Wente v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

[Cite as Wente v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2023-Ohio-3165.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
DARLENE WENTE Case No. 2023-00192AD
Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver
v. MEMORANDUM DECISION
OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Defendant
{¶1} Darlene Wente (“plaintiff”) filed this claim against defendant, Ohio Bureau
of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”, “defendant”, or “registrar”), for “crimes committed by the
Registrar” including terrorism, corrupt activity, fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff stated that this claim arises out of occasions on July 22, 2020 and March 31,
2021, when plaintiff was informed by BMV that plaintiff’s license was suspended. Plaintiff
asserted that plaintiff’s license was illegally suspended on these two dates and that
plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $4,500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing
fee with the complaint.
{¶2} BMV submitted an investigation report denying liability in this case. BMV
stated that all suspensions and interactions related to plaintiff were handled appropriately
and complied with statutory and administrative requirements. BMV stated that the July
22, 2020 suspension was an administrative license suspension (“ALS”) which is imposed
by local law enforcement according to R.C. 4511.191(B)1. BMV stated that after it notified
plaintiff of the suspension, it discovered that the ALS did not document that it was properly
served on plaintiff. BMV stated that the day it was notified of the error, it deleted the ALS
from plaintiff’s record and no fee was collected from plaintiff. As to the second
suspension, BMV stated that plaintiff’s license was suspended because plaintiff was
1 While defendant’s investigation report cites R.C. 4511.191(B) as the code section which required it to
suspend plaintiff’s license, it was actually R.C. 4511.191(C) because plaintiff submitted to a urine test which
came back positive. These code sections operate in the same manner.
Case No. 2023-00192AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION
found guilty of a traffic violation and plaintiff failed to provide proof of insurance. BMV
contended that according to R.C. 4509.101(D)(5)(a), it is required to suspend the license
of a person under those circumstances. BMV stated that the notice of suspension, which
contained information on how to avoid the suspension, was sent to plaintiff on March 31,
2021. On April 14, 2021, BMV sent plaintiff the final order imposing the suspension on
plaintiff’s license including information about plaintiff’s appeal rights. Plaintiff did not file
an appeal. BMV stated that in the various emails between its employees and plaintiff,
plaintiff was reminded several times that proof of insurance was needed in order to
remove the suspension. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not provide such proof or
pay the statutorily determined reinstatement fees, therefore BMV has not wronged
plaintiff. Finally, BMV stated that to the extent that plaintiff alleges criminal activity, this
court has no jurisdiction.
{¶3} Plaintiff did not file a response to defendant’s investigation report.
{¶4} This court has no jurisdiction “over any criminal matters against the state as
‘R.C. 2743.02 does not confer jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to consider criminal
charges that should be adjudicated in the court of common pleas.’” (Citations omitted).
Howard v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 04AP-1093 and 04AP-1272,
2005-Ohio-2130, ¶ 17. Thus, to the extent plaintiff asserts violations of criminal law, those
claims must be dismissed.
{¶5} To prevail in a claim for negligence, plaintiff must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty, that defendant
breached that duty, and that defendant’s breach proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶
8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707(1984).
{¶6} In this case, the duty of BMV with respect to plaintiff is to follow all relevant
Revised Code sections and act reasonably when exercising its power. Plaintiff has
provided no evidence that BMV acted unreasonably or outside the statutory provisions.
Further, even if plaintiff could prove that BMV breached its duty, plaintiff has not proven
damages.
Case No. 2023-00192AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶7} The first suspension placed on plaintiff’s license was under R.C.
4511.191(C)(1). R.C. 4511.191(C)(1) states that when defendant receives a report from
a law enforcement officer that someone was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while
impaired by a substance, and that person submitted to a urine test which came back
positive for the concentration of alcohol specified by criminal statute to constitute driving
under an impairment, defendant must record the fact that the person’s license was
suspended by the arresting officer. Upon receipt of such report, defendant suspended
plaintiff’s license in accordance with the Revised Code. When it learned that all of the
proper procedures may not have been followed, it deleted the suspension from plaintiff’s
record and plaintiff was not subject to any fees associated with this suspension.
Therefore, as to the first suspension, plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that BMV breached its duty to plaintiff or that plaintiff sustained any damages
relating to this suspension.
{¶8} The second suspension was under R.C. 4509.101, which requires any
person operating a vehicle in the state to provide proof of financial responsibility. R.C.
4509.101(D)(5)(a) states, “[u]pon receiving notice from a clerk of courts or traffic violations
bureau * * * the registrar shall order the suspension of the license of the person required
under division (A)(2)(a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence
that plaintiff was not subject to this section or that BMV had proof of plaintiff’s financial
responsibility and suspended plaintiff’s license anyway. Therefore, plaintiff did not prove
that defendant breached a duty with respect to this suspension.
{¶9} Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are denied.
Case No. 2023-00192AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION
DARLENE WENTE Case No. 2023-00192AD
Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver
v. ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Defendant
{¶10} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set
forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in
favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
Deputy Clerk
Filed 8/17/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/7/23