Court Opinion

ID: 9694604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:48:37.660773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:03.932122
License: Public Domain

BYER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
My reading of the record fails to disclose any evidence supporting the proposition that appellee changed her address only with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles with respect to her registration but failed to notify the Bureau of Driver Licensing with respect to her license. Instead, appellee used her registration card, showing the new address, to illustrate that she had notified DOT properly, but that the Bureau of Driver Licensing, in contrast to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, failed to process the change of address form.
On page 6 of the notes of testimony, found in the Reproduced Record at 12a, appellee’s counsel informed the trial court of his argument. He stated his client’s position as being that DOT “had the address. They sent it out on the registration, but they don’t on the license. That is not her fault.” Thus, I read the record as showing that appellee contends that she sent in the two required notices, but that DOT processed only one of them.
The problem is that the trial judge denied the motion to quash and permitted the appeal out of time before either party could present evidence on this point. That is why the registration card is not in evidence and why there is no testimony by appellee with respect to precisely what she had done; all we have are the contentions of counsel and the trial court’s ruling.
Under these circumstances, I would not reverse. Instead, I would vacate and remand with directions that the trial court *25take evidence and make appropriate findings on this jurisdictional question.