IN THE MATTER OF RUSSELL S. CLINEÂ (NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION), A-4955-15T2

Background

Russell S. Cline accrued 572 E‑ZPass toll violations from Aug. 25, 2011 to Dec. 28, 2012 after his linked credit card repeatedly declined and his E‑ZPass account was closed in Sept. 2012.
Xerox, the contracted vendor, sent advisory notices (including images, date/time, lane) and later referred unpaid matters for collection; MVC conditioned reinstatement of Cline’s registration on payment of $912.30 in tolls, $12,225 in administrative fees (assessed as $50 per violation for many violations), and a $100 restoration fee.
Cline requested a formal hearing; the ALJ conducted a hearing on Feb. 25, 2016 (three years after initial notice) where Xerox’s assistant violations manager (Caraballo) and an MVC official (Donington) testified for the MVC; Cline testified for himself.
Caraballo identified violation records and described the administrative fee as covering various enforcement costs; he provided limited, generalized testimony about cost elements but no detailed financial analysis in the record.
The ALJ upheld the suspension; the MVC Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s decision with a minor numeric modification; Cline appealed to the Appellate Division.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cline)	Defendant's Argument (MVC)	Held
Whether MVC failed to provide timely notice under N.J.S.A. 27:23‑34.3	Notices were mailed late (beyond 60 days), so fees/collection are untimely and suspension is unfounded	Advisory notices were sent (and later e‑mailed); statute’s 60‑day language is permissive; MVC satisfied notice requirements	Rejected Cline; record supports that advisory notices were issued and Cline knew of violations
Whether MVC may suspend registration absent municipal court action	Suspension requires prior municipal court proceeding	MVC can use statutory administrative authority (N.J.S.A. 27:23‑38; 39:5‑30) to suspend for nonpayment	Rejected Cline; administrative suspension is authorized and not mutually exclusive with municipal prosecution
Whether delay in administrative proceedings bars enforcement (laches/prejudice)	Three‑year delay prejudiced ability to contest (lost phone records, faded evidence)	No demonstrated prejudice; suspension occurred only after final determination	Rejected Cline; no showing of changed circumstances or prejudice warranting laches
Whether $50 per‑violation administrative fee is reasonable and supported	Fee excessive, not justified by record; must be based on "actual cost of processing and collecting" per statute	Fee adopted by rule; represents enforcement costs and was procedurally adopted	Partially sustained for Cline: remanded — court found record insufficient to support that fee equals actual per‑violation processing/collection cost and requires MVC to substantiate computation and uniform application on remand

Key Cases Cited

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (the word "may" connotes agency discretion)
Logan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 346 (App. Div. 1997) (deference to agency credibility findings)
In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (standards for reviewing agency action)
Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22 (1995) (agency must follow statutory law)
SSI Med. Servs. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 146 N.J. 614 (1996) (presumption that properly mailed mail is received)
In re Reg. of Oper. Serv. Providers, 343 N.J. Super. 282 (App. Div. 2001) (agency regulation set‑aside standard when it contradicts authorizing statute)
Univ. Cottage Club of Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dept. of Envir. Prot., 191 N.J. 38 (2007) (agencies must act fairly and candidly)
F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 (1985) (government must "turn square corners")
Nw. Covenant Med. Ctr. v. Fishman, 167 N.J. 123 (2001) (laches analysis focuses on prejudice and changed conditions)