Geppert v. Chaffee

• Decision Date: 06 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 0715,0715
• Parties: KARL GEPPERT v. MILTON CHAFFEE, ET AL.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

KARL GEPPERT v. MILTON CHAFFEE, ET AL.

No. 0715

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

September 6, 2019

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 3-C-15-003363

UNREPORTED

Meredith, Kehoe, Gould, JJ.

Opinion by Gould, J.

* This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Statutes establishing administrative agencies typically authorize those agencies to promulgate regulations to implement them. See Adventist Health Care Inc. v. Maryland Health Care Comm'n, 392 Md. 103, 119 (2006). In this atypical case, the regulation was inconsistent with the enabling statute, and the person caught in the crosshairs was 17-year-old Karl Geppert. As a result, he has repeatedly been stymied by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (the "MVA" or the "Administration") in his efforts to obtain a learner's permit.

The applicable statute required that an applicant for a learner's permit either have a social security number or prove his ineligibility for one (hereinafter, the "social security number requirement"). The applicable regulation, however, provided that an applicant could satisfy the social security number requirement by certifying, on the MVA's application, that he either did not have a social security number or was ineligible for one. Mr. Geppert, who did not have a social security number but was eligible for one, truthfully completed the MVA's application, certifying that he did not have a social security number. After the MVA rejected Mr. Geppert's application, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held that his certification was sufficient to satisfy the social security number requirement. Nevertheless, the MVA again refused to allow him to sit for the learner's permit examination. Mr. Geppert petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, which the circuit court denied.

We find that the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce the ALJ's order and erred by instead addressing the merits of Mr. Geppert's underlying claim. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court andremand the case to the circuit court with instructions to issue a writ ordering the MVA to allow Mr. Geppert to sit for the learner's permit exam and, should he pass, issue him the permit.¹

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2013, Mr. Geppert, at the age of 17, went to the MVA to apply for a learner's permit. The MVA used a computerized application process which he completed by entering information into the appropriate fields and checking appropriate boxes. One such box stated: "I certify under the penalty of perjury that I do not have or I am not eligible for a [social security number]." Mr. Geppert checked that box, making the requisite certification. However, the MVA refused to process Mr. Geppert's application.

The MVA sent Mr. Geppert a notice informing him of its refusal to process his application. According to the notice, the application lacked "[a] verifiable SSN or proof of ineligibility." The MVA's internal records stated that Mr. Geppert's application was denied because he made a false statement.

The MVA's notice also stated Mr. Geppert's right to request a hearing to contest the MVA's decision:

If you believe you have presented sufficient documentation in accordance with Maryland's laws and regulations, you have the right to request a hearing under TR 12-203(b) based on the MVA's determination that you do not meet the statutory license or identification (ID) card requirements and the refusal of your Maryland driver's license or ID. If you wish to request a hearing, you must, within 15 days of the date of this notice, complete the bottom portionof this notice and send the entire notice to the Office of Administrative Hearings with a filing fee of $125.00. Make check or money order payable to Maryland State Treasurer.²

Mr. Geppert timely requested a hearing.

Mr. Geppert's case was heard by an ALJ at the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH").³ Mr. Geppert appeared in person. No one appeared on the MVA's behalf. The MVA submitted its case solely through documents, which the ALJ admitted without objection. The MVA's records caused the ALJ some initial confusion about the nature of the appeal because the records referred to a cancellation of a license, not a refusal to process the application.

Initially, the ALJ appeared inclined to rule, based on TR § 16-103.1, that Mr. Geppert had not provided proof of ineligibility for a social security number, and thus could not have been issued a learner's permit. However, she changed her mind after being shownthat by certifying that he did not have a social security number, Mr. Geppert had complied with the MVA's regulations and the license application.

The ALJ's statements on the record reflect her determination that Mr. Geppert's certification under COMAR 11.17.12.02 satisfied the statutory social security number requirement:

Okay. I'm going to find as a fact that he did submit a certification by way of the MVA computer saying he doesn't have it or is not eligible. Quite frankly, if that's good enough for them, I mean if that's the way they have it formulated, that's up to them.

***

If there's some policy that I'm not aware of, I find that the regulation appears to be more liberal than the language of the statute. If they need to fix their regulation, they need to do it going forward.

If they really mean that they may not or shall not, the statute says may not, but if you read the regulation it appears that if he gives a certification, that that's enough.

That he gave this little pro forma certification on the computer, that that's good enough for the MVA, so be it. If it's not, they need to fix that. That's not for me to do. Okay?

But he did not violate 16-201(a) or 16-301.1 because he did provide it such as it is. Okay?

***

And I will write on my docket sheet that the denial of learner's permit [is] not upheld and that as far as I can understand that based on the interplay between the statute and the regulation, that they should issue that to him, presuming that that certification that they have on their electronic form is sufficient.

The ALJ's written order stated:

MVA denied Karl Geppert a learner's permit because he did not provide a Social Security number, see TR 16-103.1(11), or satisfactory documentation that he is not eligible for one. However, Mr. Geppert provided evidence that he checked off the certification on a computer at an MVA branch and at Glen Burnie. Pursuant to COMAR 11.17.12.02, it appears that this is sufficientnotwithstanding the mandatory language in 16-103.1. 42 USC section 666, referenced in regulation, has to do with child support enforcement.

***

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Licensee did not violate Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 16-201 (a), or 16-103.1.

***

Based on the above interpretation of the regulation and statute, MVA should issue a learner's permit to Karl Evan Geppert, DOB 6/4/96, based on application initiated 11/6/13, modified 1/9/1[4].

The MVA's internal record described the result of the hearing before the ALJ as "REFUSAL REVERSED."

The MVA did not seek judicial review of the ALJ's decision in the circuit court, as was its statutory right under SG § 10-222.

Armed with the ALJ's order, Mr. Geppert twice returned to the MVA and demanded that he be allowed to sit for the learner's permit exam. Undeterred by the ALJ's decision or even its own interpretation of that decision ("refusal reversed"), the MVA denied both requests.

In March 2015, Mr. Geppert filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, requesting that the court order the MVA to comply with the ALJ's decision, allow him to sit for the permit examination under TR § 16-106, and issue him a permit upon its successful completion. Mr. Geppert alleged that he had both the clear right to sit for the examination for a learner's permit based on the ALJ's order and the right to be issued the permit upon passing the exam.

The MVA responded that the ALJ's order would have required it to issue a license in violation of federal and state law due to Mr. Geppert's failure to satisfy the socialsecurity number requirement set forth in the statute. The MVA argued that the ALJ had erred by elevating the regulation (with which Mr. Geppert complied) over the enabling statute. The MVA also argued that the ALJ's order was too vague and unclear to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Essentially, the MVA's argument was that the ALJ had gotten it wrong, and therefore Mr. Geppert did not have the legal right to have the order enforced.

The circuit court accepted the MVA's invitation to address the merits of the ALJ's order and found that the ALJ's order was legally incorrect because Mr. Geppert had not satisfied the social security number requirement established by TR §§ 16-103.1 and 16-122. The court therefore concluded that Mr. Geppert did not have a legal right to take the exam and denied his petition. Mr. Geppert noted a timely appeal.

THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

Mr. Geppert argues that the ALJ's order constituted a final order from which the MVA had failed to seek judicial review and is therefore shielded from the MVA's collateral attack by the doctrine of res judicata. Second, Mr. Geppert argues that the circuit court erred in creating a requirement that he supply a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that he was ineligible for a social security number. Third, Mr. Geppert contends that the trial court denied him due process by finding that he had not provided "satisfactory documentary evidence" when he had satisfied the certification process established by the MVA's regulations and its computerized application.

The MVA argues that, as an initial matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because...