Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 637
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Orndorff was designated a habitual violator in 2004 after three driving-while-unlicensed convictions within ten years.
- BMV issued a valid license to Orndorff in 2008, though her HTV status remained on record.
- In 2012 the BMV notified Orndorff of a ten-year suspension based on HTV status, effective May 29, 2012.
- Orndorff sought judicial review and a preliminary injunction, arguing laches against the government and due process concerns.
- Trial court denied injunctive relief, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on laches against the government; court of appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does laches bar HTV suspension against the government? | Orndorff contends laches applies to the government given delay harms public interests. | BMV argues laches rarely applies to government and public interests do not support it here. | Yes; laches can apply to the government when public interest is threatened. |
| Was the BMV's delay in acting excusable? | Delay caused adverse effects, undermining public interest; delay excusable due to system issues and unflagged HTV status. | Delay was understandable and not inexcusable. | No; BMV delay was inexcusable, supporting laches. |
| Does Orndorff have likelihood of success on the merits and public-interest prong for a preliminary injunction? | Orndorff shows prima facie laches and that public interest favors preventing the suspension. | BMV argues public interest supports suspension and laches not shown. | Yes; Orndorff demonstrates likelihood of success on laches and that public interest favors injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. Indiana BMV, 931 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (public interest; laches not applicable without threatened public interest)
- Thomas v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 979 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. App. 2012) (public interest not threatened; laches not applicable)
- Samplawski v. City of Portage, 512 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (articulable public policy reason; limits on public funds; estoppel considerations)
- Ackman v. Indiana Real Estate Comm’n, 766 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (laches requires inexcusable delay; government context)
- Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 756 N.E.2d 587 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (public interest and laches; public policy undefined)
- Zimmer, Inc. v. Davis, 922 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (injunction standards; deference to trial court findings)