ILNews

Judge lets second suit alleging BMV overcharges proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles must answer a second complaint alleging the agency overcharged Hoosiers millions of dollars on almost 30 types of licenses or registrations, a judge ruled Wednesday.

BMV previously agreed to refund $30 million for overcharges of operator’s licenses as a result of an earlier lawsuit.

In the latest lawsuit, Marion Superior Judge James Osborn denied the BMV’s motions to dismiss and stay discovery. The suit seeks class action status.

Lead plaintiff Tammy Raab sued the bureau alleging that 29 BMV fees overcharged people from 50 cents to $11 dollars, according to Cohen & Malad LLP managing partner Irwin Levin.

Among the more commonly alleged overcharges were $3 for motorcycle endorsements, $1 for duplicate titles, $4.50 for chauffeur’s license, $3 for personalized plates, and $1 for plate transfers. Overcharges of $11 are alleged for antique year of manufacture registrations.

“We’re guessing the number is in the tens of millions of dollars” that Hoosiers were overcharged at the BMV, Levin said Friday. The BMV hasn’t provided an accounting of how much it collected from the overcharges, and depositions are scheduled next month.

“We’re going to find out whether the BMV is just reckless in making sure they charge people the legal amount or if something else is going on,” he said.

BMV previously announced it would refund $30 million to motorists who were overcharged $3.50 to $7 for driver’s licenses. That suit  also was brought by Cohen & Malad.

“The court has essentially ruled that the BMV can’t simply say ‘Trust us’ and throw out the case. Hoosiers now get to ask the BMV the tough questions about this debacle and get the answers they deserve,” Levin said in a statement.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT