OnePutt Liquors, LLC v. Colorado Department of Revenue.
2026 COA 26. No. 25CA0071. Colorado Liquor Code—Retail Liquor Store License—Additional Licenses.
April 9, 2026
Around 2000, Deschamp began operating a retail liquor store (RLS) in Carbondale for which she had a license from the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division (LED). Deschamp operated the Carbondale store until OnePutt Liquors, LLC (OnePutt) purchased it in 2020. Contemporaneous with its purchase, OnePutt was issued a temporary permit from the LED to continue operating under the Deschamp license while it waited for a decision on its own license application. In 2021, the LED issued OnePutt a new RLS license to operate at the same premises as the Carbondale store. OnePutt then submitted a request for a position statement from the LED addressing its eligibility to purchase additional RLS licenses. The LED concluded that OnePutt was not eligible. OnePutt then filed a petition for a declaratory order with the State Licensing Authority (SLA) addressing the same issue, and the SLA also concluded that OnePutt was not eligible. OnePutt filed an action in the district court against the Colorado Department of Revenue (department) and its executive director, the SLA, and the LED appealing the SLA’s decision. The district court affirmed the SLA’s order, agreeing that OnePutt was not the owner of an RLS license that was issued on or before January 1, 2016, and therefore OnePutt was not eligible to purchase additional RLS licenses under CRS § 44-3-409(4)(b)(III).
On appeal, OnePutt argued that when it purchased the Carbondale store, it also purchased the Deschamp license; and because the Deschamp license was issued in about 2000, whoever held that license would be eligible under § 44-3-409(4)(b)(III) to acquire additional RLS licenses. Generally, the owner of an RLS license may not own an interest in any other RLS license. But in 2016, § 44-3-409(4)(b)(III) was created to allow owners of a retail liquor store licensed on or before January 1, 2016, to purchase a limited number of additional retail liquor store licenses. The exception was created in response to potential ballot measures that would allow the sale of full-strength alcoholic beverages in larger chain stores, to ease a perceived unfair impact that existing restrictions would have on entities that had obtained their RLS license before the anticipated passage of the ballot measures. Notably, an “establishment”—which is an RLS operated on the physical premises—is not issued a license. Rather, licenses are issued to persons who are then permitted to operate an RLS on a designated premises. Here, Deschamp and OnePutt owned separate establishments on the same premises that were operated by different licensees who were issued different licenses. Thus, OnePutt’s current ownership of the premises does not allow it to exercise the rights granted to those who owned a license issued in connection with that premises on or before January 1, 2016.
OnePutt also argued that § 44-3-303 allows a licensee to transfer their existing RLS license to a new license owner if that owner operates an RLS at the same physical location as the previous license owner. OnePutt thus contended that it is a “retail liquor store licensed on or before January 1, 2016.” However, the § 44-3-303 transfer process does not result in a transfer of the original RLS license to the new licensee. Rather, an application for a transfer of ownership results in a new license, license number, licensee, and term. Here, OnePutt was allowed to obtain a temporary permit to sell the remaining inventory from Deschamp’s RLS establishment. OnePutt thereafter obtained its own license, years after the 2016 cutoff provided in the statute. Therefore, OnePutt does not qualify for additional RLS licenses, and the district court did not err by affirming the SLA’s order.
The judgment was affirmed.