Florida Statute 320.642 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 320
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 320.642

320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously served; procedure.—

(1) Any licensee who proposes to establish an additional motor vehicle dealership or permit the relocation of an existing dealer to a location within a community or territory where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented by a franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers shall give written notice of its intention to the department. The notice must state:

(a) The specific location at which the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership will be established.

(b) The date on or after which the licensee intends to be engaged in business with the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer at the proposed location.

(c) The identity of all motor vehicle dealers who are franchised to sell the same line-make vehicle with licensed locations in the county and any contiguous county to the county where the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is proposed to be located.

(d) The names and addresses of the dealer-operator and principal investors in the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership.

Immediately upon receipt of the notice the department shall cause a notice to be published in the Florida Administrative Register. The published notice must state that a petition or complaint by any dealer with standing to protest pursuant to subsection (3) must be filed within 30 days following the date of publication of the notice in the Florida Administrative Register. The published notice must describe and identify the proposed dealership sought to be licensed, and the department shall cause a copy of the notice to be mailed to those dealers identified in the licensee’s notice under paragraph (c). The licensee shall pay a fee of $75 and a service charge of $2.50 for each publication. Proceeds from the fee and service charge shall be deposited into the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund.

(2)(a) An application for a motor vehicle dealer license in any community or territory shall be denied when:

1. A timely protest is filed by a presently existing franchised motor vehicle dealer with standing to protest as defined in subsection (3); and

2. The licensee fails to show that the existing franchised dealer or dealers who register new motor vehicle retail sales or retail leases of the same line-make in the community or territory of the proposed dealership are not providing adequate representation of such line-make motor vehicles in such community or territory. The burden of proof in establishing inadequate representation shall be on the licensee.

(b) In determining whether the existing franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers are providing adequate representation in the community or territory for the line-make, the department may consider evidence which may include, but is not limited to:

1. The impact of the establishment of the proposed or relocated dealer on the consumers, public interest, existing dealers, and the licensee; provided, however, that financial impact may only be considered with respect to the protesting dealer or dealers.

2. The size and permanency of investment reasonably made and reasonable obligations incurred by the existing dealer or dealers to perform their obligations under the dealer agreement.

3. The reasonably expected market penetration of the line-make motor vehicle for the community or territory involved, after consideration of all factors which may affect said penetration, including, but not limited to, demographic factors such as age, income, education, size class preference, product popularity, retail lease transactions, or other factors affecting sales to consumers of the community or territory.

4. Any actions by the licensees in denying its existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make the opportunity for reasonable growth, market expansion, or relocation, including the availability of line-make vehicles in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the licensee in providing an adequate number of dealers in the community or territory.

5. Any attempts by the licensee to coerce the existing dealer or dealers into consenting to additional or relocated franchises of the same line-make in the community or territory.

6. Distance, travel time, traffic patterns, and accessibility between the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make and the location of the proposed additional or relocated dealer.

7. Whether benefits to consumers will likely occur from the establishment or relocation of the dealership which cannot be obtained by other geographic or demographic changes or expected changes in the community or territory.

8. Whether the protesting dealer or dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreement.

9. Whether there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition with respect to said line-make in the community or territory and adequately convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line-make, including the adequacy of sales and service facilities.

10. Whether the establishment or relocation of the proposed dealership appears to be warranted and justified based on economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the community or territory, including anticipated future changes.

11. The volume of registrations and service business transacted by the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make in the relevant community or territory of the proposed dealership.

(3) An existing franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers shall have standing to protest a proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer when the existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers have a franchise agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold or serviced by the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer and are physically located so as to meet or satisfy any of the following requirements or conditions:

(a) If the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of less than 300,000 according to the most recent data of the United States Census Bureau or the data of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida:

1. The proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in the area designated or described as the area of responsibility, or such similarly designated area, including the entire area designated as a multiple-point area, in the franchise agreement or in any related document or commitment with the existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make as such agreement existed upon October 1, 1988;

2. The existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make have a licensed franchise location within a radius of 20 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; or

3. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make can establish that during any 12-month period of the 36-month period preceding the filing of the licensee’s application for the proposed dealership, the dealer or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were located within a radius of 20 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; provided the existing dealer is located in the same county or any county contiguous to the county where the additional or relocated dealer is proposed to be located.

(b) If the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of more than 300,000 according to the most recent data of the United States Census Bureau or the data of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida:

1. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make have a licensed franchise location within a radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; or

2. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or dealers of the same line-make can establish that during any 12-month period of the 36-month period preceding the filing of the licensee’s application for the proposed dealership, such dealer or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were located within a radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer; provided such existing dealer is located in the same county or any county contiguous to the county where the additional or relocated dealer is proposed to be located.

(4) The department’s decision to deny issuance of a license under this section shall remain in effect for a period of 12 months. The department shall not issue a license for the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer until a final decision by the department is rendered determining that the application for the motor vehicle dealer’s license should be granted.

(5)(a) The opening or reopening of the same or a successor motor vehicle dealer within 12 months is not considered an additional motor vehicle dealer subject to protest within the meaning of this section, if:

1. The opening or reopening is within the same or an adjacent county and is within 2 miles of the former motor vehicle dealer location;

2. There is no dealer within 25 miles of the proposed location or the proposed location is further from each existing dealer of the same line-make than the prior location is from each dealer of the same line-make within 25 miles of the new location;

3. The opening or reopening is within 6 miles of the prior location and, if any existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make is located within 15 miles of the former location, the proposed location is no closer to any existing dealer of the same line-make within 15 miles of the proposed location; or

4. The opening or reopening is within 6 miles of the prior location and, if all existing motor vehicle dealers of the same line-make are beyond 15 miles of the former location, the proposed location is further than 15 miles from any existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make.

(b) Any other such opening or reopening shall constitute an additional motor vehicle dealer within the meaning of this section.

(c) If a motor vehicle dealer has been opened or reopened pursuant to this subsection, the licensee may not propose a motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make to be located within 4 miles of the previous location of such dealer for 2 years after the date the relocated dealership opens.

(6) When a proposed addition or relocation concerns a dealership that performs or is to perform only service, as defined in s. 320.60, and will not or does not sell or lease, as defined in s. 320.60, new motor vehicles, the proposal shall be subject to notice and protest pursuant to the provisions of this section.

(a) Standing to protest the addition or relocation of a service-only dealership shall be limited to those instances in which the applicable mileage requirement established in subparagraphs (3)(a)2. and (3)(b)1. is met.

(b) The addition or relocation of a service-only dealership shall not be subject to protest if:

1. The applicant for the service-only dealership location is an existing motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make as the proposed additional or relocated service-only dealership;

2. There is no existing dealer of the same line-make closer than the applicant to the proposed location of the additional or relocated service-only dealership; and

3. The proposed location of the additional or relocated service-only dealership is at least 7 miles from all existing motor vehicle dealerships of the same line-make, other than motor vehicle dealerships owned by the applicant.

(c) In determining whether existing franchised motor vehicle dealers are providing adequate representations in the community or territory for the line-make in question in a protest of the proposed addition or relocation of a service-only dealership, the department may consider the elements set forth in paragraph (2)(b), provided:

1. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)1., only the impact as it relates to service may be considered;

2. Subparagraph (2)(b)3. shall not be considered;

3. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)9., only service facilities shall be considered; and

4. With respect to subparagraph (2)(b)11., only the volume of service business transacted shall be considered.

(d) If an application for a service-only dealership is granted, the department must issue a license which permits only service, as defined in s. 320.60, and does not permit the selling or leasing, as defined in s. 320.60, of new motor vehicles. If a service-only dealership subsequently seeks to sell new motor vehicles at its location, the notice and protest provisions of this section shall apply.

(7) Measurements of the distance between proposed or existing dealer locations required by this section shall be taken from the geometric centroid of the property that encompasses all of the existing or proposed motor vehicle dealer operations.

(8) The department shall not be obligated to determine the accuracy of any distance asserted by any party in a notice submitted to it. Any dispute concerning a distance measurement asserted by a party shall be resolved by a hearing conducted in accordance with ss. 120.569 and 120.57.

History.—s. 9, ch. 70-424; s. 1, ch. 70-439; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 16, 17, ch. 80-217; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 12, 20, 21, ch. 88-395; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 3, ch. 2003-269; s. 4, ch. 2006-183; s. 28, ch. 2009-71; s. 2, ch. 2009-93; s. 24, ch. 2013-14; s. 3, ch. 2017-187; s. 4, ch. 2023-233.

F.S. 320.642 on Google Scholar

F.S. 320.642 on Casetext

Amendments to 320.642

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 320.642

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 320.642.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 320.642

Total Results: 20

Recovery Racing, LLC d/b/a Maserati of Fort Lauderdale v. State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Maserati North America, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-06-01

Citation: 192 So. 3d 665, 2016 WL 3065645, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8326

Snippet: *667 that end, it enacted section 320.642, which outlines the procedures for obtaining a

Jerry Ulm Dodge, Inc. v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-12-09

Citation: 78 So. 3d 20, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19724, 2011 WL 6117218

Snippet: motor vehicle dealer, was exempt under section 320.642(5)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2010), from the notice

International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Capital Truck, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-04-28

Citation: 872 So. 2d 372, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5815, 2004 WL 893181

Snippet: from DHSMV. ITEC recognized that under section 320.642(8), Florida Statutes (2001), “An existing franchised

Bella Automotive Group, Inc. v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-03-24

Citation: 739 So. 2d 97, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3426, 1999 WL 157316

Snippet: PER CURIAM. .Affirmed. See § 320.642, Fla. Stat. (1997); Dave Zinn Toyota, Inc. v. Department of High

Gmc v. Dept. of Hwy. Safety & Motor Veh.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-09-22

Citation: 625 So. 2d 76

Snippet: 008 is intended principally to implement section 320.642, Florida Statutes, which addresses the procedure

Gus Machado Buick-GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-08-30

Citation: 623 So. 2d 810, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8937, 1993 WL 328485

Snippet: Section 320.63(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that once

Superior Imports of Tampa, Inc. v. Stacy David, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-04-28

Citation: 617 So. 2d 795, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4686, 1993 WL 132637

Snippet: filed its notice of protest pursuant to sections 320.-642 and 320.699, Florida Statutes. The case was referred

Colonial Pontiac, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-03-08

Citation: 614 So. 2d 1204, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3021

Snippet: proceedings below, conducted pursuant to section 320.642, Florida Statutes, we are not con*1205cerned with

Braman Cadillac, Inc. v. DEPT. OF HWY. SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-07-25

Citation: 584 So. 2d 1047, 1991 WL 138127

Snippet: that it is entitled to standing under Sections 320.642, 320.699, 320.6992 and 120.57, Florida Statutes

Larry Dimmitt Cadillac, Inc. v. Seacrest Cadillac, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-03-12

Citation: 558 So. 2d 136, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1612, 1990 WL 25938

Snippet: by the agency in the proceedings below. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1987), requires denial of new

A. Abraham Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. Collection Chev. Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-10-13

Citation: 533 So. 2d 821, 1988 WL 105206

Snippet: survive the motion to dismiss, and that section 320.642, Florida Statutes, applies to dealer relocations

Stewart Pontiac Co. v. State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-08-05

Citation: 511 So. 2d 660, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1880, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9647

Snippet: establishment of the new dealership under the terms of § 320.642, Florida Statutes (1985), which statute provides:

Dave Zinn Toyota, Inc. v. DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-04-12

Citation: 432 So. 2d 1320

Snippet: responsibility or territory to the dealer. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1981), establishes the standard

South v. Calvin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1981-07-15

Citation: 401 So. 2d 1134, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561

Snippet: Appellant requested a hearing pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads: The department

Milano Imported Motors, Inc. v. Alfa Romeo, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1979-08-09

Citation: 373 So. 2d 722, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15417

Snippet: advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and giving them and all real

Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1978-12-29

Citation: 365 So. 2d 806, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17150

Snippet: occasion to here consider their effect. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, as printed in the 1971 Florida

Sheffield v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1978-03-07

Citation: 356 So. 2d 353, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15481

Snippet: with making the determination required by Section 320.-642, Florida Statutes, and shall cause a notice to

Kawasaki of Tampa, Inc. v. Calvin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-08-18

Citation: 348 So. 2d 897

Snippet: with making the determination required by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and shall cause a notice to

Home Volkswagen, Inc. v. Calvin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-10-06

Citation: 338 So. 2d 1287

Snippet: representation in the territory pursuant to § 320.642, Fla. Stat. (1973). This proceeding began when

Southside Motor Co. v. Askew

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-05-12

Citation: 332 So. 2d 613, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4344

Snippet: Ford, Respondents did not comply with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, or Rule 15C-1.08, Florida Administrative