Commonwealth Court Cases - Commonwealth Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

C:\Documents and Settings\Admin\My Documents\PACASELAWUPDATE3\105CD02_3-3-03

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lee D. Redenbach, Jr.,
:

Appellant

:

:

v.

: No. 105 C.D. 2002

: Submitted: November 1, 2002
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
:
Department of Transportation,
:
Bureau of Driver Licensing
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
HONORABLE
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge
OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE MIRARCHI

FILED: March 3, 2003

Lee D. Redenbach, Jr. (Redenbach) appeals from the order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) denying his appeal from the
suspension of his operator's license. We affirm.

The interesting and unusual facts of this case are as follows. On May
21, 2001, the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
(Department) mailed to Redenbach five "Additional Notice[s]" of suspension of
operating privileges. These notices imposed the following penalties: (1) a six-
month suspension, effective May 3, 1990, for a violation of Section 1501(a) of the
Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1501(a) (operating without a license),
occurring on October 25, 1989; (2) a six-month suspension, effective April 29,
1991, for another violation of Section 1501(a), occurring on May 17, 1990; (3) a
one-year suspension, effective March 5, 1992, for a violation of Section 1543(a) of
the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1543(a) (operating while under

suspension or revocation), occurring on July 12, 1990; (4) a six-month suspension,
effective March 5, 1993, for another violation of Section 1501(a), occurring on
May 14, 1991; and (5) a fifteen-day suspension, effective September 7, 1999, for a
violation of Section 3323(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S.
§3323(b) (stop sign violation), occurring on August 3, 1999. These "Additional
Notices" were mailed to Redenbach's then-current address in Prospect,
Pennsylvania. Redenbach appealed the suspensions, and the matter was heard de
novo by the trial court.

Prior to the taking of testimony, the Department's attorney explained
to the trial court that the August 3, 1999 stop sign violation was issued against
Redenbach's Pennsylvania operator's license number 24334043, but that the other,
earlier violations were issued against Redenbach's assigned license number
23049276. The latter license number was assigned to Redenbach after he was first
cited for operating without a license on April 8, 1989.1 At the time of these
violations, Redenbach did not have a Pennsylvania license, and thus not an
operator's license number; hence, the Department's need to assign a number.
Redenbach later testified that he did not obtain a Pennsylvania operator's license,
or a license from any other state, until 1994. At that time, the Department issued to
him license number 24334043.

The Department's attorney then represented to the trial court that the
Department did not become aware until 2001 that the Lee D. Redenbach, Jr., who
was issued Pennsylvania operator's license number 24334043, and the Lee D.
Redenbach, who had been assigned the number 23049276 and who had not served

1 The Department's records indicate that no action was taken by the Department as a
result of this first violation.
2

the prior suspensions, were one and the same individual. It was therefore on May
21, 2001, that the Department mailed the Additional Notices to Redenbach at his
Prospect, Pennsylvania address.

Previously, the Department had sent suspension notices related to the
violations occurring before 1994, and related to operator's number 23049276, to
Lee D. Redenbach at 4240 Shadeland2, Indianapolis, Indiana 46226, on March 29,
1990; April 29, 1991; March 5, 1992; and April 21, 1992, respectively. The
Indiana address was the address supplied by Redenbach to the police officer who
issued the citation for Redenbach's first violation of operating without a license, on
April 8, 1989. It thereupon became Redenbach's address of record with the
Department, and the original notices of suspension related to the violations
occurring on October 25, 1989; May 17, 1990; July 12, 1990; and May 14, 1991,
were therefore mailed to this address. The police citations issued for these
offenses, however, listed Redenbach's address variously as Zelionople, PA; New
Brighton, PA; Beaver Falls, PA; and Harmony, PA. Theses citations were issued
either to Lee D. Redenbach or Lee D. Redenbach, Jr. They all list the perpetrator's
date of birth, however, as March 11, 1969.

Apparently, Redenbach failed to respond to any of the 1990-92
original notices of suspension. At the hearing, the Department moved to quash as
untimely Redenbach's appeal from the four Additional Notices related to, or that
reissued, the 1990-92 original notices of suspension.

Redenbach, however, moved to quash the Department's "Additional
Notices" of suspension on several grounds. First, Redenbach argued that all of
these Additional Notices were unreasonably delayed. He argued that the

2 No other designation, such as Street, Avenue, Lane, or Boulevard was made.
3

Department knew of his Prospect, Pennsylvania address in 1994 when he received
his Pennsylvania operator's license, and knew of it in 1998 and 1999 when it
mailed to him notices of convictions for speeding and a stop sign violation,
respectively.3 Redenbach therefore argued that the Department's May 2001 notice
was unreasonably tardy. Redenbach also argued that the original notices of
suspension were defective on their face because they were addressed to Lee D.
Redenbach, not Lee D. Redenbach, Jr. Redenbach testified that Lee D. Redenbach
was his father, who resided at the Indianapolis address.

The Department's only witness at the hearing was Redenbach, who
was called as on cross-examination. He testified that his date of birth was March
11, 1969, and that as of the December 11, 2001 date of hearing, he had been living
in Prospect, Pennsylvania for approximately six years. He verified that he lived at
4240 Shadeland, Indianapolis, Indiana sometime in the "early nineties," although
he was not certain about the "time frame." He also testified, however, that he lived
in Zelienople, Pennsylvania in the "early nineties," and then appeared to indicate
that he lived in Indianapolis "sometime in the eighties." Notes of Testimony, p.
36. He defined the "early nineties" as 1990, '91, and '92. Later in his testimony,
he stated that he did not reside in Indianapolis on April 8, 1989, the date the first
citation was issued, but that his father did. He noted that the name on the citation
was Lee D. Redenbach, not Lee D. Redenbach, Jr.4 When asked about the
apparent discrepancy between his testimony that he lived in Indianapolis in the

3 The 1998 and 1999 notices assigned points to his record for the two convictions.
4 The date of birth of "Lee D. Redenbach" on the April 8, 1989 citation, however, is
March 11, 1969.
4

eighties and his denial that he did not live there on April 8, 1989, he responded that
his memory was "not the greatest."

When asked about the violations for driving without a license issued
to Lee D. Redenbach or Lee D. Redenbach, Jr. from 1989 to 1991, he responded
that he did not "recall" being stopped for these violations. He did, however, admit
that the signature on the April 8, 1989 citation, that set forth the Indianapolis
address, "appeared to be" his. He also admitted to living at the other Pennsylvania
locations set forth on the other traffic citations at unspecified times of his life. He
testified that he never received notices of license suspension from the Department
until he received the May 21, 2001 Additional Notices, and that he never possessed
a license from any state until he was issued a Pennsylvania license in 1994, at age
25. He stated that he did not "recall" ever driving a vehicle prior to 1994. He
testified that he is currently employed with "Inside Pipe Contracting" and that he
would lose his job if he did not possess a valid operator's license.

Redenbach's wife of two years, Lori Redenbach, testified that
Redenbach was living in a trailer court outside of Zelionople in April 1989. She
testified that the two did not begin "seeing each other" until 1990, and in April
1989, Redenbach was living with another woman.

On December 13, 2001, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Redenbach's appeal of the license suspensions, specifically noting in the order that
Redenbach's appeals pertaining to the violations occurring on October 25, 1989;
May 17, 1990; July 12, 1990; and May 14, 1991 were untimely. In a supporting
opinion, the court articulated its finding that it was Lee D. Redenbach, Jr., not his
father as Redenbach suggested, who was the individual committing the violations.
The court observed that it was unlikely that Redenbach and his father shared the
5

same birthday, and that Redenbach acknowledged that the signature on the April 8,
1989 citation was his. The court noted that the contradictory nature of some of
Redenbach's testimony brought "all" of his testimony "into question." Trial Court
Opinion, p. 5.

The trial court also determined that there was no inordinate delay to
the Department's May 21, 2001 Additional Notices of suspension. The court
observed that it was Redenbach who first supplied the Department with an address
at Indianapolis. This address then became the Department's address of record for
this unlicensed driver. Redenbach did not update this address after his various
moves, and when he applied for a license in 1994, he never indicated that he had a
prior relationship with the Department. The court thus concluded that any delay
was chargeable to Redenbach because of his failure to provide the Department
with updated information regarding his residences. The court also found that the
Department acted in a timely manner in issuing the May 21, 2001 Additional
Notices of suspension, once it discovered in 2001 that the Redenbach possessing
the Pennsylvania operator's license, and the Redenbach cited for driving without a
license from 1989 until 1991, were one and the same individual. This appeal
followed.

In a driver's license suspension appeal, this Court's scope of review is
limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an
abuse of discretion, or whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Danforth, 530 Pa. 327, 608 A.2d 1044
(1992). Additionally, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the party that prevailed before the trial court. Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Malizio, 618 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).
6

Redenbach argues that the trial court erred by determining (1) that the
Department's May 21, 2001 Additional Notices of suspension were not
unreasonably delayed, and (2) that the Department's original notices of suspension
of March 29, 1990; April 29, 1991; March 5, 1992; and April 21, 1992 were not
"defective." In making these arguments, Redenbach states as "facts" portions of
his testimony that are favorable to his arguments, impermissibly ignoring the
actual facts found by the trial court. For example, Redenbach states that he "never
had any driving related problems before he obtained his driver's license in [sic]
April 11, 1994" (Redenbach's Brief, p. 12), in complete contradiction to the trial
court's finding that Redenbach was the individual identified in the traffic citations
from 1989 to 1991, which finding is not challenged by Redenbach herein.

Redenbach first argues that the May 21, 2001 Additional Notices of
suspension were unreasonably delayed and resulted in prejudice to him.5 The
suspension of licensee's operating privileges may be vacated where the
Department fails to notify the licensee within a reasonable period of time that his
or her license is being suspended and the licensee is prejudiced thereby. Lancos v.
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 689 A.2d 342 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1997). What constitutes an "unreasonable delay" depends on the
circumstances of the particular case. Id.

Redenbach's entire focus on the timing of the Additional Notices
ignores the trial court's finding that the original notices of suspension of March 29,
1990; April 29, 1991; March 5, 1992; and April 21, 1992, regarding the pre-1994

5 Redenbach argues that he established prejudice by testifying that he relied upon his
1994 receipt of a Pennsylvania operator's license and that he would lose his job if his license
were suspended.
7

convictions, were timely mailed. The court further found that these notices were
mailed to the address first provided to the Department by Redenbach, i.e., the
Department's address of record for this individual. Further, the court determined
that the burden to make any adjustments to Redenbach's address of record was on
Redenbach, not the Department. Finally, and more importantly, the trial court
quashed Redenbach's appeals from the four pre-1994 suspensions as untimely.
The court noted that the Additional Notices of 2001 were simply the result of the
Department's discovery that the licensee Redenbach had outstanding
administrative suspensions arising from the time when Redenbach operated a
vehicle without a license. The court found that the delay, if any, connected to the
Additional Notices was caused completely by Redenbach's failure to supply
accurate or updated address information to the Department.

Section 1515 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1515, places the
burden upon any person licensed in Pennsylvania to notify the Department, within
15 days, of a change in address. A licensee who fails to so notify the Department
may not use the fact that the Department mailed a suspension notice to his or her
old address in the Department's records as grounds for filing an untimely appeal
nunc pro tunc. Maxion v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver
Licensing, 728 A.2d 442 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Vehicle Code does not have a similar
section devoted to the change-of-address obligations of a driver who operates
without a license. It would be rather incongruous, however, to afford a driver who
operates without a license greater rights than a licensed individual. We therefore
agree with the trial court that the burden is not upon the Department to stay current
with the address changes of drivers who operate without a license. A scofflaw,
8

who indirectly supplies the Department with an address of record as a consequence
of his or her first conviction of operating without a license, may not use the excuse
of a change in address to file an untimely appeal if he or she has not previously
informed the Department of this change. Moreover, the Vehicle Code does not
provide that the Department is required to scour its databases for a record of
unserved prior suspensions for operating a vehicle without a license when a
scofflaw ultimately applies for a valid license without disclosure of previous
suspension notices.

The trial court did not err, therefore, when it determined that
Redenbach received timely notices of suspension. Further, Redenbach's failure to
challenge in this appeal the trial court's determination that his appeal from the
timely notices of suspension sent on March 29, 1990; April 29, 1991; March 5,
1992; and April 21, 1992, was untimely, prohibits us from reviewing Redenbach's
argument that he did not receive timely notice as to these four suspensions. Pa.
R.A.P. 2116(a); Allegheny County Institution District v. Department of Public
Welfare, 668 A.2d 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), petition for allowance of appeal
denied, 547 Pa. 757, 692 A.2d 567 (1997) (a party's failure to set forth an issue in
his or her statement of questions presented on appeal, or to reasonably suggest the
issue in such statement of questions presented, constitutes waiver of the issue).

Redenbach's second argument is that the Department's original
notices were defective because they were addressed to Lee D. Redenbach, not Lee
D. Redenbach, Jr. While we do not question the necessity for the Department to
send notice to the correct individual using that individual's full and proper name,
Redenbach's argument is, once again, made irrelevant by his waiver of the trial
court's determination that his appeals from the March 29, 1990; April 29, 1991;
9

March 5, 1992; and April 21, 1992 notices of suspension were untimely. Further,
Redenbach failed to challenge the trial court's finding that he was the individual
identified in the traffic citations from 1989 to 1991, and thus waived any argument
regarding such identity. We would note, however, that these original notices of
suspension set forth Lee D. Redenbach's date of birth as March 11, 1969. The
identity of the addressee on the notices is therefore confirmed as Lee D.
Redenbach, Jr. Moreover, if Redenbach Senior or Junior had any confusion as to
identity, their obligation was to contact the Department for clarification.6

For the above reasons, the trial court's order is affirmed.

____________________________________
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge

6 Further, several of the citations underlying the suspensions, and the first citation of
April 8, 1989, list the operator as Lee D. Redenbach, having Lee D. Redenbach, Jr.'s date of
birth. The Department is not to be held responsible if Redenbach failed to give the police officer
his full name.
10

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lee D. Redenbach, Jr.,
:

Appellant

:

:

v.

: No. 105 C.D. 2002

:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
:
Department of Transportation,
:
Bureau of Driver Licensing
:

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2003, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Butler County in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

____________________________________
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge