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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT