|
|
The 2025 Florida Statutes
|
|
|
|
|
F.S. 320.642320.642 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.
| |
Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 320.642
Total Results: 31
260 F.3d 1285, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17693
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 8, 2001 | Docket: 397037
Cited 50 times | Published
litigation by other dealerships pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.642. Lastly, Appellee did not want EHF’s new-car dealership
260 F.3d 1285
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 8, 2001 | Docket: 397032
Cited 34 times | Published
by other dealerships
pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.642. Lastly, Appellee did not want EHF’s new-car
308 So. 2d 189
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1974 | Docket: 2298572
Cited 11 times | Published
in the subject community or territory? (See F.S. 320.642). The burden of proof in showing inadequate
584 So. 2d 1047, 1991 WL 138127
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 1991 | Docket: 2448515
Cited 8 times | Published
Cadillac Motor Division should be appearing under Section 320.642 "as the licensee is the party which has the
365 So. 2d 806, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17150
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1978 | Docket: 1691912
Cited 7 times | Published
no occasion to here consider their effect.
Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, as printed in the 1971 Florida
308 So. 2d 199
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1974 | Docket: 1251596
Cited 6 times | Published
"the community or territory" referred to in F.S. 320.642. Neither is there any finding as to whether
275 So. 2d 26
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1973 | Docket: 1726803
Cited 6 times | Published
operate the new dealership in accordance with § 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and a hearing was held
432 So. 2d 1320
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1983 | Docket: 1677487
Cited 3 times | Published
responsibility or territory to the dealer.
Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1981), establishes the standard
348 So. 2d 897
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 1977 | Docket: 1761157
Cited 3 times | Published
with making the determination required by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and shall cause a notice
322 So. 2d 50, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18755
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 1975 | Docket: 1734694
Cited 3 times | Published
Director granted the license in violation of § 320.642, F.S. 1973, providing:
"The department shall deny
387 F. Supp. 820, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 49, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14520
District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1975 | Docket: 1260736
Cited 3 times | Published
Vehicles of the State of Florida. Florida Statutes § 320.642 (1973). Although all parties believed that East
296 So. 2d 114
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 1974 | Docket: 497924
Cited 3 times | Published
governing issuing of such a license by respondent, Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., states as follows:
533 So. 2d 821, 1988 WL 105206
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1988 | Docket: 1233086
Cited 2 times | Published
to survive the motion to dismiss, and that section 320.642, Florida Statutes, applies to dealer relocations
673 F.2d 1234, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19866
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 23, 1982 | Docket: 66191591
Cited 2 times | Published
“replacement dealer” has special meaning. Section 320.642 provides:
The department shall deny an application
78 So. 3d 20, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19724, 2011 WL 6117218
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2011 | Docket: 2352047
Cited 1 times | Published
successor motor vehicle dealer, was exempt under section 320.642(5)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2010), from the notice
872 So. 2d 372, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5815, 2004 WL 893181
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2004 | Docket: 64830199
Cited 1 times | Published
license from DHSMV. ITEC recognized that under section 320.642(8), Florida Statutes (2001), “An existing franchised
625 So. 2d 76, 1993 WL 366884
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1993 | Docket: 1517582
Cited 1 times | Published
15C-1.008 is intended principally to implement section 320.642, Florida Statutes, which addresses the procedure
338 So. 2d 1287
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1976 | Docket: 455352
Cited 1 times | Published
adequate representation in the territory pursuant to § 320.642, Fla. Stat. (1973).
This proceeding began when
192 So. 3d 665, 2016 WL 3065645, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8326
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2016 | Docket: 3071351
Published
To
*667
that end, it enacted section 320.642, which outlines the procedures for obtaining
739 So. 2d 97, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3426, 1999 WL 157316
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1999 | Docket: 64790127
Published
PER CURIAM.
.Affirmed. See § 320.642, Fla. Stat. (1997); Dave Zinn Toyota, Inc. v. Department of High
623 So. 2d 810, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8937, 1993 WL 328485
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1993 | Docket: 64698532
Published
addresses. Section 320.63(3), Fla.Stat. (1989). Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that
617 So. 2d 795, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4686, 1993 WL 132637
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1993 | Docket: 64695885
Published
neither of these subjects were covered under Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and accordingly, were not
614 So. 2d 1204, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3021, 1993 WL 57702
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1993 | Docket: 64694739
Published
the proceedings below, conducted pursuant to section 320.642, Florida Statutes, we are not con*1205cerned
558 So. 2d 136, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1612, 1990 WL 25938
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1990 | Docket: 64648770
Published
accepted by the agency in the proceedings below.
Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1987), requires denial of
511 So. 2d 660, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1880, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9647
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1987 | Docket: 64628977
Published
establishment of the new dealership under the terms of § 320.642, Florida Statutes (1985), which statute provides:
401 So. 2d 1134, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 1981 | Docket: 64584338
Published
Appellant requested a hearing pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads:
The
373 So. 2d 722, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15417
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1979 | Docket: 64571429
Published
advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and giving them and all
356 So. 2d 353, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15481
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 1978 | Docket: 64563391
Published
with making the determination required by Section 320.-642, Florida Statutes, and shall cause a notice
332 So. 2d 613, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4344
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1976 | Docket: 64553846
Published
Crown Ford, Respondents did not comply with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, or Rule 15C-1.08, Florida
310 So. 2d 309, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13963
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1975 | Docket: 64545352
Published
Vehicles with directions to hold a hearing under Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, with notice to and an opportunity
296 So. 2d 115, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6943
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 1974 | Docket: 64539653
Published
Respondent’s findings do not meet the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for .the granting
