E. Foster v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
2059 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- DOT mailed Foster a notice (July 10, 2014) suspending his license 18 months for a June 19, 2014 DUI conviction and informing him of a 30‑day right to appeal to the court of common pleas.
- Foster did not timely appeal; over two years later (Sept. 6, 2016) he petitioned to file an appeal nunc pro tunc, citing vague "personal problems."
- At the nunc pro tunc hearing Foster testified he had lost his physical license, mailed a notarized letter and later submitted a DL‑16 form; he claimed DOT did not initially accept his proof and only began the suspension period after receiving a second DL‑16.
- The trial court credited Foster’s testimony, allowed the nunc pro tunc appeal, and later sustained his appeal on the merits (concluding he had already served the suspension).
- DOT appealed. The Commonwealth Court reversed: (1) the nunc pro tunc grant was improper because Foster did not show extraordinary or non‑negligent circumstances and waited over two years to file; (2) on the merits, the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate a credit computation dispute, which must be addressed administratively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly allowed a nunc pro tunc appeal | Foster claimed personal problems and procedural issues with DOT’s acceptance of his proof prevented timely filing | DOT argued no extraordinary or non‑negligent circumstances shown and delay (over two years) deprived court of jurisdiction | Reversed: nunc pro tunc relief denied — Foster failed to prove unforeseeable, unavoidable events and undue delay defeated the exception |
| Whether trial court could award credit/declare suspension already served in an appeal from DOT’s suspension notice | Foster sought credit, arguing DOT refused his notarized letter and misapplied credit so he had served suspension | DOT argued credit disputes must be resolved administratively, not in a common pleas appeal challenging suspension validity | Reversed on this ground as well: courts must only decide validity of suspension; credit computations are for DOT administrative process |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 129 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (timely appeal requirement and scope of review on nunc pro tunc)
- Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appeal period is mandatory; untimely appeals deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 127 A.3d 871 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (nunc pro tunc standards: fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent circumstances)
- Baum v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 949 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (nunc pro tunc relief limited; appellee prejudice and prompt filing considered)
- Kulick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burden on appellant to show entitlement to nunc pro tunc)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa.) (non‑negligent circumstances exception applies only to unique, compelling cases where filing was attempted but prevented)
- Ladd v. Department of Transportation, 753 A.2d 318 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (credit disputes are administrative matters)
- Xenakis v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 702 A.2d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (trial court lacks authority to compute credit in suspension appeal)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Cardell, 568 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (administrative hearing process for credit computations)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lapinsky, 548 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (limits of court review in suspension appeals)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Yarbinitz, 508 A.2d 641 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (trial court’s role is to determine suspension validity; cannot grant credit or void a properly imposed suspension)