[Cite as Wente v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2023-Ohio-3165.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

DARLENE WENTE

 Plaintiff

 v. 

OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 Defendant

Case No. 2023-00192AD

Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶1} Darlene Wente (“plaintiff”) filed this claim against defendant, Ohio Bureau 

of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”, “defendant”, or “registrar”), for “crimes committed by the 

Registrar” including terrorism, corrupt activity, fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment. 

Plaintiff stated that this claim arises out of occasions on July 22, 2020 and March 31, 

2021, when plaintiff was informed by BMV that plaintiff’s license was suspended. Plaintiff 

asserted that plaintiff’s license was illegally suspended on these two dates and that 

plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $4,500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing 

fee with the complaint. 

{¶2} BMV submitted an investigation report denying liability in this case. BMV 

stated that all suspensions and interactions related to plaintiff were handled appropriately

and complied with statutory and administrative requirements. BMV stated that the July 

22, 2020 suspension was an administrative license suspension (“ALS”) which is imposed 

by local law enforcement according to R.C. 4511.191(B)1. BMV stated that after it notified 

plaintiff of the suspension, it discovered that the ALS did not document that it was properly 

served on plaintiff. BMV stated that the day it was notified of the error, it deleted the ALS 

from plaintiff’s record and no fee was collected from plaintiff. As to the second

suspension, BMV stated that plaintiff’s license was suspended because plaintiff was 

1 While defendant’s investigation report cites R.C. 4511.191(B) as the code section which required it to 

suspend plaintiff’s license, it was actually R.C. 4511.191(C) because plaintiff submitted to a urine test which 

came back positive. These code sections operate in the same manner. 
Case No. 2023-00192AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

found guilty of a traffic violation and plaintiff failed to provide proof of insurance. BMV 

contended that according to R.C. 4509.101(D)(5)(a), it is required to suspend the license 

of a person under those circumstances. BMV stated that the notice of suspension, which 

contained information on how to avoid the suspension, was sent to plaintiff on March 31, 

2021. On April 14, 2021, BMV sent plaintiff the final order imposing the suspension on

plaintiff’s license including information about plaintiff’s appeal rights. Plaintiff did not file 

an appeal. BMV stated that in the various emails between its employees and plaintiff, 

plaintiff was reminded several times that proof of insurance was needed in order to 

remove the suspension. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not provide such proof or 

pay the statutorily determined reinstatement fees, therefore BMV has not wronged 

plaintiff. Finally, BMV stated that to the extent that plaintiff alleges criminal activity, this 

court has no jurisdiction.

{¶3} Plaintiff did not file a response to defendant’s investigation report.

{¶4} This court has no jurisdiction “over any criminal matters against the state as 

‘R.C. 2743.02 does not confer jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to consider criminal 

charges that should be adjudicated in the court of common pleas.’” (Citations omitted). 

Howard v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 04AP-1093 and 04AP-1272, 

2005-Ohio-2130, ¶ 17. Thus, to the extent plaintiff asserts violations of criminal law, those 

claims must be dismissed. 

{¶5} To prevail in a claim for negligence, plaintiff must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty, that defendant 

breached that duty, and that defendant’s breach proximately caused plaintiff’s damages. 

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 

8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 

(1984).

{¶6} In this case, the duty of BMV with respect to plaintiff is to follow all relevant

Revised Code sections and act reasonably when exercising its power. Plaintiff has 

provided no evidence that BMV acted unreasonably or outside the statutory provisions. 

Further, even if plaintiff could prove that BMV breached its duty, plaintiff has not proven 

damages. 
Case No. 2023-00192AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶7} The first suspension placed on plaintiff’s license was under R.C. 

4511.191(C)(1). R.C. 4511.191(C)(1) states that when defendant receives a report from 

a law enforcement officer that someone was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while 

impaired by a substance, and that person submitted to a urine test which came back 

positive for the concentration of alcohol specified by criminal statute to constitute driving 

under an impairment, defendant must record the fact that the person’s license was 

suspended by the arresting officer. Upon receipt of such report, defendant suspended 

plaintiff’s license in accordance with the Revised Code. When it learned that all of the 

proper procedures may not have been followed, it deleted the suspension from plaintiff’s 

record and plaintiff was not subject to any fees associated with this suspension. 

Therefore, as to the first suspension, plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the 

evidence that BMV breached its duty to plaintiff or that plaintiff sustained any damages

relating to this suspension. 

{¶8} The second suspension was under R.C. 4509.101, which requires any 

person operating a vehicle in the state to provide proof of financial responsibility. R.C. 

4509.101(D)(5)(a) states, “[u]pon receiving notice from a clerk of courts or traffic violations 

bureau * * * the registrar shall order the suspension of the license of the person required 

under division (A)(2)(a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence 

that plaintiff was not subject to this section or that BMV had proof of plaintiff’s financial

responsibility and suspended plaintiff’s license anyway. Therefore, plaintiff did not prove 

that defendant breached a duty with respect to this suspension. 

{¶9} Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are denied. 
Case No. 2023-00192AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶10} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set 

forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in 

favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER

Deputy Clerk

Filed 8/17/23

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/7/23

DARLENE WENTE

 Plaintiff

 v. 

OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 Defendant

Case No. 2023-00192AD

Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

DETERMINATION