[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 cla im against defendant, Ohio Bure au of Motor Vehicles ( “ BMV ”
, “ de fendant ” , o r “ re gistra r ” )
, for “ crimes co mmitted by the Registrar ” in cluding terroris m, corrupt activity, fraud, neg ligence, and unjust enrichment.
Plain tiff stated that th is claim a rises out of occasions on July 22, 2020 a nd March 31, 2021, wh e n plaintiff w as informed by BMV that plaintiff ’ s license was suspended. Plaintiff
asserted that plaintiff ’ s license was illegally suspended on these t wo dates and that plaintiff suffered dam ages in the amount of $4,500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee with the complaint. {¶2} BMV s ub m itted an investigation report denying liability in this case. BMV
stat ed that all suspensions and intera ctions related to plaintiff were han dled appropriately
and compl ied with statutory and a dm in istrative re qui rements. BMV stated that the July 22, 2020 suspension was an a dministrative license suspension ( “ AL S ” ) which is imposed by local l aw enforcement acco rding to R.C. 4511.191(B) 1 . BMV stated that after it not ified plaintiff of the su spens ion , it discovered that the ALS did not document th at it was pr operly 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 plainti ff. As to the second suspensi on, BMV stated that plaintiff ’ s licens e was sus pended because p laintif f was

1 While defendan t ’ s investigation report cites R.C . 4511.19 1(B) as the code section which requ ire d it to suspend plaintiff ’s license, it was a ctually R.C. 4511. 1 91(C) because plaintiff submitted to a urin e test wh ich came bac k p ositive. The se code se ctions operate in the same manner.Ca se No. 2023

- 00192AD

- 2

- MEMORANDUM DEC ISI ON

found guilt y of a traffic violation and plaintiff f ailed to provide proof of insurance . BMV
contend ed that according to R.C. 4509.101(D)(5)(a), it is required to suspend the lice n se of a p erson under t hose circumstances. BMV stated that the n otice of suspension , which
containe d informatio n on how to avoid the suspension, was sent to plaintiff on March 31,
202 1. On April 14, 2021, BMV sen t plaintiff t he f inal order imposing the su spension on plaintiff ’ s license in c lu ding information about pla i ntiff’s a ppeal rights . P laintiff did not file an appeal. B MV stated that in th e various emails between its employees and plaintiff, plaintiff was rem in ded sever al times that proof of insuran ce was needed in order to

remo ve the suspension

. Defendant ass ert ed that p laintiff did not pro v ide such proof or
pa y the statutor ily determined reinstatement fees, therefore BMV has not w ronged plaintiff . Finally
, BMV stated that to the extent that plain tiff alleges criminal activity, this
court h as no jur isdiction

. {¶3} P laintiff did not file a response to defendant’s investigatio n report. {¶4} This court has no jurisdiction “ o ver any criminal matters against the state as

‘ R.C. 2743. 02 does not confer jurisdictio n to the C ourt of C laims to consider cri minal charges that shou ld be adjudicated in the court of common pleas

. ’ ” (Citations omitted). Howard v. Supreme C ourt of Ohio , 1 0th D i st. Franklin Nos. 04AP

- 10 93 and 04AP

- 127 2,
2005

- Ohi o
- 2130
, ¶ 17

. Thus, to the ex tent plaintiff asserts violations of criminal law, those
claims must be dismissed. {¶5} T o prevail in a cl aim for neglige nce, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty, that de fendant
breached that du ty, a nd that defendant ’ s breach p roximately caused plaintiff ’ s damag es. Armstrong v. Best Bu

y Co

. , Inc.
, 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003

- O hio

- 2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶
8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prod s

. , Inc.
, 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 70 7 (1984). {¶6} In this c ase, the duty of BMV with respect to plaintiff is to f ollow all relevant
Re vised Code sections and act rea sonably when exercising its power. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that BMV acted unreasonably o r outside the statutor y provisions

. Further , even if plaintiff could prove that BMV breached its duty, pl aintiff has not proven damages.Ca se No. 2023

- 00192AD

- 3

- MEMORANDUM DEC ISI ON

{¶7} T h e fi r st suspension pla ced on plaintiff ’ s license was u nder R.C

. 4511.19 1 ( C )( 1 )

. R.C. 4511.191 (C) (1) state s that when defendant receives a report from
a law enforce ment officer that someone was arrested for operating a motor vehicle wh il e imp aire d by a su bstance
, and that person submitted to a urine test which came back positive fo r the con centrat ion of alcohol s pecified by criminal statute to consti t ute driving
unde r an impairment , defendant must re cord the fact that the person ’ s license was suspended by the arresting officer. Upon receipt of such report, defendant suspended plai ntiff ’ s license in acc ordance with the Revised Code. When it learned that all of the
pr oper procedures may not have been followed, it deleted the suspension from pl aintiff ’ s record and plaintiff w as not subject to any fees associ ated with this suspension.
Therefo re, as to the first suspension, p laintiff has not pr oven by a preponderance of the

e vidence that BMV breached its dut y t o plaintiff o r that plaintiff sustain ed any damages relating to this suspension

. {¶8} The second suspension was u nder R.C. 4509 .101
, w hich requires any
per s on operating a vehicle in the state to provide proof o f finan cial responsib ilit y

. R.C. 4509.101(D)(5)(a) states , “ [ u] po n receiving notice from a cle rk of courts o r traffic violations
b ureau * * * the reg istra r shall order the suspension of the lice n se of the person required

un der di vision (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 d id not prov e that defendan t bre ached a d uty with respec t to this suspension

. {¶9} Therefore, pla intiff ’ s claims are denied.Ca se No. 2023

- 00192AD

- 4

- MEMORANDUM DEC ISI ON

{¶10} Having considered all the evidence in the c laim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, j u dgment is rendere d in
favor of defen dant. Court costs are assessed a gains t plai nt iff

.

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER Deputy Cler k

Filed 8/17/23 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/7/23 DARLENE WENTE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Defendant Ca se No. 2023

- 00192A D
Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

E NTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION