Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Kent Abernathy, Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Craig Watson
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 29
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Craig Watson, an Indiana chauffeur-license holder, was denied renewal in 2015 because of a prior Illinois suspension; BMV relied on the Driver License Compact.
- Watson exhausted administrative appeal; BMV issued a final order upholding the denial on December 21, 2015.
- Watson filed a verified petition in county court for special driving privileges; the trial court granted the petition but BMV declined to issue privileges citing statutory/technical reasons.
- Watson then filed a "Motion to Compel Issuance of Specialized Driving Privileges or to Issue a Valid Driver’s License Credential," challenging BMV’s statutory interpretation and asking the court to order issuance of a chauffeur’s license; service was made on the BMV Commissioner and the county prosecutor, not the Attorney General.
- The trial court ordered BMV to issue a chauffeur’s license; the Attorney General moved to intervene and filed a motion to correct error arguing lack of personal jurisdiction because AOPA requires service on the Attorney General for judicial review of agency actions.
- The Court of Appeals held Watson’s motion was effectively a petition for judicial review under AOPA, that service on the Attorney General was required but not made, and thus the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction; the court reversed and vacated the order directing BMV to issue the license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson’s motion was effectively a petition for judicial review requiring compliance with AOPA service rules | Watson framed motion as relief to compel issuance and argued post-enactment statutory amendments removing article 9-28 actions from AOPA should apply retroactively | BMV argued the motion sought judicial review of an agency action and AOPA’s service requirements (including service on the Attorney General) governed and were not followed | Court: Motion was judicial-review in substance; AOPA applied and Watson failed to serve the Attorney General, depriving court of personal jurisdiction |
| Whether 2016 statutory amendments excluding article 9-28 actions from AOPA apply retroactively to excuse service | Watson argued amendments should apply retroactively so AOPA service requirements would not apply | BMV argued amendments are prospective and AOPA governed at the time of the petition | Court: Declined retroactive application — no clear legislative intent and no strong reason to apply retroactively |
| Whether the deputy county prosecutor’s appearance cured defective service on the Attorney General | Watson relied on actual notice via deputy prosecutor who appeared at hearings | BMV argued prosecuting attorney was statutorily required only for special-privileges proceedings and did not substitute for Attorney General in judicial-review matters | Court: Appearance by deputy prosecutor did not constitute service on Attorney General; it did not cure lack of service for judicial review |
| Whether the trial court’s order should be vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction | Watson urged affirmance and equitable-estoppel defenses | BMV sought reversal and vacatur due to lack of required service and jurisdiction | Court: Reversed trial court’s denial of motion to correct error and vacated its order directing issuance of license |
Key Cases Cited
- Guy v. Comm’r, Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 937 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (service upon statutorily required parties is necessary for personal jurisdiction in judicial review of BMV actions)
- Evans v. State, 908 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (actual notice to agency or attorney general can cure defective service in some circumstances)
- State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 2005) (statutes are generally prospective absent clear legislative intent for retroactivity)
- Jocham v. Sutliff, 26 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for motion to correct error; abuse of discretion framework)
- City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (questions of law, including jurisdiction and statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo)