Impossession means they could maintain it through a lien. So is there a lien section in there that basically leaves the consignee, that they make the consignor aware that there is a lien on it and how much it is and the per diem? I don't see any language about that. Okay.

Immediately under that sentence, it says that the consignee or I'm sorry, right above it, the consignor will provide a good title to a consignee. A bill of sale may not be used as proof of ownership. And then it goes into consignee will not sell any vehicle on behalf of the consignor without a good title in its possession. So I took that to mean that the dealer needs to at least have seen it or see that the

consignor has it in their possession. You know, if the commission interprets that differently, I think we should talk about it. I'm good with that clarification. Yeah, we can print out a copy for everybody. We can put it on the screen if you want to. I can't put it on the screen, but we can print out a copy. Okay, sorry. I can print out a copy. I'd love to have a copy. Okay. Maybe if not for today's hearing, but just for my purposes. No, we'll get you one. Okay, thank you. The interns are going to run up and print out some copies for everybody. Okay. Okay.

Anything else? I don't. I had one. Comparing 188 to 4, both of them were situations where they sold without a license. I think one sold 13, one sold 12, but the fines were different rates. It wasn't $1,000 for extra sale. I just wanted to adjust that to be consistent. We're looking at that. We'll get right back to you. It's 188 versus number 4.

Just to prove I read the whole thing. Number 4 and 1. Denise Lawrence. And before she gets to it, typically what we do is look to see if it's an individual who's not licensed and they're selling cars out of their home or whatever. It's not at... Okay. So...

Okay. I think this is a really good opportunity to kind of just have a little discussion about whether or not the commission would like to hold individuals. We're not talking about people that are holding themselves out to be dealers, right? That have like a dealer name, a business name that makes them sound like they're a dealer. They have like

a place where you can go look at vehicles or they're advertising as a dealer. We're just talking about individuals who might put something on Facebook Marketplace, like I have a car for sale. So both of these are that kind of situation. And it's always been my opinion that when you have something like that, such a large civil penalty would be a severe punishment

Different than if you were to hold somebody who's like trying to run a business and probably making a lot more money. I think they deserve a larger fine. So I know number four is mine. And I went with a maximum civil penalty of $5,000 for a single violation. Like just a general, you're engaging in unlicensed activity. So we're going to fine you the maximum one time penalty.

Fine, and I think Taylor's is the is the layer and and that is based on 1000 per 10 vehicles sold over the allotted 5, which was based on a discussion with Denise and Jason assessing based on the greed citation schedule. Which is a 1000 dollars per vehicle over the unlicensed amount. But.

I think this is a great time for the commission to decide if they are wanting to assess based on each vehicle sold or if they're wanting to cap it at $5,000 like Erica recommended. And then we will change whichever ours based on the commission's discussion. And just to remind the commission, in our rule, we have kind of a statement that states that there's factors in assessing civil penalties. And one of them is how much will this fine affect the

So we have that allowance in our law that, you know, it can be kind of a case-by-case basis in situations like this. But we can definitely make that decision and be more consistent going forward. Commissioner Levy, Commissioner Andrews, this is number four versus 188. So

So based on that summary, it sounds like we need to decide, should it be a $5,000 maximum penalty, you did something wrong, or follow the schedule, $1,000 per car in these situations when it's just an individual, say on Facebook Marketplace, selling more than the five cars that would be allotted under the law. I think the question is intentional versus ignorance. Commissioner Andrews, from what I understand, $5,000 is the lower of the two by quite a bit. Correct.

Yeah. So, but I guess getting back to your comment, it sounds like your judgment would be that $5,000 would be plenty enough to get this individual's attention by the nature of their business. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Given the latitude that you just mentioned in our process.

It sounds like your thought, knowing who the person is or the company or the individual, that you feel the $5,000 is an adequate amount to get the full attention of the person being fined. I think $5,000 for a first-time offense in something like this, where you have eight more vehicles than they're allowed to sell, is a pretty big fine to an individual. I think it would get their attention.

Denise Lawrence, and just let me make one more comment. I am not entirely sure if number 188 is the same one that I'm thinking of, but it came in in June, and I believe we were alerted to this by a clerk who kept seeing this individual come in and register all of these vehicles. So,

I think that's why we went with the $1,000 per vehicle because it was, there was a. It was just based on the agreed. Okay. It's what we were discussing. Yeah. This was from a clerk. Um, and then it was 10 vehicles. So for my complaint, one 88, it's 10 vehicles over the five. They're allowed to send a cell. And Erica, I think was eight vehicles. Um,

And we had a lot of discussion about the capping at $5,000, because I think that's something we've done before, or assessing per vehicle as in the green citation. And Denise is correct that based on the clerk filing this complaint, letting us know that they were coming in and registering vehicles is how we ended up with the $1,000 per vehicle. But again, I do think they are very similar situations. Ours is from a clerk. I don't know who filed yours, Erica. But...

consistency would be important so i'm open to the per vehicle or capping it at 5 000 whatever the commission thinks is appropriate chairman roberts um i'm for the 5 000 max on that i think that that's ignorance it could be ignorance you know they're not they're not trying to make themselves look like a dealership and so i think that's appropriate commissioner commissioner i've um

On the 188, it referenced maybe something in the past. And in these situations, do we, the state, have the resources to monitor these, to follow up, to see? Because the number 188, if he's been here before, that's a small number for the cost of doing business. So do we have the resource to monitor that? And if we do, and if they do desist from this illegal practice, what's the next step? Because it sounds like this guy or this person, this entity is factored in. Keep doing it.

I'm not sure in 188 where you're referring to that they have a past... I don't know. I thought I heard... Oh, Denise was referring to that the clerk had said that this respondent had come multiple times to register vehicles, which is all within that 10 vehicles they sold. Oh, within the 10 vehicles. Okay. Well, that still asks the question, do we monitor or have the resource to follow up on curb stoners who continue to do these things? It would essentially be if the clerk...

If they continue to go to the clerk or if a consumer comes back and files a complaint, that's how we would be alerted. I will say the clerks are pretty good about notifying us. The more we communicate with them, which we have been doing over the last few years, the more we get. So I think most of the clerks are really aware that they can contact us and we'll actually take action.

But I would like to just hear from the commission if they agree that in a situation where an individual is holding themselves out to be a dealer, a business, they're kind of calling themselves a dealer. Would you think that $1,000 per vehicle is a good civil penalty in that situation? Just so we know going forward, because we do see that a lot. Or would you prefer to keep it?

consistent no matter what the situation is if it's unlicensed activity it's we cap it at five thousand for the first time uh commissioner andrews um i'm a big fan of using professional judgment in the situations to figure out what take what it takes to solve the problem so i don't know that i've got a black and white rule for you but in these circumstances i think five thousand dollars if we feel like it cures the issue i'm good with that

If we see someone who's a repeat offender or if they're doing this under several different salesperson or dealer's licenses or if there's some mitigating factors, I would probably support you if you recommended a higher fine for good reason. So I don't know that it always has to be one way or the other. I think it needs to fit the situation.

Okay, thank you. I agree with Commissioner Andrews, although we have to stay within the guidelines of what's mandated for the fines. I mean, there's absolutely things need to be dealt with, but within the guidelines. We're not on the leeway to punish somebody that passed the limits of what's been prescribed for us to penalize. Of course. And so is there a motion to change 188 to 5,000?

Yeah, I think we're in agreement. I'll make a motion that we change 188 down to 5,000 to be consistent with number four. Second. If I might, could we wait until the very end and just make one motion on all the amendments? I think we'll get it then. That would be very good. Any more discussion? Yeah. Number seven, another one to Commissioner Andrews. Number seven, where we've got the advertising thing.

The dealer that apparently didn't know what he was sending out. So it sounds like this is a first offense. They just got sloppy. They didn't proofread their stuff and an advertising agency got aggressive. Am I reading that correctly? And that's why we went with a thousand dollars instead of something larger.

So in number seven, we, you know, there's three issues, right? We have the envelope issue that they, that was, we felt was not intentional and was kind of a mistake. And we're not even assessing a fine for that. And then we went with the standard fine of $500 per advertising violation for claiming that they're, you know, the number one seller in the state. That was a $500 fine. And then,

advertising that free trip that doesn't comply with our rules. That was a $500 fine. And we went with that standard violation because they admitted to it and they immediately took it down. So that's how we got to the $1,000. There's no civil penalty for the accidental situation with sending the envelopes out.

But I'm open to hearing if you feel differently. Well, no, just looking at it, I mean, a 20,000-piece mailer indicates a pretty big organization, but it sounds like a pretty big organization that made just a legitimate mistake with the best of intentions just out of sloppiness. Yeah, I mean, a lot of times, like with the monopoly mailers, I feel that, you know,

Whether they didn't look at it, the dealer did not review it or not, it's still the dealer's responsibility. This situation seemed like a genuine mistake by the third party that I don't know that the dealer could have necessarily prevented because I don't know that they even had an opportunity to look at it.

You always have the opportunity to feed your marketing. You should. I mean, you should insist on that. I would think. Right, right. I guess, I mean, with the monopoly games or the pull tab games, they want to send those out. They agree. We're going to, we're going to do this promotion. You, you set it up and send it out with this. It seems like they never even said, I, we want to send these envelopes out. Um,

I'm trying to think what they even said. Well, what I'm guessing is this is probably an ongoing marketing relationship with the company. It is. They came out with a new design, and if they've used them long enough, they were just asleep at the wheel and did not review the new design of the mailer. And it just went out, and then they saw it, and they were, well, appalled. Yes, that probably is the case. I know that they stopped using them completely after a long-time relationship. They fired them. Okay.

So that seems like a fine outcome. The other on 211, it seems like the resolution is they went bankrupt after a long laundry list of issues. This is one of the first ones I've had since I've been on the legal review where someone goes BK. Does anything help the customers or the consumers in this, or is that just beyond our scope at this point? So this dealer...

I have been in consistent contact with, and they have advised that they are working with their attorney to get these all resolved as they're working through bankruptcy. We can also refer them to the Department of Revenue who have a little bit more. Reach than we do with these situations, and they've been given the bond information and that's just about all we can do.

To get them their titles, this respondent has reached out to me multiple times and provided updates on a few of them, which have been resolved and they have been able to get the vehicles titled and they're. They state that they're still working through it and that they are now filing for bankruptcy and closing. And so that's why we were seeking voluntary surrender.

Denise Lawrence, Executive Director. This particular complaint, which I think you first saw in April, generated some very lively discussion amongst staff. And I think it came down to professional judgment using the fact that this gentleman was a horrible businessman, completely relied on someone else who took

Terrible advantage of him. And immediately when he got well, he had had a serious accident. He reached out to Taylor, had almost at least weekly conversations with him, with her, and wanted to make everyone whole. And he's tried since then.

whenever the first time that this happened. So I think the consent order that you guys agreed agreed upon in April was to give him 60 days to make everyone whole or to surrender his license. Was it? I'm sorry, assess the penalty of whatever it was. So initially the vote you guys did last time was to give them 60 days from the execution of the consent order

to resolve everything or pay a $12,000 civil penalty. They were able to resolve, I would say, about half. And then that's when they just made a decision to close and file for bankruptcy. And that is the reason for the new recommendation of just seeking voluntary surrender of their license. And they assured that they're going to continue working to get these resolved, but that they do not have $12,000 as they are filing bankruptcy. Mm-hmm.

So I know a year back we had an organization here in town that was having consistent problems with the Better Business Bureau when I was on the BBB board. And they would, well, essentially, like, dissolve and reform. And, you know, our director came in and said, okay, you know, it's a different circus. We've got the same clowns.

Do we have any mechanism for kind of tracking these clowns and making sure they don't show back up in a different form or fashion? We can include in the consent order that they need to either come before the commission or before they apply to a dealer's license. You can include restrictions on what they can do going forward. Or that they would pay the fine if they tried to come back. That's correct. Yes. You can include that in a consent order as well.

And then I can include in the consent order that in order for reinstatement that they would be liable for the $12,000 civil penalty, if that's what the commission votes on. I would recommend that because this commission, because I think that prevents the exact scenario you're talking about. Let's just wind this company down. I'll start over again. There's going to be a financial commitment for them to come back in. Chairman Roberts, I agree with both of their comments and what we need to do.

So just to make sure the recommendation correct, it's that if they were to reapply for a dealership license, they would need to pay the $12,000 civil penalty as well as come before the commission. Exactly. And then we would just have to figure out, Commissioner Andrews, how we define who they are in the sense that, you know, I don't know that we need them specifically as the exact same group or entity, but just have an idea of.

Is making the decisions that seem to be... This is one person that owns this dealership. Okay, so this is a discreet individual. Okay. Well, that sure simplifies it. Denise Lawrence, Executive Director, if I could ask legal counsel if...

In the complaint on the history, it says eight complaints. Is that supposed to say 18? No, the eight is the original eight that came in, and then all of them are listed under this representation. So the original eight are listed on that representation as well as any new ones. So that's every complaint that's currently open. Any further discussion? Yes. Can we look at the consignment agreement now, please? Okay.

Yes, I think you were handed hard copies, and it was on the screen, but we took it out. Okay, so I've got the form here in my hand, and I'd like to point out under the third section where it says following information must be provided, vehicle on consignment. It does have a section there to name a lien holder, their address, phone number,

Now, that would allude to the fact, and I'm aware of, that that indicates that there can be a lien on the vehicle that's being consigned. Now, on the back, I see the verbiage that says individual without a good title of the dealer, and that it says the dealer will not sell a vehicle on behalf of the consignor without a good title as possession. But, I mean, what is the interpretation of having that possession? Does it mean we have a name lien holder, we can pay off and go get the title? Because if that's not the case, why have that section of possession?

Name the lien holder involved. That doesn't make sense. That would be for the commission to determine what they want to define as enhanced. The form contradicts itself. That's why I was confused. That's why I flagged it. I'm not trying to defend the dealer who did all that stuff wrong. I'm just saying going forward, if we have this again...

And it happens because I have seen dealers consign vehicles with a lien holder and a lien be more what the car was worth. And then they've gotten stuck with that balance. I've seen it. There's a lot of scenarios. It's a slippery slope with a consignment. That's why I think it needs to be very clear on this form what's to happen, and it's not clear. Denise Lawrence, Executive Director, if you will provide us the opportunity, we will –

Edit the form and submit it to you guys in October for approval. Okay, and then we'll That the new one would be listed are provided on the website If you will work with me to Okay, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the legal report as amended by the legal committee so moved today's motion and second

The motion made by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Chairman Roberts, is to approve the legal report as amended. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. Votes aye. Commissioner Levy? Aye. Votes aye. Commissioner Norton? Aye. Votes aye. Commissioner Cramer? Aye. Votes aye. And Chairman Roberts? Aye. Votes aye. You've approved the legal report as amended.

Chairman Kramer. Second. We'll be back at 10. Yes. No, no. I'm Chairman John Roberts, and I will ask Executive Director Lawrence if she'll call the roll for attendance and set the quorum. Yes, sir. Commissioner Andrews is present. Commissioner Copenhaver is present. Commissioner Evans. Commissioner Jones.

President is present commissioner Karis president is the president Commissioner Kramer? President Commissioner Levy is present Commissioner Morgan President Commissioner Norton president president Commissioner Owens

Is present Commissioner Rydell. Present. Is present Commissioner Vaughn. Present. Is present Commissioner West. Present. Is present Commissioner White. Present. Is present Commissioner Yarborough. Present. Is present and Chairman Roberts. Present. Is present. You have the quorum, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

In case there's any public comments to be made today, we take that up at the end of the meeting. And if you would, please register in now at this time and let us know that you want to speak. But we're going to keep it to five minutes or less for each person. All right. Meeting notice.

Yes, sir. This meeting's date, time, and location have been noticed on the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission's website, included as part of this year's meeting calendar since July 23, 2026. Additionally, the agenda for this month's meeting has been posted on the Motor Vehicle Commission's website since July 3, 2026. This meeting has also been noticed on the TN.gov website. Okay.

Need to adopt the agenda for today. Commissioner Vaughn, so moved. Second. Commissioner Norton. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. We've adopted the agenda. Everyone was sent the minutes to the meeting dated April 28, 2026. What's your pleasure on the minutes? Motion to adopt the minutes. Commissioner Vaughn, second. Any further discussion?

Executive Director Lawrence, we call the roll for the minutes. Approval. The motion to adopt the minutes from our April meeting made by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Vaughn. Commissioner Levy? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Jones? Aye.

Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karis? That's aye. Commissioner Yarborough? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Norton? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Vaughn? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Kramer? Aye. That's aye. And Chairman Roberts? Aye. You have adopted the minutes.

Okay, before we get started on the salesperson and dealer appeals, I want to, I meant to introduce Baxter White, our newest commission member. I'm going to rob you of the, glad to have you Baxter, and we'll try to get you tutored in here as fast as possible. Okay. All right. First case will be Hakeem Moody. If you would come on down, come to the podium, please, sir, and turn your mic on if it's not already on.

Chairman Roberts, we're unable to open his file. I'm unable to open his file. Y'all couldn't either? Denise? Uh-oh. Do you have the same problem with the other one as well? Okay, so just that one. Okay.

Okay, we're going to move on to the second appeal, and we'll have the interns print copies for everybody. So, Mr. Moody, if you don't mind, you can sit back down, and we'll call you back up in a moment. Sorry about that. Thank you. Yes. So, Jonathan Held, are you here? Is Mr. Held here? Jonathan Held? We'll need to vote to deny. I'd like to make a motion that we uphold the denial. I second the motion, Commissioner Norton.

Any further discussion? Let's call the roll for that turned down. The motion to uphold the denial for Mr. Held made by Commissioner Vaughn, seconded by Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Levy? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Jung? Aye.

Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karras? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Yarborough? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Norton? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Vaughan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Owens? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Kramer? Aye. That's aye. And Chairman Roberts? Aye. That's aye. You have upheld the denial.

Do you all want to take a moment to get the information together? If you would like for him to come up and speak and you can ask him your questions, we can read you what information we have. And then when they come back down with the copies, you can review. That way we can just get started. Okay. Mr. Mealy, you want to come back up?

Okay, and this is Erica Cable. I'm just going to, since you don't have it in front of you yet, I'm going to read a little bit more than I typically would from our memorandum that explains the situation. Okay. So Mr. Hakeem Moody, let's see, we have, we've analyzed the convictions and two of Mr. Moody's convictions constitute crimes involving moral turpitude.

So based on the information that Mr Moody provided us, five years has not passed since the latest date of his release probation or parole for each offense. And the offenses are aggravated assault and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon involved.

And the commission can deny Mr. Moody licensure until July 28, 2036 for aggravated assault and until July 28, 2033 for the reckless endangerment involving a deadly weapon. So that's really all the information that you need. And then you can just ask Mr. Moody about those convictions, how they relate to his fitness to practice in this industry.

Chairman Roberts, Mr. Moody, if you will, just tell us about your story, what happened, the history of it, and kind of where you are today. It was an incident that happened on the 4th of July at my brother's house, and it was his stepkids. So they was actually playing with firearms, and they made threats towards me, and I've been shot before, so I...

Grabbed a gun. It wasn't a good idea, but they shot me with another gun. They had multiple guns. So I just grabbed one to get them off me. I was held by my hair. I fired a shot in the air and I ran and I was shot in the back of the leg. But it was all printed up as, you know, because I'm a felon. I'm not supposed to possess any firearms, but it was like life or death situation. So I just feared for my life.

And I ran, and I was shot in the back of the leg, and I ran through the woods, and that's what happened on that day. And I did six months in jail for that, and my brother's stepson that shot me, he also did six months also. And I'm currently on probation for that, but it's just something that happened in the moment, and I just didn't want to die in front of my daughter. My daughter was there. It was a family event. I was playing with guns and drinking, and I was just scared, honestly. Erica, what was the charge again?

Since we're not looking at it, what is it, George? And I do just want to mention that it was pretty recent. Was it in 2024? Yes, it is, ma'am. So the crimes of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon were in, I think, July 4th, 2024. Okay, perfect.

Commissioners, any questions? I'm sure you'll have some. Yeah, Commissioner Norton, you alluded to the fact that you were a felony previous. Can you tell us a little bit about your history and what happened in the past? Yes, sir. I was convicted of failing in 2018 for marijuana, and I haven't had any really problems since then. And the incident happened, and I just feared for my life and

I was scared, but I was shot running away. I didn't go there with a gun, and I only just took it. So I didn't get shot, but I ended up getting shot with another gun. On the 2018 marijuana, what was that? Were you using it? I was just stopped, and I had marijuana on me, and I was charged with marijuana because I was driving. So they charged me with manufacture marijuana.

Is there anything else? No, it was just personal use with the marijuana, but no. Have you had any other charges besides those two? 2019, I had a conviction of a firearm, but it wasn't any dangerous felon or anything like that. It's just someone tried to break into my house, and I had a gun at the house. I take responsibility for it. And with the situation on July the 4th of 2024,

That violated the probation that I was on at that time. But the judge dismissed the case because it was basically self-defense. So I'm just on probation currently for what happened then. The other probation was dismissed. Commissioner Jung, you said you served six months in jail. Can you please tell us what you've been doing since you were released? When I...

Before I went in, I was working at a smoke shop. And then after that, I went back to that smoke shop. But with all the rules and everything going on with the CBD and all the other things that they sell, I was more interested in selling cars. And my mom been in the car industry for like 10 years now. And it's something that she is trying to teach me. So I'm just trying to learn something new, take care of my kids. I have a 22-year-old and a 9-year-old. Questions, Aidy?

I don't know if we're finished with him yet or not. Anybody got anything else for Mr. Moody himself? Mr. Copenhaver, what was your work history prior to, you know, from 18, say, through? I worked a few places. I worked at Bellevue Church. It's a church in Cordova, Tennessee. I worked there for like two years and I worked at Amazon, worked at Nike. I worked a few jobs. I have a good job history.

Okay. Chairman, I just want to point something out. I don't see the convictions for marijuana from 2018 or any conviction from 2019 related to possession of a firearm. As far as I can see, everything that we were...

given by Mr. Moody is related to the July 4th incident. I could be mistaken, but did you submit those convictions regarding marijuana and the... I was told by management to put on the recent charge, I guess, because I don't think the old ones showed. I'm not sure, though. Okay.

yeah under our rules you know we require all convictions of felonies um i think let's see let me read what it says on our application exactly okay so on the application it states have you ever been convicted of a crime fled nolo contendre to a crime or been convicted of a felony and then you know in my opinion that would

should lead an applicant to respond with all convictions. So it's really up to the commission how you want to handle that, but we didn't get all of them.

Could you, Executive Director Denise Lawrence, could you repeat the two convictions that were not reported in the documentation that you sent? Yes, ma'am. So my first conviction when I was 18, 19, so that was like 2018, 2019, that was for possession of marijuana, 2009.

No, that was 2008. I'm sorry, 2008-9. That's when I was the age of 18, 19. That was the possession of marijuana. And then 2019, that was the possession of the firearm. And then 2024 was the situation where I was shot. Erica? Yes, sir. Chairman Roberts, did Mr. Moody have a license prior to...

And we took it from him or or is he just not applying for a new one? This is just the first application for a license ever. So your legal opinion is he should have listed that felony? Yes, I think, you know, everything should have been provided. You know, you can take into account if you believe that it's a mitigating factor, that he was advised differently by police.

The dealer that, you know, I think the dealer submits these applications and gathers the information. I don't know if that happened in this situation or not. But, yes, in my legal opinion, everything needs to be provided. And that is what we typically, you know, require. So this is the first time we're hearing of it, and there's really no way for us to know until...

The applicant tells us. Okay. So this, yeah, this is how we're hearing about it. Well, maybe we can get a little bit more insight from who he brought with him.

Okay. Tell us your name and what function you have. I'm Brett Davis. I'm one of the sales managers at Wolf Chase CDJ. Okay. Tell us your relationship with Mr. Moody. Are you his supervisor? What capacity? How long have you known him? Things of that sort. I'm his direct supervisor, and I've known him for about four months. He's a very...

motivated young man. He wants to succeed. He wants to follow the rules. And then I knew his mother and acquaintance. She's been in the car business for quite some time. I think over 10 years. But yeah, Hakeem's been great. He's done what we've asked him to do. And he seems driven, motivated. There's not a whole lot of

careers that somebody without a college education and and with any kind of record can go on to prosper in and take care of his family and fortunately this is one of those those industries where you can do that even when you've got some things stacked against you okay

Commissioner Vaughn, I have a couple of questions for you. Did he make you aware of his felony convictions and all of them? Yes, he did. Have you ever come before the Motor Vehicle Commission before? Yes, I have. Can you tell us a little bit about that? I had another employee that wanted to sell cars, and we wanted him there, and we need him, just like we need Hakeem. And he had made some mistakes in his past, and...

You know, he actually spent a little bit longer incarcerated, and he came here, he pled his case, and y'all were gracious enough to grant him his license. Is that someone that you supervise still? Yes. He's been very successful. Commissioner Andrews, how long has Hakeem worked for your company? It's been four months, four months. Okay, and what role has he been working in? Sales consultant.

Until we got the denial and then we could no longer keep him on the floor. And so you've been able to observe him with customers and team members and feel like in terms of decision-making and stressful situations, it's in keeping with the company's standards? Yes, sir. I've seen him work three customers at once, actually, and that can be pretty stressful sometimes.

And he's been good. He's been good. What impresses me most is his drive, though. You know, it'll be 106 degrees outside, and he's out grabbing customers, you know. That's really hard to find these days in an employee in this industry now. He's motivated. He's driven. He's hungry. That's what I like most about him, and he does what we tell him to do.

Commissioner Norton, I certainly can appreciate the fact that it's hard to find a good, hardworking salesperson, but we try to maintain the integrity of the application that was submitted, and it was submitted with one of the felonies, and it doesn't let you pick and choose. So my question is, did you review the application? Were you aware of the three? You said you were. Did you review the application and be aware that there might be a problem with not disclosing all three? I did not. Another member of my management team did.

I would like to think I would tell him just list everything because transparency and that's really important when you're trying to show people that you shouldn't be held accountable for your past or held accountable but not disqualified by your past. I would have probably advised him to list everything, but unfortunately I wasn't the one who coached him through that.

So if he's your direct, Commissioner Andrews, if he's your direct employee and you've been through this process yourself before, why did you choose not to review it? Because we had another member of management that had been through the process a couple more times than me and had actually directly been through the process as a salesperson trying to get their sales license. Mr. Vaughn, I have another question. Okay.

Did you think his license would be approved with a felony conviction? Because if you put him on the sales floor and he didn't have a sales license yet, how exactly did he work the customer? Was he handling the deal like he was a licensed salesperson? Yes, they allow us to do that while it's in review, while the license is in review. So, you know, we let him work.

This is Commissioner Rydell. Staff, can you clarify whether or not someone is supposed to be working as a sales consultant before they have a license, please? I am not aware of us allowing anybody to have anything to do with selling cars until they have an actual license. So I would be interested as to where that, you know, how that information came to you. That's just what the...

The owner and general manager have told me that if the application hadn't been denied, we can put in for it and they can go ahead and start work. Hang on just a moment, please. While they're looking for that, Commissioner Levy, what have you been having him do once you got the denial? We couldn't keep him around anymore. We had to let him go. Okay, so...

The rule says an individual who has submitted a complete application and the required fees to the commission for a salesperson's license may work as a trainee under the supervision of a licensed salesperson while the license application is pending. An individual whose license has been denied, suspended, or revoked may not work as a trainee. So they can work as a trainee. Okay.

One, since I'm speaking, one other thing I think the commission may want to consider, if you were to have submitted all of your convictions, I think the 2008 marijuana conviction would not be a crime of moral turpitude, so we wouldn't be as concerned with that one, but you're

Did you say 2019 conviction? Can you just tell us a little bit more about what happened with that and what your punishment was? Like, are you on parole for that? Did you have to serve any time for that? So I was on probation for that, but, and I had like a couple months left with the 2024 incident with the shooting, but the judge, he understood the situation and he dismissed my probation from that, but

What happened was someone tried to break into my house in Memphis, which, you know, it's dangerous in Memphis. And I had a three-month-year-old daughter at the time. And my girl, she's not a felon. She went and bought a gun. But I'm a felon. I don't be around guns. So when the cops came, the gun was there and...

I couldn't fight it, so I just had to take six months of probation. Okay, and then that... I mean, six years of probation, I'm sorry. But it was dismissed by a judge, so it wasn't active at the time of the July 4th incident, or it's not active now? It was active at the time, but when I...

It happened in a different county. So once I left that county from doing those six months, I went to Memphis. The judge, he overheard everything. And I spoke with him like I told you all what happened. And he understood. And he just dismissed the old probation. So he dismissed it. Are you able to give us like the date when that probation was dismissed? Yes, it was.

The 4th of March. Of what year? This year. Okay. So then five years. So if that conviction would have been submitted, that just would have been a third crime of moral turpitude that you could have considered and you'd be able to deny Mr. Moody until March of 2031. So it would just be a third crime. I don't believe it.

No, the 2008 crime would not be something that you would consider under the Fresh Start Act. So a second crime. There's only three total that we're looking at. Right, right. So only two of moral turpitude. There's two that he submitted, and then the 2019 would be a third crime of moral turpitude. Two on the same day. Yes.

Can I say something? Sorry. Well, the first crime with the marijuana, that's what originally made me a felon. And then with the 2019 with the firearm, that's what violated my probation. But if I was never a felon for marijuana, then it wouldn't even have been a problem with the firearm. So, I mean, the commission has all of the information now. And I think it is a mitigating factor that Mr. Moody said,

You know, voluntarily gave us this information on the record and didn't hide it. I think it was a misunderstanding. So, um, it really is up to the commission how you want to handle that.

Commissioner Jung, I just wanted to confirm, is there any other procedural pre-work that you would have done had you known about the previous issues, if he had disclosed it on the application? Is there any additional work that you guys would have done or were at the same place we would have been if he had put it on the application?

So nothing would have changed. We would have not done any extra work. It would have just been some additional information that we would have given you with the same outcome. Okay.

Commissioner Jung, I have a question for you. Given that you've had a couple of incidents now with the firearms and it was a family member, what are you doing to prevent yourself from incurring a second or a third incident in this kind of nature? What are you doing to prevent this from happening again? Just trying to stay busy. And with this job, it's six days a week. So, you know, and I can actually work seven days a week and it's like almost open to close. So it's something that keep me busy. It can keep me, you know,

away from situations like that. So I just want to stay busy. I just, just praying for my dealer license so I can get back to work. Chairman Roberts, are you still living where these incidents took place? No, no, sir. It was actually a relative's house. It was my brother's house. So,

I don't stay there. He's married with the lady of the kids that I had the incident with, but no, I don't have any problems with them. I haven't actually seen them and everything. I don't have any problems with them. It's just something that could have been prevented. It shouldn't never happen. Okay.

Commissioner Yarbrough, one of the convictions here is tampering with evidence. Can you elaborate on that? Yes, sir. When on the 4th of July incident, when I took the gun, I ran for my life and was shot in the back of the cab. So they shot at me like six. They found 16 shell cases. I only shot in the air because I was held by my hair to get away. And when I got away, I ran and I was shot in the back of the leg. And the tampering was evidence. I ran in the woods and I got rid of the gun because I knew I was supposed to have it on this guy's tree.

Commissioner Vaughn, I make a motion that we approve the license. Commissioner Andrews, I'll second that. All right. Any further discussion? Executive Director Lawrence, will you call the roll for this license?

The motion is to approve the license for Mr. Moody made by Commissioner Vaughn and seconded by Commissioner Andrews. Commissioner Levy? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Jung? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karras? Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye.

The motion to issue a license has been approved, and we will email you an electronic copy or email the dealership an electronic copy, and then your hard copy will follow about 14 days later. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you all. And to the manager, make sure your colleague knows to properly submit the application next time. Absolutely, sir. Thank you all for the understanding. Thank you. Good luck. Good luck. I have a good one. Thank you.

All right. Next, Director's Report. I will give you a brief overview of the Director's Report. Looks like we have, and I'm not quite sure why, a lot of new applications for dealers. I'm not sure if I presume they're mostly used dealerships. We've also had an uptick in complaints, as you all can attest.

A lot of reasons could certainly I don't think that people are being taken advantage of even more. I just think that with the advent of AI and people have just gotten a lot more savvy about how to issue or file complaints. We have reported about $98,000 in collections on annual sales reports.

Also, we have rather a large amount to be collected through our disciplinary action report between April and June.

Also, for those of you who are keeping count, we are now at $214,780 in the black, Commissioner Andrews, and I'm very proud of that fact. So we will continue to monitor and be frugal in the use of our expenditures. That's really pretty much it. I know that at our last meeting, you guys adopted our policy

I'll let you know that our retrospective rule review, those changes went into effect. Largely, one of the biggest changes that we made with retrospective rules was with regard to show permits and displays. So we restructured our motor vehicle displays and galleries, if you will.

to provide a little more clarity on what dealers can and cannot do. Still certainly no sales activity, and we decided to get rid of the fee for that. Also, Taylor and I attended our, for the first time, the AAMVA conference for Region 2 in Austin, Texas in May, and

We made some very beneficial contacts. It was good to, that was the first time that we've actually participated in that. And it was good to meet some of the people that we come into contact with via email. And I think that's going to help us going forward. We are also preparing to go to the NAMBIC.

National Association of Motor Vehicles Boards and Commissions. And the next thing I'm going to do is lobby to have that acronym changed because it's just too long. We're heading to Providence, Rhode Island at the end of September, and Commissioner Farrah Vaughn will be joining us and will speak on a panel about some of the financial challenges that dealers are faced with.

During this day and age. So that is, oh, I do want to mention FTC. We're still working on that. And we actually have, um,

We will have a session at our seminar in September where we're going to have someone from the FTC there to do a Q&A and give us a panel discussion about what we should be doing. We've looked at our rules and don't think that there's anything that will require us to have any kind of emergency rules filed. I still have continued to tell our inspectors and investigators to be mindful of the changes that the federal...

has made and not to issue any fines based on that basis alone. I'll talk to you in a little while under new business about reprinting our motor vehicle laws and rules book that

This one is from 2022, and since that time, we've adopted quite a few changes, specifically with regard to our fee structure. And I'll talk to you a little bit about that at the next meeting. Also, just to mention, we have several people signed up for public comment, and I will just repeat what Chairman Roberts mentioned, which is that each individual will be limited to five minutes each. And that's my director's report. We need approval.

On the report? Commissioner Norton, I'd like to adopt the executive director's report dated July 28, 2026. Commissioner Vaughn, second. Any further discussion? Just a heads up, when you repeat that, or when you reprint that rule book, you may consider seeing it being printed in Spanish language for some of our smaller stores. And would you call the roll vote?

Yes. The motion is to adopt the report. Commissioner Levy? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Jung? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karras? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Yarborough? Aye.

That's aye. Commissioner Norton? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Vaughn? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Owens? That's aye. Commissioner Kramer? Aye. That's aye. And Chairman Roberts? Aye. That's aye. You've adopted the director's report.

Okay, next item, legal case review. Who wants to? I'm going to take that. So I'll discuss first a few of the topics that we talked about during the legal review committee. First, we're going to, we discussed possibly starting to do a consent agenda with the legal report, which would be all the closures first under the consent agenda. And then the next section would be proposed discipline, which would include consent orders, letters of warning, etc.

That kind of information. Are there any questions about that? You don't need to vote on that. We just were given the information that the committee wants to do that going forward. And then the officer was discussion on amending some of the wording for the consignment agreements, which commissioner Norton is going to work with the program on updating that so that the form is a bit more clear. Okay.

and submitted in October for approval to the Commission. And then these are the changes that were made to the legal report. For number 48, the recommendation is being amended to include a warning for failure to respond. Number 188 is being amended to the civil penalty to $5,000 instead of $10,000.

Number 203 is being deferred to the next meeting and sent out for investigation. And number 211 is being amended to include requiring the respondent to pay the $12,000 civil penalty and come before the commission if they are to reapply for dealership licensure. And that's all the changes that were made to the report. It was a pleasure on the legal report. We need to take a vote. I make a motion to adopt the changes to the legal review. Seconded by who? Okay. Okay.

The motion is to adopt the legal report made by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kramer. Commissioner Levy? Confirming it's a motion to adopt the legal report as amended. Absolutely. Adopt as amended. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White? Aye.

That's aye. Commissioner Jung? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karras? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Yarborough? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Norton? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Vaughn? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Owens? Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Kramer? Aye. That's aye. Chairman Roberts? Aye. That's aye. You have adopted the legal report as amended. Okay.

Next. Chairman, on the legal report, something we did notice and talk about a little bit was the predominance of title-related issues. And I wanted to ask Commissioner Norton, it seemed to indicate that the electronic title process may help remedy some of those issues and make it an easier process. Is that? Yeah, that is correct. Yeah. Okay. It'll eliminate a lot of problems.

fraud, and it'll expedite the recording of liens and the transfer of titles. We're probably about halfway in the pack of states of having that accomplished. There's been a lot of work going on behind that, but we're still behind. I think next session we'll have more of a clearer update on that. But, yes, to answer your question, it'll help a lot.

Yeah, I just want to mention that to this full commission, just if you have any opportunity to help encourage the e-titles, because we do see it generating quite a bit of legal activity. And if we can simplify that process, it may help clear that up as well as clear up some fraud, as you mentioned.

Okay, that takes care of the legal case report. Legislative update? Yes, there are two quick legislative updates. House Bill 1677 became effective July 1st, 2026, and this is known as the Military Families Licensing Recognition Act. This law established a state requirement that government entities recognize out-of-state occupational licenses for military members and their spouses aligning with federal requirements regarding license recognition. Any questions for that?

And then there's House Bill 0475. This law prohibits the Motor Vehicle Commission from denying licensure to a manufacturer/distributor if it has failed to deliver motor vehicles within 60 days of account of a dealer's order due to an act of God, a work stoppage, or a delay due to a strike or other labor action, a lack of available manufacturing capacity, a freight embargo, or other causes or material issues over the person has no control.

That became effective May 1st, 2026. Is that all that you got? It's all for the legislative update, yes. Okay, do we need to take any action, Denise? Okay. Yes, the first one was in effect of July 1st, 2026, and the second one is in effect of May 1st, 2026. Okay, next, new business. Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission laws and rules 2016.

You've already kind of addressed it. I stole the thunder.

We would like to propose, the program would like to propose that you get a new updated book, which would include some of the changes that we've made. I mean, I know, I think you'll recall we made changes in the commission makeup so that instead of each grand division, I'm sorry, instead of each congressional district, it's three from each grand division that would be representative dealers.

Things like that, a couple of little tweaks in the auction statute that we made several years ago. I know you guys like to have this, and we like to be able to provide it. I'm going to order, you know, because of inflation, prices have increased. And the last time we ordered 1,000 books, and we had quite a few left over. I tried to get the clerks to take advantage of this. Some of them do, and they love it. Some of them don't.

So my proposal is, and it's in your packet, to order 500 booklets, and the cost would be $12,500. One caveat that I might mention, since Commissioner West brought it up, we will check on the Spanish language possibility. Legal is our priority.

Chief Counsel for Legal is a little bit concerned that that may not even be an option. It might not be available. So we will definitely check on it. Did I say that correctly? Okay. Well,

Legal counsel advises that we need to check to see if that's available, and I'll check to see if that will cost any additional money. So I do think it would be a good idea if we would to have you guys vote on whether or not you want to expend $12,500 to purchase new

Before we do that, let me ask you this. I've noticed a lot of other entities like ourselves, like the Real Estate Commission, in their books, they do appendixes, you know, like for updates. Is that more cost effective or? Unless if they have appendixes added in.

Are they getting new books that include the appendix? No, not the books. If you got a new book, it would come with that appendix or that extra... They would... So Lexis would send you the little tab to insert. I will check that out. I don't know...

I don't know if that's a possibility or not. I mean, I know that we get that sort of thing with the hard books, with the code books, that those things exist. I did not, I have never seen those little inserts for these individual books.

And, I mean, I don't mind giving you the okay to do this, I mean, with our approval, but I would like for you to at least look into that. Absolutely. And if it can be done cost-effectively, let's do that instead, unless somebody opposes that. I have a question to the director. How many books does $12,500? $500. $500. I mean, is there any way we can charge for the books? Because as a dealer, I'll pay for it. Because it's nice to have that book.

handy when you need it it is because there's nothing else i read and i know most rules but i don't always know them obviously the one on that form we looked at but when we were talking to other dealers it's always nice to pull it out and point it out because there's always that that's a commission decision and what would it cost for a thousand usually you get a volume discount uh surely i'll have to go back and look is that what it says is it on there yeah

How much? 20? So it's a set price per book. Yeah. The cost goes down. So it's $25 per book at 500 and then $20 per book at 1,000 books. Chairman, this may be a question for the director of the staff. Do people consume this book in hard copy? I mean, like, are we printing it?

for practical reasons or are we printing it for compliance? And it seems like most of the work that I do and my staff does is online.

And it seems like if I was going to spend $12,000, I'd be spending it on a very, very well-indexed, searchable, findable online resource that anybody trying to get answers to questions could easily find through search tools, AI tools, or other tools. That may already be going on predominantly, but in terms of for real service to the dealer body and the community as a whole,

How much are the hard copy books actually helping and how much are they just bookshelf decorations as people use their computer? You make a very valid point, which was pointed out to me as well. I will say this. There is a generation of individuals who would much prefer to look at your handy dandy little book than have to go to the website and

and click on our rules and laws tab, have it come up and then have to search for something.

Again, it's a personal preference. When I first started in 2019, this was something that many, many commissioners who were not on this commission now talked about that they really liked. They liked this feature, and dealers like to have it on hand. It is absolutely your decision whether we order one or not.

That's my spiel or my plea for the books. I like the books because they're handy. And you can, I don't have to be at a computer. I mean, I carry this with me everywhere I go, except this one is actually Erica's. So I don't have mine with me today. I'm sorry, someone spoke to me while you were speaking. I think that I'm advised that if the commission wants to charge a fee for

For the book, that would be something that would have to be promulgated via rule. So I have a question of suggestion then. Since we are a dying breed, some of us would like to hold paper. I mean, and I look online as well, but, I mean, is there an option to where someone could purchase one? Will we charge or not? Can we connect them with a link that sells the book so they can buy a book? No, because we have this created. I mean, you know, it's a unique book, if you will. I mean, somebody can purchase...

From them, there's a big book that you can purchase, but I'm not even sure where that comes from. I'm sure someone...

And the industry could let me know. But that's a good point. We actually have industry representatives here today. I think both T&IDA is here and TAA representatives are here. Maybe they could speak to how many. I know that they like to have. They have asked me in the past for books to distribute to their members. So I would be curious to know how popular they are and how many people ask for them.

I think that going from 1,000 to 500, we've addressed the digital increase. And I bet the next time we print it, we may go to 250. So I think we're going in that direction. I think that we answer our question with our order not being 1,000 units and only being 500 units. So that's how I would look at that. Okay. Sounds good. Motion. Do we have a motion to approve this purchase? Commissioner Vaughn, so moved. Second. Any further discussion? Executive Director Lawrence, will you call the roll?

The motion is to allow the program to move forward with printing the new book made by Commissioner Vaughn and seconded by Commissioner West.

Commissioner Levy. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner West. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Morgan. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Rydell. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner White. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Jung. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Copenhaver. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Andrews. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Karras. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Yarborough. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Norton. That's aye. Commissioner Vaughan. Aye. That's aye. Commissioner Owens. Aye.

That's aye. Commissioner Kramer? Aye. That's aye. And Chairman Roberts? Aye. That's aye. I will move forward with the purchase and I will check out the Spanish language issue and also ask about the appendix. Yeah. Thank you. Please do. Do we have the option to send it out in the email version as well? Because we have a question, we can copy it at AI and automatically have an answer.

What I can do, as I recall, the last time that we did this, they sent me a final proof, which was electronic, and it listed everything that would be included. I don't know that it would be an issue to email that, but I think I probably would have to pose that question to them because I don't know if that's work product. But I will check that out, too. It would be great to have that version. Right, right. Yeah, downloadable. Right, yeah. Do you have a specific question that's...

Right. I mean, in the city of Brentwood, we have our budgets and our capital improvement plans and our codes and everything else is downloadable PDFs on the website. And that way you're not trying to email a large PDF, but having them accessible that way. And I also know that we go out of our way to make them all searchable. We try to make sure that they're easily accessed by search engines and AI tools and other stuff that are already indexing them online.

which is a very useful tool for people that problem solve that way. Okay. Okay. Under, I guess we're ready to move on to old business, the SCOUT application. So we mentioned previously SCOUT has submitted an application that will require the commission to consider some new applications of law.

Today we will review the additional information the Commission needs from Scout to make a decision on their application. After we all agree on what we need, our Director, Denise, will send these requests for information to Scout after the meeting so they will be prepared to appear before the Commission in October or a later date.

and to discuss the application, and hopefully then we can make a determination. And Mr. Chairman, I might add, I have provided each of you with a list of questions that the program conferred on and developed

Preliminarily. So if you guys have an opportunity to look at that, if you have, if there's something additional that you would like to include, I would ask you to please get that to me by close of business today so that I can get these questions to the representatives from SCOUT as soon as possible. I just want to thank the commissioners for all their input. They did a lot of work and it's been a while, but thank you for what you've done. Okay. Now,

I guess we're going into public comments. And we have a few people signed up to give comments today. To be respectful of everyone's time, we've said this before, we want to limit it to five minutes each. As a reminder, the commission does not have to respond to any public comments. We simply receive them and consider them in our future decision-making. Okay? So, first on the list...

I don't know if I can pronounce this. Sim Sing? Okay. Come on down. You want to take the podium? Can you hear me? Yes. Good. Perfect. Keep close to it because it will back up. Thank you for that. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Sim Sing. I serve as the Director of State Government Affairs for Scout Motors. Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission today. We appreciate the attention of the staff.

and members have devoted to reviewing our application. We understand the Commission would like additional information before taking action on our application. We'll promptly provide whatever questions and answers that you may have, whatever information you request, and we'll continue to work cooperatively throughout this process.

As the commission reviews this application, we believe the relevant facts are pretty straightforward. Scout Motors is a new, independent, Delaware-incorporated American automotive company. Our vehicles are being engineered in Detroit and will be built in a brand-new manufacturing facility not far from here in South Carolina.

Ultimately, we will employ more than 4,000 American workers. Like Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, Scout Motors has made the strategic business decision to sell directly to our customers, which Tennessee law explicitly allows. We will manufacture and sell vehicles under the Scout line make, as listed on our Tennessee distributor's license. There are no franchise dealers of the Scout line make in Tennessee. There never have been, and there never will be, because we are going direct-to-consumer.

Scout Motors has never granted any third-party dealer the right to sell Scout vehicles. Simply put, there is no Scout franchise dealer against whom Scout Motors could compete. These same fundamental facts have been reviewed by regulators in multiple other states where Scout Motors has successfully obtained dealer licenses. Those states, like Tennessee, have carefully considered our business model and rightfully determined

that we can operate under the same legal frameworks designed to welcome investment, jobs, and new entrants to the market. We understand that some of the Commission's questions may relate to how we are structured, our corporate structure, and relationship to Volkswagen. To be clear, that would be Volkswagen AG, a German publicly traded company. As we explain in our application materials, which you may have, we sent a letter along with our application to hopefully everyone.

give you a little insight to to how we operate but as we explained scout motors is a separate legal entity governed by its own board of directors with its own management team and operations scout motors volkswagen group of america and audi of america are distinct companies so they should not be paired together scout motors sells vehicles under the scout line make as i mentioned while volkswagen dealers

sell vehicles under the Volkswagen line make. No Volkswagen dealer has any right to sell Scout vehicles, just as Scout Motors does not have any right to sell new Volkswagen vehicles. We are confident the additional information that you may request here

We'll answer any remaining questions and further confirm that Scout Motors satisfies the requirements for licensure under the Tennessee law. Scout Motors is eager to continue our investment in this great state, create more jobs, establish retail and service operations, and serve customers across the state. We will promptly provide the additional information you request from us today and get this back to you without any delay.

And our hopes is that does not delay our licensing process any further or create any more unnecessary costs and postpone these investments we wish to make in the great state of Tennessee. We therefore hope the commission can complete its review and act on our application as expeditiously as possible. It should be clear our application meets the statutory requirements of the Tennessee law.

So with that, I thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to providing you the requested information and bringing this matter to a timely conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you, Mr. Singh. And next, Guy Thorpe. Come on down and address us. You're with...

TNI-EDA. Okay. Yes, sir. I'm Guy Thorpe. I'm a dealer in Knoxville. Last year's Quality Dealer of the Year and current president of TNI-EDA, which is Tennessee Independent Automotive Dealers Association. We just come here with a few points today. One, we're having our Tennessee Convention in September. It's going to be on September 20th and 21st. It is being held in Franklin, Tennessee. It's the second one we've had in a row. That's been a few years since we did them, but we plan to have them each year.

We go to the policy conference in the last week of September, which is a group of dealers. There's six or seven of our board members here today just supporting dealers as we do. The policy convention, we go and fight laws with the FTC and CFPB. Been there several times with Commissioner Norton. He's always fun. Always great to have one of you guys there.

At the National Convention of NIDA this year, which was held in Colorado, we were fifth in the nation for attendees. We had several dealers that showed up for that. With that being said, we're very proud of this.

Next year, we're bringing the national convention to Tennessee to the Gaylord in Nashville. That's a big deal. So I don't know. Have we ever had it here? I didn't think so. So it's a really big deal. So all the dealers will come from all over the country to Nashville. Is that what they're building them to the Gaylord for? Yeah.

Yeah, probably. Probably, I would think so. Very good. If they're going to be able to handle us. And this year at the National Convention, I'm sorry, I got my notes here and I don't have my glasses on. We would also like to give reference here to John DeVache. He's our former president of TNIADA. He is the National Quality Dealer of Tennessee this year, and he was up for national nominee as well. So congratulations, John.

And as far as the books go, we...

I would buy a book. So, but just so you know, Denise, one thing I want to mention at the, we do a new inactive dealer training every six months. We do that with our auction partners across the state. We're fixing to have our ninth one. Denise is, is most of them staying comes to some of them. And we, we bring those books with us. So, so the dealers can have those books and I am a computer guy, jump on the computer, but I keep a book on my desk. So in my downtime, if I,

whenever that is, I pop it up and just kind of go through and refresh myself 'cause I certainly don't know all the rules, but I do try. So, and we appreciate, Denise, we appreciate any of you all coming to any of our functions, whether it be new and active dealer training, which we have on our website now, which we're training dealers.

which we hope eventually becomes law that dealers need to train because there's a lot of dealers that don't know what they're doing. They don't know what the rules are. They don't know how to present themselves or pricing and stuff like that. So we're all active in it and we do it all the time, but we know there's a lot of dealers in this state that really don't have a clue. And you said earlier that we have a bunch of new dealers signing up and really they should be required to do some training. So hopefully that's something we can all work on in the future together on. And then the last thing I wanted to say is

I already said, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I think that concludes our meeting today. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Better not be any no's. Leave your paper here.