F.S. 319.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 319.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 319.35

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Chapter 319
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 319.35 Florida Statutes and Case Law
319.35 Unlawful acts in connection with motor vehicle odometer readings; penalties.
(1)(a) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to tamper with, adjust, alter, set back, disconnect, or fail to connect an odometer of a motor vehicle, or to cause any of the foregoing to occur to an odometer of a motor vehicle, so as to reflect a lower mileage than the motor vehicle has actually been driven, or to supply any written odometer statement knowing such statement to be false or based on mileage figures reflected by an odometer that has been tampered with or altered, except as hereinafter provided. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly bring into this state a motor vehicle which has an odometer that has been illegally altered.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly provide false information on the odometer readings required pursuant to ss. 319.23(3) and 320.02(2)(b).
(c) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, sell, or offer for sale, conceal, or dispose of in this state a motor vehicle with an odometer that has been tampered with so as to reflect a lower mileage than the motor vehicle has actually been driven, except as provided in paragraph (2)(a) and subsection (3).
(2)(a) This section does not prevent the service, repair, or replacement of an odometer if the mileage indicated thereon remains the same as before the service, repair, or replacement. If the odometer is incapable of registering the same mileage as before such service, repair, or replacement, the odometer must be adjusted to read zero and a notice in writing must be attached to the door frame of the vehicle by the owner or his or her agent specifying the mileage prior to repair or replacement of the odometer and the date on which it was repaired or replaced.
(b) A person may not fail to adjust an odometer or affix a notice regarding such adjustment as required by paragraph (a).
(c) A person may not, with intent to defraud, remove or alter any notice affixed to a motor vehicle under paragraph (a).
(3) Any motor vehicle with an odometer that has been tampered with so as to reflect a lower mileage than the motor vehicle has actually been driven may not be knowingly operated on the streets and highways of the state in such condition unless the certificate of title and registration certificate of the vehicle have been conspicuously stamped so as to indicate the displayed mileage is inaccurate and written notice has been placed on the vehicle as described in paragraph (2)(a).
(4) If any person, with intent to defraud, possesses, sells, or offers to sell any motor vehicle with an odometer that has been illegally adjusted, altered, set back, or tampered with so as to reflect a lower mileage than the vehicle has actually been driven, such motor vehicle is contraband and is subject to seizure and forfeiture by a law enforcement agency or the department pursuant to ss. 932.701-932.704.
(5) Any person who intentionally violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ch. 70-233; s. 2, ch. 71-242; s. 191, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 78-183; s. 20, ch. 82-134; s. 3, ch. 83-91; s. 1, ch. 84-155; s. 1, ch. 91-138; s. 26, ch. 95-143; s. 348, ch. 95-148.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: March 07, 2023
F.S. 319.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 319.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 319.35

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 319.35
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S319.35
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 319.35.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Berryhill

    620 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    We agree with the trial judge that the Berryhills need not be direct purchasers from Touch of Class to recover damages under its bond with United. In order to be allowed to do business in Florida, a motor vehicle dealer must post a surety bond or irrevocable letter of credit, pursuant to section 320.27(10)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). The statute requires that the surety bond must contain the following conditions: that the dealer will comply with any written contract made in connection with the sale or exchange of a motor vehicle, and that the dealer will not violate any of the provisions of chapter 319 and 320 in the conduct of its business. Section 319.35 makes it unlawful to knowingly tamper with or set back the odometer of a vehicle.
    PAGE 1079
  2. {¶ 10} R.C. 319, et seq., establishes the position of county auditor and outlines the responsibilities of that position, which include maintaining tax records and levying taxes on real property. R.C. 319.36 addresses situations in which the county auditor has determined that a tax "has been erroneously charged as a result of a clerical error[.]" R.C. 319.35 defines a "clerical error" for the purposes of R.C. 319.36 as:
    PAGE 5
  3. {¶ 30} On remand, the consideration of value for tax year 2007 will require a determination whether the June 2008 correction was legally proper. The June 2008 notice asserts the correction of a “clerical error,” which is defined by R.C. 319.35 as an error that “can be corrected by the county auditor from the inspection or examination of documents in the county auditor's office or from the inspection or examination of documents that have been presented to the county auditor and have been recorded by the county recorder.” Errors that are not “clerical” are, pursuant to R.C. 319.35, “fundamental” and are “subject to [Ohio St.3d 209] correction only by the county board of revision as provided by law.”
    PAGE 801
  4. United States v. Shryock

    537 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1976)   Cited 19 times
    At the time of the alterations Florida law required that the owner or transferor and the purchaser of an automobile execute a certificate (DMV Form 88) stating the mileage at the time of transfer and that this certificate be attached to the application for change of title. Fla.Stat. § 319.35(3) (4) (1970 Supp.). Shryock stipulated that he would fill in and sign the DMV Form 88 and that it was attached to the title application. (Stipulation 9(h)). It was also stipulated that no title would be issued unless the DMV Form 88 accompanied the application for transfer of title. (Stipulation 16). The Record also indicates that the DMV Form 88's contained the altered mileage and were signed by the purchaser and another employee of Boe Wood in addition to Shryock. The applications and DMV Form 88's were delivered to the Tampa Division of Motor Vehicles and then sent by mail to the Motor Vehicles Division of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in Tallahassee. The Florida Bureau of Title and Lien Services in Tallahassee mailed the new titles to the purchasers or lienholders.
    PAGE 209
  5. Zupancic v. Carter Lumber Co.

    No. 01AP-1248 (REGULAR CALENDAR) (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2002)
    From time to time, the county auditor shall correct all clerical errors the auditor discovers in the tax lists and duplicates, including errors in the name of the taxpayer and in the valuation or assessment of property. R.C. 319.35. The term "clerical error" is an error that can be corrected by the county auditor from the inspection of certain documents and except as otherwise provided by law, any error in the listing, valuation, assessment, or taxation of real property other than a clerical error constitutes a fundamental error and is subject only to correction by the county board of revision. Id. R.C. 319.36 provides the procedure for when a clerical error, as defined in R.C. 319.35, r esults in a tax or assessment erroneously charged.
  6. Hobbs v. BH Cars, Inc.

    Case No. 04-60327-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D. Fla. Jun. 4, 2004)   Cited 1 times
    Plaintiffs state in their Memorandum that the requirements for transferring title to a lienholder upon repossession are found in Chapter 319 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, they mention that Section 319.28[2](b) of the Florida Statutes requires that the secured party submit an affidavit to the State of Florida describing the facts of repossession, and Section 319.35 of the Florida Statutes makes it unlawful to knowingly supply a false written odometer statement and to knowingly furnish "false information on the odometer readings." Violation of either statute is a felony of the third degree. Fla. Stat. §§ 319.28(2)(b), 319.35. However, Plaintiffs have not cured the defects in the Complaint since they do not indicate the relevance of these state laws under their federal claim, i.e. whether Plaintiffs are intending to bring a similar claim under state law or whether Plaintiffs are referring to these statutes merely to bolster their federal claim.
    PAGE 6
  7. Batten v. State

    895 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
    Lebert F. Batten challenges the judgments and concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment on each count imposed on him after a jury found him guilty of grand theft, a violation of section 812.014(2)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (1999), and odometer fraud, a violation of section 319.35(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). The State introduced Williams rule evidence at Batten's trial consisting of twenty-five classified ads he placed in The St. Petersburg Times for the sale of various automobiles. The State relied heavily on this evidence in its closing arguments to the jury as demonstrating Batten's intent to commit the charged offenses. Because Batten's placement of the newspaper ads did not tend to prove that he had the requisite criminal intent, we reverse the judgments and sentences, and we remand this case for a new trial.
  8. City of Hollywood v. Mulligan

    934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006)   Cited 33 times
    Not only does the FCFA policy statement not express an intent to preempt the entire field of seizures and forfeitures for nonfelony offenses, it neither expressly nor impliedly preempts the field of seizures and forfeitures for vehicles. Section 932.704(1) states that "[i]t is also the policy of this state that law enforcement agencies ensure that, in all seizures made under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, their officers adhere to federal and state constitutional limitations." (Emphasis added.) First, this clause implies that there may be seizures of vehicles not made under the FCFA. Indeed, in Florida, there are seizures of vehicles that are authorized under statutory provisions other than the FCFA. See, e.g., §§ 206.205, 322.34, 328.05, 328.07, Fla. Stat. (2005) (concerning seizure and forfeiture of marine vessels for various violations); §§ 329.10, 329.11, Fla. Stat. (2005) (concerning seizure and forfeiture of aircraft for various violations); §§ 206.205, 316.80, 212.16, 316.191, 319.35, 317.0017, 316.1935, 320.30, 322.34, Fla. Stat. (2005) (concerning seizure and forfeiture of automobiles). Second, although nearly all of these statutes require that the…
    PAGE 1245
  9. State v. Nuckolls

    677 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 7 times
    § 319.35 (1)(a), Fla.Stat.
  10. State v. Nuckolls

    606 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    § 319.35(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).
    PAGE 1207