No. 05-503 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

 

 2006 MT 187 

IN THE MATTER OF K.D.K., 

A Youth Under the Age of Eighteen. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DJ 00-09 

Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant Youth: 

David E. Stenerson; Stenerson Law Office, Hamilton, Montana 

For Respondent State: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Joslyn M. Hunt, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

George H. Corn, Ravalli County Attorney; Karen S. Mahar, Deputy 

County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana 

 

Submitted on Briefs: March 29, 2006 

 Decided: August 15, 2006 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
2

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 K.D.K. appeals from the order entered by the Youth Court of the Twenty-First 

Judicial District, Ravalli County, requiring him to pay $12,662.18 in restitution. We reverse 

and remand. 

¶2 We restate the dispositive issue on appeal as whether the Youth Court had authority to 

order restitution on June 9, 2005. 

BACKGROUND 

¶3 On October 26, 1999, twelve-year-old K.D.K.’s parents reported to the Ravalli County 

Sheriff’s Office that K.D.K. may have sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl. 

Subsequently, the State of Montana filed a petition alleging K.D.K. was a delinquent youth 

because he had committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the felony 

offense of sexual assault as defined in § 45-5-502, MCA. K.D.K. admitted the allegation in 

the petition and the Youth Court adjudicated him a delinquent youth. 

¶4 After a dispositional hearing in September of 2000, the Youth Court committed 

K.D.K. to the Department of Corrections, suspended the commitment and placed him on 

formal probation until he reached the age of 18 on February 27, 2005. The court imposed 

numerous conditions on K.D.K.’s probation, including a condition that 

[t]he youth is liable for payment of restitution in an amount to be determined at 

a later date plus a 10% Youth Court administrative fee. The youth will be 

responsible for any/all therapy costs incurred by the victim as a result of the 

crime committed against the victim, including mileage to and from the 

therapist. 

The disposition order also delineated six potential consequences if K.D.K. violated any of the 
3

probation conditions and stated that the Youth Court “shall retain jurisdiction over the youth 

until the age of twenty-one for financial purposes such as payment of fees/fines, attorney fees 

and/or restitution.” The court later amended the order in a manner unrelated to the issue on 

appeal. 

¶5 In the years following the disposition, various people corresponded regarding the 

restitution. In April of 2003, a restitution officer sent a memorandum to the deputy county 

attorney, stating a therapist had advised she was “completely finished with counseling for the 

victim and victim’s mother,” setting the restitution amount owed--including the 

administrative fee--at $4,507.53 and recommending a restitution hearing. No restitution 

hearing was requested or held. 

¶6 In June of 2003, the State, K.D.K. and K.D.K.’s parents executed a restitution 

agreement which specified that K.D.K. was liable for payment of restitution in the amount of 

$4,507.53, payable in 48 monthly installments of $95.00, with full payment due no later than 

May 15, 2007. The agreement also identifies the $4,507.53 as the “TOTAL RESTITUTION 

DUE”--a phrase that appears in bold and capital letters. In July of 2003, the Youth Court 

judge signed the agreement and it was filed. The $4,507.53 was paid in full prior to the 

events at issue here. 

¶7 On February 11, 2005, the State moved to modify the Youth Court’s prior order 

regarding a matter unrelated to this appeal and also requested a restitution hearing. The State 

acknowledged K.D.K. had satisfied the restitution requirements contained in the 2003 

agreement. It noted, however, that the victim’s mother had submitted claims for additional 

restitution for a “therapeutic sports activity for the victim and schooling costs for herself.” 
4

The State requested consideration of the motion prior to termination of K.D.K.’s probation 

on February 27, 2005. 

¶8 The court scheduled a hearing for February 23, 2005. After some discussion at that 

hearing, the Youth Court appointed counsel for K.D.K. and scheduled another hearing for 

two days later. 

¶9 At the hearing on February 25, 2005, the victim’s mother testified regarding her 

university-related expenses and the State offered two documents, which the Youth Court 

admitted into evidence. The first document is the mother’s letter to the probation officer--

which is dated October 18, 2002 and stamped by an unidentified person as received on 

August 4, 2004. Attached to the letter is a list--apparently prepared by the mother--of claims 

including a single claim of $6,000 for her university-related expenses and several claims for 

various BMX bicycling expenses of the victim, such as bikes, equipment, clothing and race 

fees. The second exhibit is an unofficial university transcript reflecting the mother’s grades, 

but containing no financial information. The deputy county attorney stated the State did not 

submit detailed documentation of the $6,000 claim for university-related expenses at the 

hearing because “[w]e did not want to take up the Court’s time with the details.” Both 

counsel indicated they believed they could reach an agreement about the victim’s BMX 

bicycling expenses, although they did not state an amount at the hearing. Among other 

things, the court stated its belief that the mother was entitled to restitution for universityrelated expenses, but did not “feel it would be right to make an award without a detailed 

analysis of what goes into this figure[.]” The Youth Court directed the parties to file posthearing briefs and stated “[t]hen I’ll consider whether or not that $6,000 would be awarded.” 
5

¶10 In its brief, the State asserted the parties had stipulated at the February 25 hearing that 

K.D.K. would pay the BMX expenses and the parties had agreed to the amount of $4,352.93, 

but pointed to nothing of record supporting an agreement to that amount. With respect to the 

university-related expenses, the State argued that, although the mother had initially requested 

$6,000.00, her actual expenses totaled $8,309.25. Along with its brief, the State submitted 

documents associated with the claimed university-related expenses. 

¶11 Shortly thereafter, K.D.K.’s parents sent a letter to the Youth Court stating they 

wished to retain private counsel because of various concerns with the representation being 

provided, and appointed counsel moved to withdraw. The court granted that motion, and 

private counsel filed a notice of appearance. Then, in his response brief, K.D.K. advised that 

he and his parents did not agree to any of the requested additional restitution. He also 

contended that the Youth Court no longer had authority to add restitution amounts because 

his probation--of which the earlier, paid restitution was a condition--had terminated on 

February 27, 2005. The State filed a reply brief. 

¶12 On June 9, 2005, the Youth Court ordered K.D.K. to pay restitution totaling 

$12,662.18, apparently reflecting the sum of the State’s requests for $4,352.93 in BMX 

bicycling expenses for the victim and $8,309.25 in university-related expenses for the 

victim’s mother. In the order, the court’s only reference to K.D.K.’s contentions about its 

authority to impose additional restitution was an observation that “[a]s originally ordered in 

this matter, this Court retains financial jurisdiction over the Youth and his parents for 

financial purposes until the Youth turns twenty-one (21) years of age.” K.D.K. appeals. We 

set forth additional facts below. 
6

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

¶13 Relying on Matter of T.A.S. (1990), 244 Mont. 259, 263, 797 P.2d 217, 220, the State 

contends that this Court reviews a youth court’s order for abuse of discretion. In addressing 

a challenge to a youth’s commitment in T.A.S., we stated “[i]t is well settled in Montana that 

absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the District Court judgment will not be 

overruled,” and relied on a marital dissolution case. Our basis for citing to a marriage 

dissolution case for a standard of review in T.A.S. is not clear. 

¶14 In any event, our cases since T.A.S. establish that the standard of review in a youth 

court case depends on the issue presented. For example, in In re R.L.H., 2005 MT 177, ¶¶ 

15-16, 327 Mont. 520, ¶¶ 15-16, 116 P.3d 791, ¶¶ 15-16 (citations omitted), we reviewed the 

denial of a motion to dismiss a revocation petition to determine whether the youth court 

correctly interpreted the law, and we reviewed the denial of a motion to exclude testimony--

which we treated as a suppression motion--to determine whether the findings of fact were 

clearly erroneous and whether the findings were correctly applied as a matter of law. 

¶15 Here, the dispositive issue is whether the Youth Court had authority to impose 

additional restitution on June 9, 2005. As discussed below, our analysis in this regard is 

based primarily on youth court statutes. We review a court’s interpretation and application of 

statutes for correctness. See In re T.H., 2005 MT 237, ¶ 35, 328 Mont. 428, ¶ 35, 121 P.3d 

541, ¶ 35 (citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION 

¶16 Did the Youth Court have authority to order restitution on June 9, 2005? 

¶17 K.D.K. generally asserts that since his probation ended on February 27, 2005, his 
7

eighteenth birthday, the Youth Court did not have authority to order additional restitution 

after that date. We agree. 

¶18 As stated above, the Youth Court’s disposition order in K.D.K.’s case contained a 

condition of probation that K.D.K. was “liable for payment of restitution in an amount to be 

determined at a later date[.]” It is undisputed that the parties executed and filed, in 2003, a 

restitution agreement--which the Youth Court apparently approved by its signature--

establishing $4,507.53 as the total amount owed, and that amount was paid. The State did 

not petition to revoke K.D.K.’s suspended commitment--or take any other action with respect 

to any of the disposition order’s delineated possible consequences--for violation of the 

restitution condition or any other condition of probation. Thus, K.D.K. reached his 

eighteenth birthday having satisfied the conditions of his probation and, pursuant to the 

original disposition order, his probation terminated on February 27, 2005. 

¶19 The State asserts, however, that the court had jurisdiction pursuant to § 41-5-205(1), 

MCA, which states, in pertinent part, that “[u]nless terminated by the court and except as 

provided in subsections (2) and (3), the jurisdiction of the court continues until the individual 

becomes 21 years of age.” The parties take differing views of whether any part of subsection 

(2) applies; we decline to address those arguments. With respect to the “unless terminated” 

language, the State contends the Youth Court retained jurisdiction over K.D.K. until the age 

of 21 for purposes of financial obligations. We construe this argument to mean that the 

Youth Court has retained authority to impose additional restitution until K.D.K.’s twentyfirst birthday on February 27, 2008. Based on the record in this case, we disagree. 

¶20 The disposition order states that the court retained jurisdiction until K.D.K. reaches 
8

the age of 21 “for financial purposes such as payment of fees/fines, attorney fees and/or 

restitution.” By its terms, the language in the disposition order establishes the Youth Court 

retained jurisdiction after K.D.K. completed his probation only to ensure payment of 

determined--but not completely paid--financial obligations, not to impose additional 

obligations. Therefore, the Youth Court’s statement in the later restitution order that it had 

“originally” retained jurisdiction “for financial purposes”--without including the “such as 

payment” language--is incomplete and somewhat misleading. If the exceptions set forth in § 

41-5-205, MCA, do not apply, a youth court may--in another case--retain jurisdiction over a 

youth until he or she reaches 21 years of age. On this record, however, we conclude the 

Youth Court limited its retention of jurisdiction beyond K.D.K.’s eighteenth birthday to 

enforcement of the financial obligations set forth in the original disposition order and the 

2003 agreement--signed by the parties and the Youth Court--establishing the total restitution 

to be paid by K.D.K. Under these circumstances, the court did not retain jurisdiction to 

impose additional restitution. 

¶21 The State also advances § 41-5-1422(1), MCA, which provides that “[a]n order of the 

court may be modified at any time.” The State’s reliance on this statute is premised on its 

argument that the Youth Court retained jurisdiction to impose additional restitution after 

K.D.K.’s probation had terminated--an argument we have already rejected. In addition, 

although the order for additional restitution directs the probation office to prepare a payment 

schedule, the order is not framed as a “modification” of the disposition order or the 

restitution condition of probation set forth therein. Thus, since the order for additional 

restitution does not purport to be a modification of the original disposition order, § 41-5-
9

1422(1), MCA, does not apply. We conclude § 41-5-1422(1), MCA, which pertains only to 

modifications made while a youth court has jurisdiction, did not authorize the Youth Court to 

impose additional restitution in a stand-alone order after K.D.K.’s probation--of which the 

payment of restitution was a condition--expired. 

¶22 We hold the Youth Court did not have authority to order K.D.K. to pay restitution on 

June 9, 2005. 

¶23 Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the order for additional restitution. 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

We concur: 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ JOHN WARNER 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 
10

Justice Jim Rice specially concurring. 

¶24 Section 41-5-205, MCA (1999), provides that the youth court retains jurisdiction until 

the youth reaches age twenty-one, unless jurisdiction is “terminated by the court.” Here, the 

youth court did not expressly terminate its jurisdiction, but, rather, stated it was retaining 

jurisdiction until K.D.K. reached age twenty-one “for financial purposes, such as payment of 

fees/fines, attorney fees and/or restitution.” Thus, and without a clear statement of 

termination of its jurisdiction, I would not interpret the youth court’s order as terminating 

jurisdiction to address restitution, because restitution falls within the term “financial 

purposes.” 

¶25 The Court draws upon the apparent finality of the initial restitution order to conclude 

that the District Court terminated its jurisdiction. However, I believe this conclusion 

confuses finality of an issue with the court’s jurisdiction over the issue. 

¶26 Nonetheless, I concur in the Court’s holding for the reason that the second restitution 

order provided for compensation for the victim that exceeds that which is authorized by 

statute. See § 41-5-1512(14), MCA (1999). 

/S/ JIM RICE