Judy v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

• Decision Date: 08 October 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2002-0293.,2002-0293.
• Parties: JUDY ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

100 Ohio St.3d 122

2003-Ohio-5277

797 NE 2d 45

2003-Ohio-5277

JUDY ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE.

No. 2002-0293.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 11, 2003.

Decided October 8, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Cooper & Walinski and John Czarnecki; Wittenberg, Phillips, Levy & Nusbaum and Jerome Phillips, for appellees and cross-appellants.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, Stephen P. Carney, Associate State Solicitor, Michael Gladman and John W. Barron, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant and cross-appellee.

MOYER, C.J.

{¶ 1} This case requires us to decide (1) whether former R.C. 4511.191(L) authorized the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") to collect only one reinstatement fee from a driver who had made a single request for license reinstatement after receiving an administrative license suspension ("ALS") and a judicial license suspension for a single arrest under R.C. 4511.19(A) and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred in awarding postjudgment interest against the state pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(A).

I

{¶ 2} During separate incidents in 1994, Ohio law enforcement officers arrested Steven Judy and Mark Poirier for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"). Judy and Poirier submitted to breath-alcohol tests, which revealed breath-alcohol concentrations that exceeded the legal limit. In accordance with R.C. 4511.191(F), the arresting officers issued both Judy and Poirier a 90-day ALS. Judy and Poirier subsequently pled no contest to DUI charges, and each received a judicial license suspension for six months under R.C. 4507.16(B).

{¶ 3} At the conclusion of their suspensions, Judy and Poirier petitioned the BMV to reinstate their licenses pursuant to former R.C. 4511.191(L). To that end, Judy and Poirier provided proof of financial responsibility, and each tendered a $250 reinstatement fee. The BMV, however, interpreted former R.C. 4511.191(L) to require a $250 reinstatement fee for each license suspension. Consequently, the BMV required both Judy and Poirier to pay $500—$250 for the ALS and $250 for the judicial license suspension.

{¶ 4} On February 6, 1995, Judy and Poirier filed a class-action lawsuit in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the BMV incorrectly interpreted former R.C. 4511.191(L) and wrongfully assessed two reinstatement fees against the members of the certified class.¹ The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the certified class and ordered the BMV to pay $5,266,650 in restitution and postjudgment interest at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of the partial summary judgment. The BMV appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) incorrectly interpreted former R.C. 4511.191(L), and (3) erred in awarding postjudgment interest against the state. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction and statutory construction but reversed and remanded on the issue of postjudgment interest. The BMV appeals the court of appeals' statutory construction of former R.C. 4511.191(L),² and the certified class cross-appeals the court's denial of postjudgment interest.

{¶ 5} The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.

II

A

{¶ 6} We begin our analysis with a review of the relevant statutory language. Former R.C. 4511.191(L) provides:

{¶ 7} "At the end of a suspension period under this section, section 4511.196, or division (B) of section 4507.16 of the Revised Code and upon the request of the person whose driver's or commercial driver's license or permit was suspended and who is not otherwise subject to suspension, revocation, or disqualification, the registrar shall return the driver's or commercial driver's license or permit to the person upon the occurrence of all of the following:

{¶ 8} "(1) A showing by the person that the person had proof of financial responsibility, a policy of liability insurance in effect that meets the minimum standards set forth in section 4509.51 of the Revised Code, or proof, to the satisfaction of the registrar, that the person is able to respond in damages in an amount at least equal to the minimum amounts specified in section 4509.51 of the Revised Code.

{¶ 9} "(2) Payment by the person of a license reinstatement fee of two hundred and fifty dollars to the bureau of motor vehicles, which fee shall be deposited in the state treasury * * *." (Emphasis added.) Am.Sub.S.B. No. 82, 145 Ohio Laws, Part I, 879, 940.³

{¶ 10} A proper analysis of former R.C. 4511.191(L) requires an examination of the suspensions and reinstatement requirements enumerated under that section.

1. The Suspensions Enumerated Under Former R.C. 4511.191(L)

{¶ 11} The first clause in former R.C. 4511.191(L) enumerates three types of license suspensions that operate in tandem. The first type of license suspension—a suspension "under this section"—is an ALS that an arresting officer issues to a defendant immediately upon arrest and that "lasts at least until the person's initial appearance on the charge." R.C. 4511.191(D)(1)(a). This suspension is "intended to remove from the highway those motorists who are a threat to themselves and to others" until the criminal charge can be heard in a judicial forum. State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 425, 438, 668 N.E.2d 435. The defendant may appeal an ALS "at the * * * initial appearance * * * in the court in which the person will appear on the charge." R.C. 4511.191(H)(1). The ALS continues no later than when "the complaint alleging the violation for which the person was arrested * * * is adjudicated on the merits." R.C. 4511.191(H)(2); Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d at 441, 668 N.E.2d 435.

{¶ 12} The second type of suspension enumerated under former R.C. 4511.191(L)—a suspension under R.C. 4511.196—is an interim suspension that the trial judge may impose if the judge at the initial appearance terminates the ALS but nonetheless determines "that the person's continued driving will be a threat to public safety." R.C. 4511.196(B)(1). The trial court may also impose such a suspension in cases where the ALS is inapplicable, such as when a defendant was arrested for DUI but tested below the prohibited concentration of alcohol. R.C. 4511.196(B)(2). The interim judicial suspension continues "until the complaint on the charge resulting from the arrest is adjudicated on the merits." R.C. 4511.196(C).

{¶ 13} The final type of license suspension enumerated under former R.C. 4511.191(L)—a suspension under R.C. 4507.16(B)—is a postconviction judicial suspension that takes effect "at the point where a criminal conviction of drunk driving is obtained." Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d at 441, 668 N.E.2d 435. This suspension endures for "not less than six months nor more than three years" for first-time offenders and automatically terminates an ALS or an interim license suspension. R.C. 4507.16(B)(1); Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d at 441, 668 N.E.2d 435. The registrar must credit against a postconviction judicial suspension the time during which the license was subject to an ALS or an interim judicial suspension. R.C. 4507.16(J); R.C. 4511.196(C). This statutory scheme allows the ALS and judicial suspensions to work in tandem, thereby removing dangerous drivers from the highway until the criminal charge is adjudicated and then crediting the time served against any suspension imposed upon conviction.

2. The Reinstatement Provisions of Former R.C. 4511.191(L)

{¶ 14} Former R.C. 4511.191(L) delineated the procedure by which a driver could petition the BMV for reinstatement of a license that was subject to one or more of the foregoing suspensions. The general reinstatement provision in former R.C. 4511.191(L) provided that the driver must satisfy three requirements before the financial-responsibility and reinstatement-fee provisions would apply: first, the driver had to wait until the "end of a suspension period"; second, the driver had to make a "request" to the BMV for reinstatement; and third, the license must not have been "otherwise subject to suspension, revocation, or disqualification." The use of the conjunctive "and" between each of these requirements indicates that the financial responsibility and reinstatement-fee provisions did not become operative until all of the requirements in the general provision had been satisfied.

{¶ 15} Given that the requirements in the general provision were conditions precedent to the applicability of the reinstatement-fee provision, it follows that the third requirement in the general provision—that the license "not be otherwise subject to suspension, revocation, or disqualification"—must have been satisfied before the BMV could collect a reinstatement fee. As a result, the BMV could not charge a reinstatement fee—and, hence, could not reinstate a license— until all license suspensions had concluded. Because a driver had to wait until all suspensions had concluded before applying for reinstatement, the driver necessarily applied for only one reinstatement when making a "request" pursuant to former R.C. 4511.191(L).

{¶ 16} With these principles in mind, we turn to the instant case.

B

{¶ 17} The BMV asserts that former R.C. 4511.191(L) required a $250 reinstatement fee for each applicable suspension enumerated under that section. In support of this proposition, the BMV advances two primary arguments: (1) the plain language of the statute required a separate fee for each suspension, and (2) our prior case law is consistent with a "separate fee" interpretation. We address...