Check out some similar questions!

pwillett06 · Apr 8, 2006, 06:57 PM

My suspension is up for a first offense DUI. There was an accident, I had no insurance and was hit by another driver. There is no civil case, no court judgements, just letters from the other drivers insurance company wanting me to pay for her damages. The DOT received the same letter that I did asking for damages and says that I can not get my license back until I pay her. If I have no court judgements or civil suit against me for her damages, can the DOT keep me from getting my license back? The other drivers insurance company sent the DOT the damage amount. How can this be evidence against me if it did not come from the courts? When I went to court there was nothing submitted for damages and the county attorney said they did not expect any since they did not receive any paper work back from the other party. The county attorney sent out damage/restitution papers and did not receive anything back.

Fr_Chuck · Apr 8, 2006, 07:09 PM

A drivers licence is a priviage not a right,

Guess what if you drive without insurance and have a wreck, and you don't make payments arrangements, the mere fact they don't sue you is no defense.

So if you don't pay, yes they can keep you from getting a licence.

pwillett06 · Apr 8, 2006, 07:26 PM

I understand the privilege aspect of a drivers license. I never have felt my punishment was unjust insured or not insured. My question was if the DOT is above our court system and if they can base their decision on a single letter which has no legal basis. A letter constitutes a legal judgement?

fredg · Apr 9, 2006, 05:38 AM

HI,
The DOT can withhold your license until you pay.
Seems like you have two choices;
One is to pay, and the other is to get a Lawyer; who can advise you on how to proceed if you want to question the DOT's decision.
In VA, before one gets a license, they must show proof of insurance, or make some kind of other arrangements. Not doing so constitutes judgements against that person by the VA Department of Motor Vehicles. No court, or judge ruling required.
If you wish to read a little more about VA, here is a link:
http://www.kanetix.com/roanoke-car-insurance-va
Scroll down to the heading "Virginia Auto Insurance". I don't know what state or area you live in, so am offering this link just for some information.

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2006, 06:14 AM

Frankly I find this odd. I agree the that your state licensing bureau can withhold reinstatement of your license for a variety of reasons. But I can't see the state interceding on behalf of an individual like this. I also don't see you officially owing this money unless a civil judgement has been entered against you. It should not be hard for such a judgement to be entered and the other party's insurance company would do that.

I must also disagree with this statement;

Originally Posted by Fredg

In VA, before one gets a license, they must show proof of insurance, or make some kind of other arrangements. Not doing so constitutes judgements against that person by the VA Department of Motor Vehicles. No court, or judge ruling required.

A judgement, by definition, is the result of a civil proceeding. Also proof of insurance is NOT required for getting a license (see here:
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/ci...ligibility.asp). In most states it's the CAR that's insured. So insurance is required for registering a car, not getting a license. If you are caught driving an uninsured vehicle, you will be subject to fines or revocation of license. But a civil judgement would not be entered as a result.

Bottomline; I think you need to consult an attorney, one knowledgeable of motor vehicle issues. Something doesn't smell right here.

mr.yet · Apr 9, 2006, 07:12 AM

You can stand up for your rights and challenge the DOT. Demand you right to a fair and competent hearing. Here are some of the Court cites you can use. Demand your rights!

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.

"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.

"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct. SF, 140 Cal. 1.

"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.

Fr_Chuck · Apr 9, 2006, 02:48 PM

And a day in court would be a great thing. Get a judgement, garnishment of pay so that the victim can receive their money.

pwillett06 · Apr 9, 2006, 05:45 PM

Therein lies the problem, my state DOT office has taken a letter as prove of a judgement. I am not saying that I won't pay for damages, I am saying that no legal action has been taken against me for the damages. The judge asked the county attorney 4 times if he should withhold my license for another year to see if anything comes in and the county attorney said no. I am on probation and my probation officer has no restitution paper work on me at all. The insurance company has contacted me mulitple times and has never said anything about a civil suit. I think this is because if we go to civil court I would have evidence that the other driver was the cause of the accident and they would not be able to collect from me. Because they sent the letter to my DOT office already, the DOT has put this on my record as something that is owed. Civil court is where I would be able to prove who was at fault. I went to court for the DUI and nothing else. The accident was mentioned, but wasn't what I was in court for. I do not plan on registering a car in my name, but I do have access to a car that is insured. I was given a suspension for what my judge ordered me suspended for, DUI. The DOT office has decided to keep me from getting my license.

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2006, 06:20 PM

Sorry, but I again must demur. I know of no DOT (or DMV) that would take such action with a court order. The responsibility of the state licensing agency is to issue and maintain the licenses. They have no responsibility to intercede between individuals, especially with a court entered judgement.

Now it is possible that the DOT "put this on my(your) record as something that is owed". But having it on your record and having it used to keep your license under suspension are two different things.

Now your license was suspended for the DUI. You haven't said whether that suspension has expired or not. Maybe that's why its still suspended.

Bottomline here is either you are not giving us the full story, you are misunderstanding something or what you have told us is true. If it's the latter, then you need to consult your attorney. I don't believe the DOT has the right to do what you have related. If its one of the other two, well you still need to consult your attorney on what you need to do.

pwillett06 · Apr 9, 2006, 06:47 PM

That is how I found out that they received the letter. My suspension has been up for months now and when I called to see what the procedure was for getting my license back that is when they told me I had to pay the other driver because of the letter. I understood everything they told me. I went through it with them over and over and they insisted it had to be paid. I also had to go to drunk driving school (done) and get an alcohol evaluation (done). They also said I had to show proof of insurance (SR22). I have the papers from court. I am a paralegal and understand what they say. The driving school, evaluation, and insurance is the only thing that was sent to the DOT from my judge and I have done all of them but the insurance. There is nothing from the courts about damages. That is what is so confusing to me. The DOT made the decision on their own about the damages and I can't afford an attorney to fix it.

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2006, 07:10 PM

If you don't go to an attorney then I'm not sure what else you might do. But, as I said, this sounds like the DOT has overstepped their bounds. But getting them to admit it and rescind it means either taking them to court or taking the matter up with a higher power. The problem with that is, as a DUI you are not a sympathetic figure.

Send letters to the head of the DOT, the state's Attorney General. The Governor's office. Tell them you feel the DOT is acting beyond their mandate, the judge who handled your case. Tell them you need to know under what justification they are continuing to withhold your license or that the suspension be released.

fredg · Apr 10, 2006, 04:57 AM

Hi,
You really can't afford NOT to have a lawyer. There are those who will talk with you, determine how to proceed, and set up a payment schedule for you. They may also require a small "up-front" retainer fee. I really suggest talking with friends, or co-workers, getting the name of a lawyer who would help you.
Best of luck.

magprob · Apr 14, 2006, 04:04 PM

If you are telling us all information then I agree that the DOT is wrong. First of all, how many different estimates by auto body shops did they give to the DOT. They cannot just tell the DOT that you owe them X amount of dollors. It just does not work that way. The DOT has to get all of that info from the courts... a decision in a civil hearing. I can't imagine the DOT doing this sort of thing-bypassing DUE PROCESS. Are you sure you have all of the facts?:confused:

pwillett06 · Apr 14, 2006, 07:57 PM

I received notification, in the mail, from the DOT. It came in the same form that my suspension came in. I called them to find out how they came up with this amount since I had gotten nothing from the courts and nothing saying that someone was or had sued me. They told me that they received a letter from the other drivers insurance company telling them what the damages totalled. No one else received anything, not the judge, not the county attorney, no one but the DOT. I can not get anywhere with the local DOT office. I pled guilty to the DUI. I have never gone to court or been served to go to court over the accident. I was suspended for DUI and that suspension is over. I know I am going to have to get a lawyer, because you can't fight the DOT without one.

Fr_Chuck · Apr 14, 2006, 08:05 PM

Was going to check motor vechile laws for your state, but did not see what state you are in posted,

I did look up Il law for example, all DUI suspensions are considered administrative not judicial, although the courts can order it, most are merely followed by the courts by state statue

for example in Il they have a stuate that you either have to have a letter stating the other party will not sue you, a deposit on file with the state in a sum to cover the amount of possible damages, a written repayment plan or a receipt where you have paid for the damages ( they also allow bankruptcy on the debt)
There was no requirement that there be a law suit or any judgement, once you are found criminally guilty in criminal court, though statue you are expected to pay for damages prior to receiving your licence. 625 ILCS 5/7-208, is the statue for IL.

pwillett06 · Apr 14, 2006, 08:37 PM

I pled guilty to a DUI after being broadsided by the other driver. The other driver hit me. I have never been to court for the accident. I was not ticketed nor fined or anything else for the accident. Everything was about the DUI.

magprob · Apr 14, 2006, 08:51 PM

Well there you go! It just goes to show how powerful the insurance companies are. Since it was a DUI, you probably have not a chance even with a lawyer. I would talk to one to find out for sure though. Good luck!

Fr_Chuck · Apr 14, 2006, 09:01 PM

Ok, we have a communication issue somewhere, you could not plead guilty to DUI if there was not a ticket. Or if the police did not charge you with DUI. If you refused a blood test then the DUI suspension is automatic and you don't always go to court but all of the state administrative rules would still apply.

But if you "plead guilty to DUI" you plead it to someone.
And of course if you plead guilty there is still a court ( you may not be there but a judge signs off on your gulity plea.

There is just something missing on the story.

Wreck happens, police come, they say, hey you are drunk, they ask you to do tests, or take breath test, you... either do it or refuse.

Without a police charge or your refusal to test there can be no charge.

Not up on every state but I was certified in DUI enforcement in two states and tested dozens of people and testified in court dozens of other times.

But in either case of a criminal charge or an admin suspension, many states have as listed an admin rule that certain costs have to be paid.

Since you did not sue them for the damages, and because normally a drunk driver takes some assumption of guilt for any accident.
The police report if it shows the other driver at fault could help you.
You will have to file for an admin hearing at the DOT office. But you will have to know their rules and the such.

But a good attorney will be a must. For example, there was one attorney in Atlanta, he charged 5000 just to walk in the door for the first DUI hearing or court date. But I never once saw him lose a case, he could get anyone off by using some loop hole or something in the law.

fredg · Apr 15, 2006, 04:56 AM

HI,
If by now, you do not have a lawyer, please get one. Maybe some friends or co-workers can suggest one, with a good reputation involved with what you are going through.
I do wish you the best, and good luck.

ScottGem · Apr 15, 2006, 06:51 AM

As I said from the beginning, there seemed to be a number of holes in your story. As Chuck pointed out, you "plead guilty" in a court and only in a court. While you may have been broadsided it could have happened if YOU ran a red light or a stop sign and crossed their path. In which case it was entirely your fault.

We are here to help people, but we can only deal with the information we are given. If you withhold info or give us incorrect info then our advice may not be correct for the real situation.