ILNews

Public interest in reducing poverty is grounds for application of doctrine of laches

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In overturning a lower court’s ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals opened the door for the doctrine of laches to be applied to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles by finding the suspension of a Bloomington woman’s driving privileges conflicts with the public’s interest in reducing poverty.

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday reversed the trial court’s denial of a request for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings in Leslee Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehilces, R. Scott Waddell, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 53A04-1206-PL-299.

From 2002 to 2004, Leslee Orndorff received 17 driving convictions and had her driving privileges suspended 18 times. In 2008, she moved with her two children to Bloomington, obtained a valid driver’s license and got a job as a personal care attendant.

Four years later, the BMV discovered the Orndorff qualified as a habitual traffic violator and sent her a notice that her driving privileges would be suspended for 10 years, effective May 29, 2012.

Orndorff filed a complaint against the BMV alleging that the equitable doctrine of laches prevented the state agency from suspending her driving privileges and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the suspension. The trial court denied her request for a preliminary injunction, concluding, in part, that it was unlikely that laches would apply to the government.

For Orndorff to assert laches against a government entity, she had an additional requirement to show that the government was not acting in its sovereign capacity to protect the public welfare.

The trial court noted that Orndorff will suffer adverse effects if her driving privileges are suspended and that those adverse effects, namely that she will lose her job and her family will be thrust into poverty, threaten the public interest. However, it ruled that the adverse effect that will be suffered by Orndorff’s family does not appear to constitute the sort of public threat that should prevent the BMV from suspending her driving privileges.

The COA disagreed, finding that the public has a real and tangible interest in reducing poverty and that since 2008, Orndorff has not incurred any driving convictions.

Writing for the court, Judge Terry Crone concluded, “Based on the particular circumstances of this case, we have concluded that suspending Orndorff’s driving privileges presents a threat to the public interest and that no public interest will be served by suspending her driving privileges.”

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT