Shell Harbor Group, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, BI-124

• Citation: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 936,487 So.2d 1141
• Decision Date: 22 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. BI-124,BI-124
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 936 SHELL HARBOR GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1141

487 So.2d 1141

11 Fla. L. Weekly 936

SHELL HARBOR GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, State of Florida, Appellee.

No. BI-124.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

April 22, 1986.

Joseph C. Jacobs and Richard Johnston, Jr. of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Thomas L. Barnhart, Tallahassee, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Shell Harbor Group, Inc. (Shell Harbor) appeals from a final order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying its application for a change in the status of its special hotel liquor license to a special restaurant license (SRX). We affirm.

The operative statute herein, Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1983) provides that a special restaurant license may be issued to an applicant which 1) is a restaurant, 2) having 2500 square feet of service area, 3) is equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time, and 4) derives at least 51% of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages (emphasis supplied). While it was conceded below that Shell Harbor possessed sufficient tableware and equipment to serve 150 persons as required by the statute, it was prohibited by local ordinance from seating more than 100 persons in the restaurant for which it seeks the license. It was on this basis that the change in status was denied.

"Equipped" is not defined in the statute; therefore, its common, ordinary meaning applies. State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Salvation Limited, Inc., 452 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "equip" as "to furnish for service or action, make ready by appropriate provisioning." Therefore, Shell Harbor's argument, below and on appeal, that it has satisfied the plain meaning of the statute by its possession of sufficient equipment to serve the required number of customers, despite its legal inability to do so, has surface appeal.

However, a literal interpretation of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion. Such a departure from the letter of the statute is permissible only when there are cogent reasons for believing that the letter of the law does not accurately disclose the legislative intent. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984). This court has consistently held that the legislative intent of this licensing statute is that a special restaurant license be available only to a "bona fide substantial restaurant operation primarily engaged in the serving of food and nonalcoholic beverages." Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Huddle, Inc., 342 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (emphasis supplied). Given this intent, the...