COA: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to order BMV to act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found in favor of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Monday after finding that a litigant’s failure to comply with the Administrative Order and Procedures Act left a trial court without jurisdiction to order the BMV to act on the litigant’s petition.

As a construction worker for almost 25 years, Craig Watson operates certain types of trucks that require him to maintain a chauffeur’s license. However, when Watson attempted to renew his license in 2015, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles denied him, holding that he must first resolve a suspended license dispute with the state of Illinois dating to 2000.

Watson administratively appealed the denial of his license renewal, but in December 2015 the BMV held that the renewal was “properly denied … due to the Illinois suspension.” A week later, Watson filed for special driving privileges, which the Lake Circuit Court granted but that the BMV refused to issue because of the suspended Illinois license.

Watson then moved to compel the BMV or to issue a valid driver’s license. The trial court granted both of Watson’s motions, holding that the section of Indiana Code the BMV had been using as its basis for its denial related to the issuance of a new license, not renewal of an existing license.

The Indiana Attorney General then filed a motion to intervene and to correct error, alleging that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to order the BMV to issue the chauffeur’s license.  The motion to correct held that Watson’s motion to issue a valid driver’s license credential was a petition for judicial review requiring service upon the Attorney General of Indiana.

The Lake Circuit Court denied the motion to correct error, prompting the BMV’s appeal.  The state agency argued that the trial court had impermissibly engaged in judicial review of an agency decision and, further, that because the trial court reviewed an administrative action of a state agency, Watson was required to follow the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. That act requires, among other things, serving the Indiana Attorney General, and because Watson failed to do so, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction.

A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals sided with the BMV Monday, with Judge Margret Robb writing that Watson’s motion to compel issuance of specialized driving privileges or to issue a valid driver’s license credential was a petition for judicial review of the BMV’s decision, thus invoking the procedures of the AOPA.

However, in 2016, the Indiana General Assembly amended Indiana Code sections 4-21.5-2-5 and 9-33-1-1 to exclude BMV actions from judicial review under AOPA, an amendment Watson argued should be applied retroactively. But Robb wrote Monday that the Legislature did not specify that the amendment should be applied retroactively, and even if it had, doing so would not be to Watson’s benefit because his actions did not comply with Indiana Code article 9-33.

Finally, Robb wrote that because Watson failed to serve the Indiana Attorney General in his petition for judicial review, the BMV was unrepresented, so his service of process was ineffective and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to order the BMV to issue the chauffeur’s license.

The case is Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Kent Abernathy, Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Craig Watson, 45A03-1607-MI-1538.



  • Unrepresented?
    Wasn't the local prosecutor's office involved at the trial court level representing to BMV? I've personally never witnessed the Attorney General's Office representing the BMV at the SDP hearings.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.