Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 320.643 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 320.643 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 320.643 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 320.643

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 320
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 320.643
320.643 Transfer, assignment, or sale of franchise agreements.
(1)(a) Notwithstanding the terms of any franchise agreement, a licensee shall not, by contract or otherwise, fail or refuse to give effect to, prevent, prohibit, or penalize or attempt to refuse to give effect to, prohibit, or penalize any motor vehicle dealer from selling, assigning, transferring, alienating, or otherwise disposing of its franchise agreement to any other person or persons, including a corporation established or existing for the purpose of owning or holding a franchise agreement, unless the licensee proves at a hearing pursuant to a complaint filed by a motor vehicle dealer under this section that the sale, transfer, alienation, or other disposition is to a person who is not, or whose controlling executive management is not, of good moral character or does not meet the written, reasonable, and uniformly applied standards or qualifications of the licensee relating to financial qualifications of the transferee and business experience of the transferee or the transferee’s executive management. A motor vehicle dealer who desires to sell, assign, transfer, alienate, or otherwise dispose of a franchise shall notify, or cause the proposed transferee to notify, the licensee, in writing, setting forth the prospective transferee’s name, address, financial qualifications, and business experience during the previous 5 years. A licensee who receives such notice may, within 60 days following such receipt, notify the motor vehicle dealer, in writing, that the proposed transferee is not a person qualified to be a transferee under this section and setting forth the material reasons for such rejection. Failure of the licensee to notify the motor vehicle dealer within the 60-day period of such rejection shall be deemed an approval of the transfer. No such transfer, assignment, or sale shall be valid unless the transferee agrees in writing to comply with all requirements of the franchise then in effect, but with the ownership changed to the transferee.
(b) A motor vehicle dealer whose proposed sale is rejected may, within 60 days following such receipt of such rejection, file with the department a complaint for a determination that the proposed transferee has been rejected in violation of this section. The licensee has the burden of proof with respect to all issues raised by the complaint. The department shall determine, and enter an order providing, that the proposed transferee is either qualified or is not and cannot be qualified for specified reasons, or the order may provide the conditions under which a proposed transferee would be qualified. If the licensee fails to file such a response to the motor vehicle dealer’s complaint within 30 days after receipt of the complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to an extension, or if the department, after a hearing, renders a decision other than one disqualifying the proposed transferee, the franchise agreement between the motor vehicle dealer and the licensee is deemed amended to incorporate such transfer or amended in accordance with the determination and order rendered, effective upon compliance by the proposed transferee with any conditions set forth in the determination or order.
(2)(a) Notwithstanding the terms of any franchise agreement, a licensee shall not, by contract or otherwise, fail or refuse to give effect to, prevent, prohibit, or penalize, or attempt to refuse to give effect to, prevent, prohibit, or penalize, any motor vehicle dealer or any proprietor, partner, stockholder, owner, or other person who holds or otherwise owns an interest therein from selling, assigning, transferring, alienating, or otherwise disposing of, in whole or in part, the equity interest of any of them in such motor vehicle dealer to any other person or persons, including a corporation established or existing for the purpose of owning or holding the stock or ownership interests of other entities, unless the licensee proves at a hearing pursuant to a complaint filed by a motor vehicle dealer under this section that the sale, transfer, alienation, or other disposition is to a person who is not, or whose controlling executive management is not, of good moral character. A motor vehicle dealer, or any proprietor, partner, stockholder, owner, or other person who holds or otherwise owns an interest in the motor vehicle dealer, who desires to sell, assign, transfer, alienate, or otherwise dispose of any interest in such motor vehicle dealer shall notify, or cause the proposed transferee to so notify, the licensee, in writing, of the identity and address of the proposed transferee. A licensee who receives such notice may, within 60 days following such receipt, notify the motor vehicle dealer in writing that the proposed transferee is not a person qualified to be a transferee under this section and setting forth the material reasons for such rejection. Failure of the licensee to notify the motor vehicle dealer within the 60-day period of such rejection shall be deemed an approval of the transfer. Any person whose proposed sale of stock is rejected may file within 60 days of receipt of such rejection a complaint with the department alleging that the rejection was in violation of the law or the franchise agreement. The licensee has the burden of proof with respect to all issues raised by such complaint. The department shall determine, and enter an order providing, that the proposed transferee either is qualified or is not and cannot be qualified for specified reasons; or the order may provide the conditions under which a proposed transferee would be qualified. If the licensee fails to file a response to the motor vehicle dealer’s complaint within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to an extension, or if the department, after a hearing, renders a decision on the complaint other than one disqualifying the proposed transferee, the transfer shall be deemed approved in accordance with the determination and order rendered, effective upon compliance by the proposed transferee with any conditions set forth in the determination or order.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a licensee may not reject a proposed transfer of a legal, equitable, or beneficial interest in a motor vehicle dealer to a trust or other entity, or to any beneficiary thereof, which is established by an owner of any interest in a motor vehicle dealer for purposes of estate planning, if the controlling person of the trust or entity, or the beneficiary, is of good moral character.
(3) A licensee may not condition any proposed transfer under this section upon a relocation of a dealer, construction of any addition or modification to, or any refurbishing or remodeling of any dealership structure, facility, or building of the existing motor vehicle dealer, or upon any modification of the existing franchise agreement, except for the change of ownership.
(4) During the pendency of any such hearing, the franchise agreement of the motor vehicle dealer shall continue in effect in accordance with its terms. The department shall expedite any determination requested under this section.
(5) Notwithstanding the terms of any franchise agreement, the acceptance by the licensee of the proposed transferee shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the purposes of this section, the refusal by the licensee to accept, in a timely manner, a proposed transferee who satisfies the criteria set forth in subsection (1) or subsection (2) is presumed to be unreasonable.
(6) It shall be a violation of this section for the licensee to reject or withhold approval of a proposed transfer unless the licensee can prove in any court of competent jurisdiction in defense of any claim brought pursuant to s. 320.697 that, in fact, the rejection or withholding of approval of the proposed transfer was not in violation of or precluded by this section and was reasonable. The determination of whether such rejection or withholding was not in violation of or precluded by this section and was reasonable shall be based on an objective standard. Alleging the permitted statutory grounds by the licensee in the written rejection of the proposed transfer shall not protect the licensee from liability for violating this section.
History.s. 7, ch. 80-217; s. 2, ch. 81-318; s. 8, ch. 84-69; ss. 13, 20, 21, ch. 88-395; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 374, ch. 95-148; s. 23, ch. 2001-196; s. 4, ch. 2003-269; s. 3, ch. 2009-93; s. 3, ch. 2017-187.

F.S. 320.643 on Google Scholar

F.S. 320.643 on CourtListener

Amendments to 320.643


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 320.643

Total Results: 24

Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

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

Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.643; the sole basis for Appellee’s verified complaint

Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

260 F.3d 1285

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 8, 2001 | Docket: 397032

Cited 34 times | Published

Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.643; the sole basis for Appellee’s verified complaint

Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co.

748 So. 2d 993, 1999 WL 820573

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1999 | Docket: 2517638

Cited 33 times | Published

following question to this Court: Does Fla. Stat. § 320.643(2)(a) provide the exclusive basis for objection

Dept. of M. Veh., Etc v. Mercedes-Benz, Etc.

408 So. 2d 627

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1981 | Docket: 1449753

Cited 29 times | Published

count II of the complaint after finding that section 320.643, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), was unconstitutional

Mike Smith Pontiac, Gmc, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz Of North America, Inc.

32 F.3d 528, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 26174

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 21, 1994 | Docket: 1036393

Cited 24 times | Published

13 a. Section 320.643 14 Section 320.643 provides a procedure through

In Re Tom Stimus Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.

134 B.R. 676, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 656, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1839

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1991 | Docket: 1454138

Cited 10 times | Published

contract with the Debtor pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 320.643(1), and in any event the franchise agreement cannot

Mercedes-Benz of Na v. Dept. of Mv

455 So. 2d 404

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 1984 | Docket: 1692599

Cited 6 times | Published

except the count asserting relief pursuant to section 320.643, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). Id. at 630

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NA v. Mike Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc.

561 So. 2d 620

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 1990 | Docket: 1480920

Cited 5 times | Published

challenge the proposed transfer. Although section 320.643(2), Florida Statutes (1985), was the basis

Hengalo Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Bank of Miami, Inc. (In Re Hengalo Enterprises, Inc.)

51 B.R. 54, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1425, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5921

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Jun 18, 1985 | Docket: 1468808

Cited 5 times | Published

heard on May 24. The debtor relies on Fla.Stat. § 320.643 which provides in pertinent part: "A motor vehicle

Hawkins v. Ford Motor Company

135 F.3d 1443

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 2, 1998 | Docket: 179349

Cited 3 times | Published

certified question as follows: Does section 320.643(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provide the

Bayview Buick-GMC Truck, Inc. v. GMC

597 So. 2d 887

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1992 | Docket: 886386

Cited 3 times | Published

GM of the pending transfer as required by section 320.643(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The section also

METEOR MOTORS v. Thompson Halbach & Assocs.

914 So. 2d 479, 2005 WL 2861538

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2005 | Docket: 1781822

Cited 1 times | Published

motor vehicle dealerships. Thompson cites to section 320.643, but that statute regulates the holders of

In Re Morande Enterprises, Inc.

335 B.R. 188, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 64, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2491, 2005 WL 3434808

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2005 | Docket: 1764403

Cited 1 times | Published

the Florida Motor Vehicle Dealership Law, Section 320.643(1)(a), Florida Statutes (the Florida Dealer

John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp.

254 F.3d 1296, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 14273

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 27, 2001 | Docket: 238566

Cited 1 times | Published

administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Fla. Stat. § 320.643(2)(a) provided the sole basis for Appellee to

John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp.

254 F.3d 1296

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 27, 2001 | Docket: 1201112

Cited 1 times | Published

prior opinion in this case construed Fla. Stat. § 320.643. See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, ___ F.3d

Dwayne Hawkins, Millard G. Ripley v. Ford Motor Company

196 F.3d 1249, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 30454, 1999 WL 1061941

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 23, 1999 | Docket: 2486946

Cited 1 times | Published

original certified question as follows: Does section 320.643(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provide the

Hawkins v. Ford Motor Company

135 F.3d 1443, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3243

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 2, 1998 | Docket: 211919

Cited 1 times | Published

to transfer ownership pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.643, and Wilson Davis Ford, Inc. gave notice of an

Hawkins v. Ford Motor Company

135 F.3d 1443

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 2, 1998 | Docket: 179309

Cited 1 times | Published

certified question as follows: Does section 320.643(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provide the

Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

32 F.3d 528, 1994 WL 478594

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 21, 1994 | Docket: 64018138

Cited 1 times | Published

summary judgment that Mercedes-Benz violated § 320.643 and that § 320.697 provides standing to a prospective

John Phillip Risley, Individually, J. Stephen Risley, Individually v. Nissan Motor Corporation in Usa, a California Corporation

260 F.3d 1310, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17964, 2001 WL 896913

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 9, 2001 | Docket: 113580

Published

prior opinion in this case construed Fla. Stat. § 320.643. See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA,

John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp.

254 F.3d 1296

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 27, 2001 | Docket: 1441708

Published

4 Stat. § 320.643(2)(a) provided the sole basis for Appellee to

John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp.

254 F.3d 1296

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 27, 2001 | Docket: 203658

Published

prior opinion in this case construed Fla. Stat. § 320.643. See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 254 F

Hawkins v. Ford Motor Company

135 F.3d 1443

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 2, 1998 | Docket: 2036373

Published

transfer ownership pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.643, and Wilson Davis Ford, Inc. gave notice

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

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

another dealer, Potamkin, was invalid under Section 320.643(1), Florida Statutes (1989), we affirm as to