[Cite as Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2025-Ohio-482.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NORMAN PAUL TAYLOR JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs-
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF Case No. CT2024-0131 PUBLIC SAFETY, BMV
Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CF2024-0082
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 12, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee
BRIAN W. BENBOW DAVE YOST 803 Taylor Street Attorney General of Ohio Zanesville, Ohio 43701 BRITTANY N. COLLINS Assistant Attorney General Executive Agencies Section 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Appellant Norman P. Taylor appeals the October 31, 2024 Decision entered
by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his administrative
appeal from the suspension of his commercial driver’s license issued by appellee Ohio
Department Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant holds a commercial driver’s license. On July 19, 2023, the BMV
sent Appellant a Notice of Suspension of Driving and Registration Privileges, informing
Appellant his commercial driver’s license was indefinitely suspended due to his failure to
appear or comply with a court order. The Notice advised Appellant the suspension
commenced on July 13, 2023, and would remain in effect until he satisfied all court orders
and requirements. The Notice was mailed to Appellant at 1009 Lindberg Avenue,
Zanesville, Ohio. The Lindberg Avenue address was the address Appellant had last
reported to the BMV. The Notice was returned to the BMV by the United States Post
Office Service as “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD.”
{¶3} On January 4, 2024, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”)
reported to the BMV Appellant had been convicted of driving under suspension on
January 2, 2024, with July 19, 2023, as the date of the offense. On January 10, 2024,
the BMV sent Appellant a Notice of Disqualification and Opportunity for Hearing. The
Notice was also mailed to the 1009 Lindberg Avenue, Zanesville, Ohio address, which
remained the address Appellant had last reported to the BMV. The Notice advised
Appellant the BMV would disqualify Appellant’s commercial driver’s license due to the
reported conviction, in accordance with R.C. 4506.16. The Notice informed Appellant he Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 3
had the opportunity to request a hearing to contest the suspension within thirty (30) days.
The Notice was returned to the BMV by the United States Post Office Service as “NOT
DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD.”
{¶4} After Appellant failed to request a hearing, the BMV issued a Final Order of
Disqualification on February 14, 2024. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the
Final Order to the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. After the record was
transmitted, the parties filed a joint motion for scheduling order. The trial court issued a
judgment entry setting the briefing schedule on July 19, 2024. The parties filed their
respective briefs as scheduled.
{¶5} Via Decision filed October 31, 2024, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s
appeal as untimely. The trial court found Appellant failed to file a notice of appeal with the
BMV within the time prescribed by R.C. 119.12(D). The trial court further found, as a result
of Appellant’s failure to file a notice of appeal with the BMV, the court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction.
{¶6} It is from this decision Appellant appeals, raising the following assignments
of error:
I. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF RELIABLE, PROBATIVE
AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE TRIAL [SIC] COMMITTED
PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ISSUING AN INCORRECT LEGAL
CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO APPEAL HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION IN A TIMELY MANNER. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 4
II. THE STATE OF OHIO FAILED TO PROPERLY NOTIFY
APPELLANT OF HIS LICENSE SUSPENSION IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONS WHEN THE STATE OF OHIO HAD CLEAR
UNCONROVERTD [SIC] EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION THAT THE
STATE WAS USING AN INCORRECT MAILING ADDRESS THAT THE
STATE INTENTIONALLY CHOSE TO IGNORE. AS SUCH, THE APPEAL
TIME NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE LICENSE SUSPENSION
NEVER TOOK EFFECT. ANY ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION
WAS ACCORDINGLY VOID AB INITIO.
III. SHOULD THIS COURT FIND THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY SERVE APPELLANT DUE TO THE BMV
REGULATIONS, SAID REGULATIONS VIOLATE THE OHIO AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
Standard of Review
{¶7} R.C. 119.12 grants a right of appeal to the common pleas court to “[a]ny
party adversely affected by any order of an agency issued pursuant to an adjudication.”
R.C. 119.12(A). The statute further provides, “[u]nless otherwise provided by law relating
to a particular agency, notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after” the mailing
of the notice of the agency's order as provided in this section. R.C. 119.12(D).
{¶8} A trial court's decision to dismiss an administrative appeal brought pursuant
to R.C. 119.12, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction presents a question of law which we Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 5
review de novo. Cyr v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2022-Ohio-25, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.), citing
Nkanginieme v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2015-Ohio-656, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.).
I.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the trial court’s
dismissal of his administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically,
Appellant asserts, because the BMV failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.
119.09 for proper service, the 15-day appeal period prescribed in R.C. 199.12 had not
commenced; therefore, his appeal was timely filed with the trial court.
{¶10} Our threshold inquiry is whether the BMV properly served Appellant with
notice of the Final Order of Disqualification thereby triggering the 15-day appeal period.
{¶11} R.C. 119.07 sets forth the notice and publication requirements for
administrative agencies. However, R.C. 119.062 exempts the BMV from the registered
mail and notice requirements of R.C. 119.07. R.C. 4501.022 permits the BMV to establish
its own procedure for proper notice to individuals whose licenses are revoked or
suspended, and provides:
The registrar of motor vehicles shall determine the necessary or
appropriate method by which written notice of an order revoking or
suspending a * * * commercial driver's license * * * may be provided to the
person holding the license * * *
Pursuant to rules adopted by the registrar, the bureau of motor
vehicles shall implement proof of mailing procedures to provide verification
that written notice of an order revoking or suspending a motor vehicle Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 6
driver's or commercial driver's license * * * was sent to the person holding
the license * * *.
R.C. 4501.022.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2025-Ohio-482.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NORMAN PAUL TAYLOR JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs-
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF Case No. CT2024-0131 PUBLIC SAFETY, BMV
Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CF2024-0082
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 12, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee
BRIAN W. BENBOW DAVE YOST 803 Taylor Street Attorney General of Ohio Zanesville, Ohio 43701 BRITTANY N. COLLINS Assistant Attorney General Executive Agencies Section 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 2
Hoffman, J. {¶1} Appellant Norman P. Taylor appeals the October 31, 2024 Decision entered
by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his administrative
appeal from the suspension of his commercial driver’s license issued by appellee Ohio
Department Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant holds a commercial driver’s license. On July 19, 2023, the BMV
sent Appellant a Notice of Suspension of Driving and Registration Privileges, informing
Appellant his commercial driver’s license was indefinitely suspended due to his failure to
appear or comply with a court order. The Notice advised Appellant the suspension
commenced on July 13, 2023, and would remain in effect until he satisfied all court orders
and requirements. The Notice was mailed to Appellant at 1009 Lindberg Avenue,
Zanesville, Ohio. The Lindberg Avenue address was the address Appellant had last
reported to the BMV. The Notice was returned to the BMV by the United States Post
Office Service as “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD.”
{¶3} On January 4, 2024, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”)
reported to the BMV Appellant had been convicted of driving under suspension on
January 2, 2024, with July 19, 2023, as the date of the offense. On January 10, 2024,
the BMV sent Appellant a Notice of Disqualification and Opportunity for Hearing. The
Notice was also mailed to the 1009 Lindberg Avenue, Zanesville, Ohio address, which
remained the address Appellant had last reported to the BMV. The Notice advised
Appellant the BMV would disqualify Appellant’s commercial driver’s license due to the
reported conviction, in accordance with R.C. 4506.16. The Notice informed Appellant he Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 3
had the opportunity to request a hearing to contest the suspension within thirty (30) days.
The Notice was returned to the BMV by the United States Post Office Service as “NOT
DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD.”
{¶4} After Appellant failed to request a hearing, the BMV issued a Final Order of
Disqualification on February 14, 2024. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the
Final Order to the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. After the record was
transmitted, the parties filed a joint motion for scheduling order. The trial court issued a
judgment entry setting the briefing schedule on July 19, 2024. The parties filed their
respective briefs as scheduled.
{¶5} Via Decision filed October 31, 2024, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s
appeal as untimely. The trial court found Appellant failed to file a notice of appeal with the
BMV within the time prescribed by R.C. 119.12(D). The trial court further found, as a result
of Appellant’s failure to file a notice of appeal with the BMV, the court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction.
{¶6} It is from this decision Appellant appeals, raising the following assignments
of error:
I. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF RELIABLE, PROBATIVE
AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE TRIAL [SIC] COMMITTED
PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ISSUING AN INCORRECT LEGAL
CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO APPEAL HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION IN A TIMELY MANNER. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 4
II. THE STATE OF OHIO FAILED TO PROPERLY NOTIFY
APPELLANT OF HIS LICENSE SUSPENSION IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONS WHEN THE STATE OF OHIO HAD CLEAR
UNCONROVERTD [SIC] EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION THAT THE
STATE WAS USING AN INCORRECT MAILING ADDRESS THAT THE
STATE INTENTIONALLY CHOSE TO IGNORE. AS SUCH, THE APPEAL
TIME NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE LICENSE SUSPENSION
NEVER TOOK EFFECT. ANY ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION
WAS ACCORDINGLY VOID AB INITIO.
III. SHOULD THIS COURT FIND THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY SERVE APPELLANT DUE TO THE BMV
REGULATIONS, SAID REGULATIONS VIOLATE THE OHIO AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
Standard of Review
{¶7} R.C. 119.12 grants a right of appeal to the common pleas court to “[a]ny
party adversely affected by any order of an agency issued pursuant to an adjudication.”
R.C. 119.12(A). The statute further provides, “[u]nless otherwise provided by law relating
to a particular agency, notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after” the mailing
of the notice of the agency's order as provided in this section. R.C. 119.12(D).
{¶8} A trial court's decision to dismiss an administrative appeal brought pursuant
to R.C. 119.12, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction presents a question of law which we Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 5
review de novo. Cyr v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2022-Ohio-25, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.), citing
Nkanginieme v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2015-Ohio-656, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.).
I.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the trial court’s
dismissal of his administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically,
Appellant asserts, because the BMV failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.
119.09 for proper service, the 15-day appeal period prescribed in R.C. 199.12 had not
commenced; therefore, his appeal was timely filed with the trial court.
{¶10} Our threshold inquiry is whether the BMV properly served Appellant with
notice of the Final Order of Disqualification thereby triggering the 15-day appeal period.
{¶11} R.C. 119.07 sets forth the notice and publication requirements for
administrative agencies. However, R.C. 119.062 exempts the BMV from the registered
mail and notice requirements of R.C. 119.07. R.C. 4501.022 permits the BMV to establish
its own procedure for proper notice to individuals whose licenses are revoked or
suspended, and provides:
The registrar of motor vehicles shall determine the necessary or
appropriate method by which written notice of an order revoking or
suspending a * * * commercial driver's license * * * may be provided to the
person holding the license * * *
Pursuant to rules adopted by the registrar, the bureau of motor
vehicles shall implement proof of mailing procedures to provide verification
that written notice of an order revoking or suspending a motor vehicle Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 6
driver's or commercial driver's license * * * was sent to the person holding
the license * * *.
R.C. 4501.022.
{¶12} Moreover, “[u]nless a different method is specified by law, the registrar of
motor vehicles shall give written notice of any order revoking, canceling, or suspending *
* * a commercial driver's license * * * by regular mail sent to the person at the person's
last known address as determined in accordance with this rule.” Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1-
10-01(A).
{¶13} Proof of the mailing of a written notice of any order must made in
accordance with Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-10-2, which provides, in relevant part:
The giving of written notice is presumed complete upon the deposit
of the written notice from the United States postal service. Actual receipt by
the addressee is not required if the bureau of motor vehicles has complied
with rule 4501:1-10-01 of the Administrative Code and this rule.
The record of the deposit received from the United States postal
service maintained by the bureau of motor vehicles in accordance with
paragraph (B) of this rule or a copy thereof authenticated in accordance with
section 4501.34 of the Revised Code shall constitute proof of mailing of the
written notice of the order. * **
OAC 4501:1-10-02. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 7
{¶14} Upon review of the record, we find the BMV sent Appellant the Final Order
of Disqualification in accordance with R.C. 4501.022 and OAC 4501:1-10-02. The BMV
sent the Final Order by regular mail to Appellant’s last known address, to wit: 1009
Lindberg Avenue, Zanesville, Ohio. Appellant argues the BMV was responsible for
updating his address after receiving a notice from the Zanesville Municipal Court which
showed a different address from the one Appellant provided to the BMV. We disagree.
{¶15} As the holder of a commercial driver’s license, Appellant is subject to R.C.
4506.14, which provides, in pertinent part:
Each person licensed as a driver under this chapter shall notify the
registrar of any change in the person's address within ten days following
that change. The notification shall be in writing on a form provided by the
registrar and shall include the full name, date of birth, license number,
county of residence, social security number, and new address of the person.
R.C. 4506.14(D).
{¶16} Appellant failed to notify the BMV of his address change. The BMV properly
sent the Final Order of Disqualification to the last known address on file which Appellant
had provided. Accord, Dingey v. Registrar, Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2019-Ohio-3338
(5th Dist.). Appellant cannot use his failure to do that which he was statutorily required to
do as a means to circumvent the timely filing of his administrative appeal. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 8
{¶17} Upon review, we find the trial court correctly determined Appellant failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. We further find the trial court properly dismissed
Appellant’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
{¶18} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II
{¶19} In his second assignment of error, Appellant asserts the manner in which
the BMV served notice of the order suspending his commercial driver’s license violated
his due process rights. Appellant submits, “[t]he regulations regarding ordinary mail
service are Unconstitutional [sic] both on their face and as applied herein.” Brief of
Appellant at p. 20. We disagree.
{¶20} The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law which we review de
novo. Cleveland v. State, 2019-Ohio-3820, ¶ 15. Enactments of the General Assembly
enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. (Citation omitted.) State v. Romage,
2014-Ohio-783, ¶ 7. “[T]he party challenging the validity of the statute bears the burden
of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (Citation
omitted.) Dayton v. State, 2017-Ohio-6909, ¶ 12.
{¶21} In determining the constitutionality of a legislative act, this Court must first
determine whether the party is challenging the act on its face or as applied to a particular
set of facts. Yajnik v. Akron Dept. of Health, Hous. Div., 2004-Ohio-357, ¶ 14. An “as
applied” challenge asserts a statute is unconstitutional as applied to the challenger's
particular conduct. Columbus v. Meyer, 2003-Ohio-1270, ¶ 31 (10th Dist.). In contrast, a
facial challenge asserts a law is unconstitutional as applied to the hypothetical conduct of
a third party and without regard to the challenger's specific conduct. Id. To succeed in a Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 9
typical facial attack, the challenger would have to establish “that no set of circumstances
exists under which [the definition] would be valid.” (Citation omitted.) Corsi v. Ohio
Elections Comm., 2012-Ohio-4831, ¶ 11.
{¶22} “The fundamental requisites of due process of law in any proceeding are
notice and the opportunity to be heard.” (Citations omitted.) In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558,
¶ 17. “In the due process context, reasonable notice means ‘notice reasonably calculated,
under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Dean v. Ohio
Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction, 2018-Ohio-3159, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.).
{¶23} Pursuant to R.C. 4501.022, the BMV has an established procedure for
providing proper notice to individuals whose licenses are revoked or suspended. The
statute also requires the BMV to document proof of mailing of any such notice and to mail
the notice to the last known address of the individual. An individual holding a commercial
driver’s license is also subject to statutory procedures. In this case, the responsibility of
notifying the BMV of any address change. R.C. 4506.14(D). These formalities are
reasonably calculated to apprise the interested party of a proposed revocation or
suspension and the procedure for requesting a hearing to challenge such penalty.
{¶24} We find Appellant has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the BMV’s
statutory mailing procedure is unconstitutional as applied or on its face. The statutory
mailing procedure is reasonably calculated to apprise an individual of the pending
revocation or suspension and affords an opportunity to be heard. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0131 10
{¶25} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶26} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Baldwin, P.J. King, J. concur