ILNews

Deposition challenges timing of BMV overcharges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former deputy director at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles says he told agency leaders as early as 2010 that many BMV fees exceeded what was authorized under Indiana law but that the agency kept overcharging Hoosiers for at least two years to avoid budget troubles.

Matthew Foley's allegations are included in an 88-page deposition taken as part of a class action lawsuit against the BMV in Marion Superior Court. The suit seeks to recoup $30 million to $40 million that the BMV overcharged Indiana motorists for personalized license plates, vehicle registrations and other services, The Indianapolis Star reported.

Foley's statements contradict those of former chief of staff and BMV Commissioner Scott Waddell, whose own deposition stated that the first indication of possible overcharges came when a lawsuit over drivers' license fees was filed in March 2013.

"We were completely blindsided by it," Waddell said.

The lawsuit alleges the BMV concealed and continued the overcharges. If Foley's allegations are proven true, limits on the time period for which customers can seek refunds would be voided. Absent that "fraudulent concealment," the statute of limitations would allow refunds going back only six to 10 years.

BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie declined to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation.

Foley also said agency officials didn't want to cut fees or refund customers and instead tried to rewrite regulations to match what was being charged.

"There was a concern that the BMV would need to potentially lay off employees or go back to the well and borrow money again when they had very publicly repaid the last of its government — or state-borrowed loans the prior year," he said.

The new regulations never took effect, and the overcharges continued until last year.

Foley's warnings — via email, meetings and other communications with BMV officials — occurred during the administration of former Gov. Mitch Daniels, who prided himself on efforts to professionalize the BMV and end its long wait times.

State budget documents show that from 2006 to 2013, the BMV returned more than $47.6 million in unspent funds from its budgets.

The BMV acknowledged last June that it had overcharged drivers for operator licenses. In November, it agreed to refund $30 million to motorists in a separate class action lawsuit involving those charges. Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad collected $6.3 million in fees in that case.

The agency also has admitted overcharging dozens of other fees, ranging from $11 on antique vehicle registrations to 50 cents on motorcycle endorsements for operator licenses.

BMV officials have said they didn't realize motorists were overpaying until March 2013 and were unaware of the scope of the problems until an independent review concluded last fall.

Gerry Lanosga, president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government, said Foley's deposition raises questions about the BMV and called for an investigation by the state inspector general.

"Citizens have a right to expect an agency that discovers a problem like this to make it public and do something to fix it," he said.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Mike Pence declined comment.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT