$211.01 Error by DMV Grows Into Costly Legal Tug of War

When a mistake by the state Department of Motor Vehicles cost him $211.01, Larry R. Parker marched off to small claims court--and won.

But before Parker could celebrate, the DMV enlisted the California attorney general to appeal the judgment, a move that some legal experts criticize as costly and an abuse of an overburdened legal system.

This time the DMV came up a winner, arguing not over the mistake involving Parker’s truck registration, but contending that he bungled the refund claim form.

Parker isn’t giving up. “It’s become a principle now,” said the Huntington Beach artistic director, who is no relation to personal injury attorney Larry H. Parker. “It has nothing to do with the money anymore.

“They did me wrong. Just because I fell into the loopholes doesn’t mean they can weasel out of it.”

DMV spokesman Bill Madison said the agency was obligated to fight the judgment because Parker had filed his refund claim with the wrong state agency. DMV officials were worried that the case could set a bad precedent for anyone who made the same mistake, Madison said.

Parker said his bureaucratic odyssey started Jan. 26, 1994, when he paid $1,758 in registration fees for his 1961 GMC truck and another car. A clerk at the DMV office in Westminster handed him a receipt, but told him he needed a smog check for his black and yellow pickup before he could receive a new tag.

The smog check request surprised Parker. He had never needed one before because vehicles made before 1966 do not require smog certificates.

By the time the DMV finally realized that Parker didn’t need the check, Huntington Beach police had towed the truck because of “incomplete registration.”

Parker said a DMV supervisor apologized for the mistake and handed him a claim form to recoup the $137 it took to get his truck back from the police and an additional $74.01 for driving expenses and time lost at work.

Parker maintains that he merely followed the instructions on the refund form given to him by the DMV.

But the DMV rejected his claim for a refund--and again apologized. In a letter denying the refund, a DMV official stated that the agency doesn’t make refunds for such expenses. “However,” the official wrote, “we do apologize for the department error requesting biannual smog on your 1961 vehicle.”

Parker then took the DMV to small claims court in Westminster. After a brief hearing in July, a court commissioner ruled in his favor, awarding him $211.01 plus $22 for the costs of filing his action.

The DMV appealed, and three weeks ago, Parker found himself standing toe to toe with Deputy Atty. Gen. Christopher J. Ruiz before Orange County Superior Court Referee Greer H. Stroud. Attorneys are allowed to argue small claims issues only on appeal.

Ruiz, in his legal filings, did not contest the amount Parker said he was owed, but instead asked Stroud to overturn the small claims judgment because of the claim filing mistake.

Ruiz said Parker should have filed his claim with the State Board of Control, not the DMV.

A ruling in Parker’s favor “would clearly defeat” the law and “the legislative intent [which] was to create a state agency [Board of Control] to handle and process all claims against the state of California,” Ruiz wrote in court papers.

He asked the referee to “not be swayed by [Parker’s] arguably sympathetic factual contentions.” The court, he said, should only “consider the legal issue before it which is whether or not plaintiff complied with” the law.

Ruiz declined to talk about the case, but Madison, the DMV spokesman, said the agency has vigorously contested Parker’s small claims judgment because “it would set a precedent to say that if we give you a refund form, it makes it binding on us.”

The case has triggered a debate about whether the appeal by state officials is an appropriate use of a clogged court system.

Presiding Superior Court Judge James L. Smith said there was “no question the cost of court resources far exceeds the amount in issue here.” The judge estimated Thursday that the case probably cost at least $4,000 in public funds for court and attorney expenses so far.

Philip Merkel, a law professor at Western State University College of Law in Irvine, said the appeal was “not a very prudent use of state resources.”

“When we have a court system that is backlogged with civil and criminal cases, this case is not important enough to be in court,” Merkel said. “If they owe him, they should pay him the money.”

Merkel said, “This case does not have any real precedential value. If the DMV paid this judgment in small claims court, who in the public would know about it? These opinions are not reported anywhere like appellate cases are.”

Pat Crockett of Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse also questioned why the DMV--and the attorney general--had bothered with such a minor case.

“I certainly think they should look carefully before they spend taxpayers’ money on such [legal action],” Crockett said. “If thousands or millions were at stake, that’s a different situation. But for [$233], it’s cheaper for us to pay it than to set foot in the courtroom.”

Parker, who received the referee’s decision in the mail Wednesday, said he is looking for a lawyer and planning an appeal, this time to justices of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana.

“It’s ridiculous how much money they’re wasting in fighting something they should really honor,” Parker said. “They’re just trying to find loopholes.”