ILNews

BMV announces credits for overcharged motorists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana motorists who overpaid for driver’s licenses over the past six years will get the money back in the form of a credit on their next transaction at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the agency announced Friday.

“We realized the best way to make Hoosiers whole and return the overcharge to them without any barriers was to issue them a credit,” said BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie. The credit is immediately available to all overcharged motorists, he said.

“All Hoosiers, in theory, should be made whole within one year,” Gillespie said, since drivers typically renew plates or conduct some other BMV business during a calendar year. “This impacts pretty much every motorist on the road.”

The BMV was sued this year in litigation certified as a class action, claiming the bureau had overcharged motorists for every license issued since March 2007.

Gillespie said the BMV launched its own investigation as a result of the suit and last month announced it concluded motorists had been overcharged. The bureau immediately reduced the cost of licenses by $3.50.

The action announced Friday aims to refund the overcharges the agency collected. The suit claims BMV overcharged motorists by a total of $30 million, but Gillespie declined to say how much the BMV determined had been over-collected during the six-plus years of overcharges.   

BMV Commissioner R. Scott Waddell said in a statement, “We believe it is important to return the overcharge directly to those who have been impacted. It is the right thing to do.”

Gillespie said BMV is still working on how to issue the credit to people who have moved or will move out of state. The bureau will make an announcement when that procedure has been determined.

Attorneys for class counsel Cohen & Malad LLC of Indianapolis said Friday the BMV’s credits aren’t enough, and that a court should ensure funds are properly credited to people who overpaid.
 
“This is the ultimate example of the fox watching the henhouse, for the BMV to unilaterally announce that they've done the math, they’ve got it figured out and they can be trusted to handle the problem," said attorney Richard Shevitz of Cohen &  Malad. “The resolution of this case requires court oversight.”



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT