Background
Brandon Oakley McCoy, a Maine resident, was stopped by an Old Orchard Beach police officer on October 9, 2024, after a taillight violation. The officer determined that the pickup truck McCoy was driving was registered in Montana to Brandon McCoy, LLC — a properly formed and active Montana limited liability company. McCoy was issued a summons for evasion of registration fees and excise taxes under 29-A M.R.S. § 514. The officer had previously warned McCoy on two occasions, when McCoy was operating an ATV also registered to the LLC, that as a Maine resident he was required to register his vehicles in Maine.
After a contested hearing in the District Court (Biddeford), the court adjudicated McCoy guilty of the traffic infraction and imposed a $500 minimum fine. The court’s sole factual finding was that McCoy had twice been warned he needed to register the truck. McCoy appealed pro se to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, arguing, among other things, that because the LLC — not he — owned the pickup, he was not legally required to register it and therefore could not have violated section 514.
The State conceded at hearing that the LLC was active and duly registered with the Montana Secretary of State, and that the pickup was registered to the LLC in Montana. The legal question before the SJC was purely one of statutory interpretation: whether section 514’s fee-evasion prohibition applied to McCoy as the operator when the vehicle was owned and registered by an out-of-state corporate entity.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine SJC vacated the judgment unanimously. Writing through Associate Retired Justice Hjelm, the court held that section 514 applies only to a person who is “required to register” the vehicle in Maine, and that registration responsibility under 29-A M.R.S. § 351 falls on the vehicle’s owner. “Owner” is defined by 29-A M.R.S. § 101(50) as either the title holder or a person with the exclusive right to use the vehicle for 30 days or more. McCoy satisfied neither prong: the LLC held title, and there was no evidence McCoy had exclusive use of the pickup for any period — the only documented occasion he drove it was the day of the stop.
The court further noted that Maine’s reciprocity statute, 29-A M.R.S. § 109(1)(A), exempts a nonresident owner or operator from Maine registration requirements if the vehicle is properly registered in the jurisdiction of residence. Because the LLC was a Montana entity with the truck validly registered there, the LLC itself bore no Maine registration obligation. The State’s argument that McCoy as a resident operator bore independent registration duties conflated two distinct offenses: section 514 (evasion of registration fees, which targets owners) and section 351(1) (operating an unregistered vehicle, which targets operators regardless of ownership). McCoy was charged only under section 514, and because the truck was properly registered in Montana, section 351(1) would not have applied either.
The court declined to reach McCoy’s constitutional vagueness challenge, disposing of the appeal on statutory grounds, and also declined to address corporate-veil piercing, noting the State had never advanced that theory and there was no evidentiary basis for it.
Key Takeaways
- Maine’s fee-evasion statute (§ 514) applies only to a person who is legally required to register the vehicle — i.e., the owner as defined by § 101(50) — not merely to any Maine-resident operator.
- “Owner” under Maine motor vehicle law means the title holder or a person with exclusive use for 30 days or more; a single observed instance of operating a vehicle cannot establish exclusive use.
- A vehicle registered to an active out-of-state LLC in that LLC’s home jurisdiction qualifies for Maine’s reciprocity exemption under § 109(1)(A), relieving the LLC of any Maine registration duty.
- Operating an unregistered vehicle (§ 351(1)) and evading registration fees (§ 514) are separate offenses with different elements; charging the wrong one is fatal to the prosecution.
- The court flagged a potential statutory gap: employees or others with 30-day exclusive use of a company vehicle may technically qualify as “owners” for registration purposes yet face practical obstacles registering vehicles titled to someone else — a problem the court left for the Legislature to address.
Why It Matters
This decision draws a clear line between the duties of vehicle owners and vehicle operators under Maine’s registration scheme, with direct implications for the growing practice of registering vehicles through LLCs — a strategy some motorists use to take advantage of favorable registration rules in states like Montana. Prosecutors must now carefully distinguish which statute fits the facts: § 514 reaches owners who evade Maine registration; § 351(1) reaches anyone who operates an unregistered vehicle. Simply being a Maine resident behind the wheel of an out-of-state-registered vehicle is not, standing alone, sufficient to support a fee-evasion charge.
The ruling also surfaces an unresolved administrative tension in the “exclusive use” prong of Maine’s ownership definition. If a person qualifies as an owner through 30 days of exclusive use rather than title, there is currently no clear mechanism for that person to actually register the vehicle — as McCoy’s failed attempt at the town office illustrated. Until the Legislature addresses this gap, enforcement of § 514 against non-title-holders operating LLC-owned vehicles remains legally precarious.