Opinion ID: 2637749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Statute of Limitations Bars Imposing the $100 Restatement Fee on Bradshaw

Text: This case turns primarily on the statutory interpretation of AS 28.15.271. But we must first resolve Bradshaw's contention that Alaska's statute of limitations altogether bars DMV from imposing the reinstatement fee on him. Bradshaw's complaint asserted that [t]he incident that is involved in this matter happen[ed] over 10 years ago. Bradshaw argues that the ten-year statute of limitations contained in AS 09.10.100 prevents the state from enforcing the $100 reinstatement fee provision in AS 28.15.271 because this case is based on information that is over 11 years old. The uninsured accident and Bradshaw's license suspension both occurred in 1995, more than ten years before he applied for reinstatement in 2007. It is unclear whether he considers the accident or the suspension the event that triggered the ten-year statute. DMV argues that statutes of limitations act as defenses to causes of action, that DMV has not brought an action against Bradshaw, and that statutes of limitations do not apply to fees DMV must charge administratively. Alaska Statute 09.10.100 is Alaska's general statute of limitations provision. [15] It states that a party must bring, within ten years, any action for a cause not provided for in another statute. Statutes of limitations attempt to strike a balance between ensuring that claimants have enough time to file claims and protecting persons from due process concerns that arise from stale charges. [16] They do so by barring untimely causes of actions or, in the words of section .100, action[s] for a cause. [17] A `cause of action' is a situation or state of facts which entitles a party to sustain an action and gives him the right to seek judicial interference in his behalf. [18] But a government agency responsible for charging a fee when an applicant seeks a license is not asserting a cause of action when it requires the applicant to pay the fee as a condition of license reinstatement. Nor is it seeking an affirmative remedy or judicial relief. DMV only imposes the reinstatement fee when a person applies for a reinstated license. [19] DMV could not have filed a lawsuit to force Bradshaw to affirmatively seek reinstatement. And DMV did not sue Bradshaw to collect the fee. It was not attempting to obtain judicial relief against Bradshaw; its administrative attempt to collect the fee only responded to Bradshaw's administrative application for reinstatement. DMV's attempt to enforce section .271 consequently is not an action subject to the statute of limitations, and AS 09.10.100 does not prevent DMV from charging Bradshaw the reinstatement fee.