Turf war emerges between airport and car rental company Katharhynn Heidelberg MONTROSE - It's a win-lose situation so far for both parties in a civil case. Montrose County obtained the preliminary injunction it had sought to keep Budget Rent A Car from conducting business in the airport terminal, but the contention that Budget could not rent cars from within its own facility, also on airport grounds, didn't quite wash with the courts. Micar, Inc. operates the Budget franchise on Montrose Regional Airport property. The business' previous owners held a ground lease that allowed the construction of a commercial building on airport property for vehicle maintenance and storage. A "counter lease" allowed the company to rent vehicles to airline passengers within the terminal and subsequent owners inherited interest in those leases. But Budget lost out in the round of bids awarded for counter space inside the terminal on Oct. 1. It got creative - allegedly soliciting airline customers without the counter. "When the changeover to successful bidders was made, Budget at that time started operating through the building and on airport grounds," said Robert Hill, who argued the county's case to Montrose County District Court Jan. 13. "They would send a person with a Budget sign to stand in the doorway of the terminal." Because this competed with successful bidders - Hertz, National Alamo, Dollar and Thrifty rentals - the county filed a complaint Dec. 22, 2004. Hill asked the courts to not only stop Budget from soliciting airline customers within the terminal, but to prevent it from conducting rental business within the Budget building. The ground lease, he argued, only allowed vehicle maintenance and cleaning. According to a Jan. 19 ruling, Budget's attorney Patrick Clowes, who could not be reached Wednesday for comment, argued that the ground lease authorized any business that could be legally operated on airport grounds. The court had another word for the ground lease: "ambiguous." "On one hand, it can be construed to limit the business operated out of the Budget building to those in existence at the time the lease was signed (1988)," Sr. Judge Ed Ruland wrote. "On the other, it can be readŠto authorize the operation of any business the lessee deems appropriateŠ" Because Budget had an established history of providing rental cars to non-airline customers from its building, the court was "not persuaded" of the county's argument that no business should be allowed in the building. However, Budget's solicitation of airline customers was done under the now- defunct counter lease and the court agreed to restrain such operations, pending trial. "There is a real probability the (county) will succeed to the extent of car rentals to airline customers," the ruling read. "Conversely, there is a real probability that (Budget) will succeed on whether car rentals to persons other than airline customers can be conducted out of the Budget building." This, coupled with the possibility current counter lease holders would litigate if Budget were allowed to continue unabated, led the court to cite "danger of irreparable injury" and grant the injunction. The injunction prohibits Budget representatives from soliciting rental customers within 200 feet of the terminal and will remain in effect until final ruling at trial, Hill said. A trial date had not been set as of Wednesday. But the injunction also "preserves the status quo to the extent that it will require use of the Budget building in the same manner it has been used primarily and historically, pending a trial on the (case) merits," Ruland wrote. "The court didn't take the next step and say they (Budget) couldn't rent cars out of the building itself," Hill acknowledged, and the county cannot interfere with rentals to non-airline customers at the building, or those passengers who arrange to rent from Budget in advance of arrival. "It's been our position that airport regulations require an operating agreement to do any business at the airport," Hill said. "It's our position that the ground lease does not suffice as an operating agreement, but the judge disagreed in his ruling. "I don't know where that will go. It either gets worked out or it goes to trial." Contact Katharhynn Heidelberg via e-mail |