Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
In re Kent
94-11145 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 5, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51102
Description
Motor Vehicle Surcharges Against High-Risk Drivers Are Nondischargeable in Bankruptcy
Abstract
The bankruptcy court has held that debtor's obligation to pay
motor vehicle surcharges assessed by the state division of motor
vehicles (DMV), net of administrative expenses of collection
charged by DMV, are nondischargeable in bankruptcy. As part of its
no-fault insurance scheme, New Jersey assesses motor vehicle
surcharges against all drivers who accumulate six or more points
for motor vehicle offenses or who are convicted of drunk driving.
Chapter 13 debtor had sought to amend her schedule of unsecured
creditors to include DMV's claim in the amount of $5,160 for
prepetition motor vehicle surcharges. Although DMV argued that the
surcharges might be characterized as either a nondischargeable
excise tax under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1) or civil penalty under
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), debtor asserted that they simply raised
additional premiums for high-risk drivers. The bankruptcy court
found that motor vehicle surcharges were nondischargeable as civil
penalties under section 523(a)(7) because they were assessed for
violations of certain motor vehicle laws. Citing United States v.
Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1987), the court rejected amicus bar
association's argument that such a determination would imply
that motor vehicle surcharges violated the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy. The court also found that
surcharges, net of administrative collection costs retained by DMV,
were collected for the benefit of a governmental unit, either the
Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) or the Market Transition
Facility (MTF), both created by statute to insure high-risk drivers
at market rates and reduce insurance costs for other New Jersey
motorists. Noting that both were funded primarily by
government-imposed surcharges and that their operations had been
largely controlled by the government, the court held that JUA and
MTF constituted "government units" within the meaning of
section 523(a)(7).
