Florida Statute 561.24 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIV
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO

Chapter 561
BEVERAGE LAW: ADMINISTRATION

View Entire Chapter

561.24 Licensing manufacturers as distributors or registered exporters prohibited; procedure for issuance and renewal of distributors’ licenses and exporters’ registrations.—

(1) A manufacturer, rectifier, or distiller that manufactures, rectifies, or distills spirituous liquors or wine may not be granted a license as a distributor and may not register as an exporter.

(2) A manufacturer, rectifier, or distiller that manufactures, rectifies, or distills spirituous liquors or wine may not be granted a renewal of a license or registration previously held as a distributor or exporter.

(3) If the applicant for a distributor’s license or exporter’s registration, or renewal thereof, is an individual or copartnership, such individual or copartnership is within the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2), as the case may be, if the individual or any member of the copartnership is interested or connected, directly or indirectly, with any corporation which is engaged directly or indirectly or through any subsidiary or affiliate corporation, including any stock ownership as set forth in subsection (4), in manufacturing, rectifying, or distilling spirituous liquors or wine. If any individual or any member of such copartnership within 6 months next preceding the making of an application hereunder has been interested or connected as provided by this subsection, such individual or such member of the copartnership shall be prima facie presumed to be so interested or connected with such corporation at the time of the making of the application, and such prima facie presumption shall continue until overcome by the applicant.

(4) If the applicant for a distributor’s license or exporter’s registration, or for the renewal thereof, is a corporation, such corporation is within the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), as the case may be, if such corporation is affiliated with, directly or indirectly, any other corporation which is engaged in manufacturing, rectifying, or distilling spirituous liquors or wine or if such applicant corporation is controlled by, or the majority of stock therein is owned by, another corporation, which latter corporation is engaged, directly or indirectly, in manufacturing, rectifying, or distilling spirituous liquors or wine.

(5) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the foregoing subsections, any corporation which holds a license as a distributor on June 3, 1947, shall be entitled to a renewal thereof, provided such corporation complies with all of the provisions of the Beverage Law of Florida, as amended, and of this section and establishes by satisfactory evidence to the division that, during the 6-month period next preceding its application for such renewal, of the total volume of its sales of spirituous liquors, in either dollars or quantity, not more than 40 percent of such spirituous liquors sold by it, in either dollars or quantity, were manufactured, rectified, or distilled by any corporation with which the applicant is affiliated, directly or indirectly, including any corporation which owns or controls in any way any stock in the applicant corporation or any corporation which is a subsidiary or affiliate of the corporation so owning stock in the applicant corporation. Any manufacturer of wine holding a license as a distributor on the effective date of this act shall be entitled to a renewal of such license notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1)-(5). This section does not apply to any winery qualifying as a certified Florida Farm Winery under s. 599.004.

(6) Any person, copartnership, or corporation applying for a distributor’s license under the provisions of this section shall file a written or printed application therefor with the division. Such application shall be sworn to by the applicant or a member of the copartnership or an officer of the corporation, depending upon whether the applicant is an individual, copartnership, or corporation. Forms for such applications shall be provided by the division. Every such application shall set forth clear and detailed information necessary and sufficient to establish the right of the applicant under the provisions of this section to receive a license. The information herein required to be set forth shall be in addition to any information required to be set forth by any other provision of applicable law. Any application failing to comply fully with the provisions of this section shall be denied.

(7) No license of any distributor shall be renewed if the license of such distributor and continuations thereof have been revoked or if the qualifications of such distributor have been impaired.

(8) Any maneuver, shift, or device by any applicant whereby any provision of this section, in any manner, is sought to be avoided or evaded constitutes a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—s. 2, ch. 16774, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 4151(228); s. 1, ch. 23899, 1947; s. 3, ch. 63-562; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 559, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 72-230; s. 5, ch. 81-158; s. 1, ch. 85-203; s. 10, ch. 91-60; s. 4, ch. 97-213; s. 11, ch. 2012-83.

F.S. 561.24 on Google Scholar

F.S. 561.24 on CourtListener

Amendments to 561.24

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 561.24

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

S561.24 - LIQUOR - UNLAW OBTAIN LIC DISTRIB EXPORT LIQUOR BY MFG - F: T

Cases Citing Statute 561.24

Total Results: 3 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Meiklejohn v. Am. Distributors, Inc., 210 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).

Cited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...For that reason the court erred in denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that an appropriate judgment be entered in accordance with the views expressed herein. Reversed. CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] F.S. § 561.24, F.S.A. [2] F.S. § 561.241, F.S.A....

Copy

Div. of Beverage, Etc. v. Foremost-mckesson, Inc., 330 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1976).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...(Foremost), applied to the appellant, Division of Beverage (Division), in the fall of 1973 for renewal of its license to distribute liquor in Florida. On account of Foremost's interest in an out of state rectifying [1] plant, the Division took the position that Fla. Stat. § 561.24 (1973) [2] precluded renewal, and denied Foremost's application....

...A three judge district court was convened; that court voted to postpone consideration of the merits until conclusion of state court proceedings. When the federal court granted the Division's motion to abstain, Foremost filed in circuit court, seeking a declaration that Fla. Stat. § 561.24 (1973) was inapplicable to it or, if applicable, then unconstitutional, as a state matter. [3] The circuit court, per the Hon. Hugh M. Taylor, ruled that Foremost was entitled to the benefit of the grandfather clause, Fla. Stat. § 561.24(5) (1973), but also considered and explicitly rejected Foremost's argument that Fla. Stat. § 561.24 was bad as a state constitutional matter....

...The Division took an appeal from this summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal, First District, assigning as error the ruling that Foremost was covered by the grandfather clause. Foremost cross-appealed and assigned as error the ruling that Fla. Stat. § 561.24 (1973) validly prohibited renewal of its license, but for the grandfather clause....

...Continuously since 1934, Foremost has distributed liquor in Florida. When originally licensed, Foremost was not itself a rectifier, distiller or manufacturer of liquor, nor was it affiliated with any such concern. Foremost was initially licensed to distribute under a predecessor [4] to the present Fla. Stat. § 561.24....

...iated with an out of state rectifier, distiller, or manufacturer. Fla.Laws 1947, ch. 23899 § 1. Simultaneously with the enactment of these amendments, a grandfather clause effected an exemption from their operation for certain licensees. Fla. Stat. § 561.24(5) (1973)....

...In such circumstances we are not free to ignore the plain language of the statute. See Armstrong v. City of Edgewater, 157 So.2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1963). We share the Division's doubt whether the purposes manifested by the statute as a whole are well served by Fla. Stat. § 561.24(5) (1973), but if the wording of the statute is to be revised, it is a task for the legislature, and not for this Court....

...[*] I hold the view that the district *147 court unnecessarily relinquished its jurisdiction to us. No one disputes the fact that the trial judge did not have to pass on the constitutionality of the statute involved in this proceeding. The court's final judgment initially and expressly held that the grandfather clause in Section 561.24 excluded appellee from the limitations in the other subsections of that provision. The order states: "Insofar as the present needs of the plaintiff are concerned, this court is of the opinion that Subsection (5) of § 561.24, F.S., precludes the defendant from refusing to renew plaintiff's license." After so ruling, the trial court went on to say: "Ordinarily, this court would end its labors here, but in view of the judgment of the three-judge federal court suggesting the construction of § 561.24 by a state court, other questions argued by counsel will be considered." Plainly, the trial court was not required to pass on the constitutional issues in order to resolve this litgation....

...section, in any manner, is sought to be avoided or evaded shall constitute a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in §§ 775.082, 775.083, or 775.084. (Emphasis supplied) [3] Foremost's federal constitutional objections to Fla. Stat. § 561.24 (1973) were reserved for determination in United States District Court and were not advanced in state court proceedings....

Copy

Morey's Lounge v. State, Dept. of Bus., 673 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 228614

...ence as to what conduct is required or proscribed; or (2) encourage arbitrary and erratic enforcement." State v. Moo Young, 566 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla.1990); See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). Section 561.24(1)(a) does not run afoul of either test....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.