Document: 479 U.S. 36 107 S.Ct. 353 93 L.Ed.2d 216 John J. KELLY, Connecticut Chief State's Attorney, et al., Petitionersv.Carolyn ROBINSON. No. 85-1033. Argued Oct. 8, 1986. Decided Nov. 12, Syllabus In 1980, respondent pleaded guilty in a state court to larceny charge based on her wrongful receipt of welfare benefits from the Department Income Maintenance. She was sentenced prison term, but suspended execution sentence and placed probation for five years. As condition probation, ordered make restitution through monthly payments Office Adult Probation until end period. Under statutes, are sent then forwarded victim. 1981, filed voluntary petition under Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Code Court, listing obligation as debt. The agencies, although notified, did not file proofs claim or objections discharge, Court subsequently granted discharge. made no further payments. After informed that it considered nondischargeable, she proceeding against petitioner officials seeking declaration discharged. concluded even if debt subject bankruptcy jurisdiction, automatically nondischargeable § 523(a)(7) Code, which provides discharge does affect any "is fine, penalty, forfeiture payable benefit governmental unit, is compensation actual pecuniary loss." District adopted Court's proposed disposition case, Appeals reversed. Held: Section preserves criminal imposes part sentence. Thus, obligations, imposed conditions proceedings, dischargeable. Pp. 43-53. (a) Despite language earlier Act 1898 apparently allowed penalties be discharged, most courts refused allow court's judgment. When present enacted 1978, there widely accepted judicial exception sentences, including obligations such sentences. construing scope codifications, this has followed rule Congress intends legislation change interpretation judicially created concept, makes intent specific. Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Dept. Environmental Protection, 474 494, 106 755, 88 859. 43-47. (b) basis here deep conviction federal should invalidate results proceedings. Although might true could have ensured continued enforcement judgment by objecting fact justify an contrary long-prevailing view fines affected Moreover, reliance right appear object would create uncertainties impose undue burdens officials. prospect remission judgments judges hamper flexibility those choosing combination imprisonment, fines, likely rehabilitative deterrent goals justice systems. 47-49. (c) On its face, compel conclusion voids orders courts. Nothing House Senate Reports indicates read so intrusively. protects traditional fines. restitution, unlike victim may calculated reference amount harm offender caused, neither statute's qualifying clauses—namely, must "to unit," "not loss"—allows takes form restitution. decision generally turn victim's injury, penal State defendant's situation. 50-53. 776 F.2d 30 (CA2 1985) POWELL, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 53. Carl Schuman, Asst. Atty., Wallingford, Conn., petitioners. Francis X. Dineen, Haven, respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 We review case decide whether dischargeable proceedings Code. 2 * Carolyn Robinson second degree. $9,932.95 November 14, Superior term less than one year nor more three judge restitution1 (Probation Office) at rate $100 per month, commencing January 16, continuing probation.2 3 February 5, 11 U.S.C. 701 seq., United States Connecticut. That listed 20, notified both agencies Robinson's them April 27, deadline filing because they took position probation. participate distribution estate. May See 727. 4 At time received bankruptcy, had paid $450 attorney wrote believed altered voiding pay 5 respond letter 1984, when nondischargeable. responded adversary been well injunction prevent forcing pay. 6 trial, entered memorandum order, concluding 1981 McGuigan, 45 B.R. 423 (1984). analysis applied similar decided month earlier, re Pellegrino (Pellegrino Division Criminal Justice), 42 129 Pellegrino, began with Code's definitional sections. First, 101(11) defines "debt" "liability claim." turn, 101(4) "claim" "right payment, reduced judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, unsecured." Finally, 101(9) "creditor" "entity debtor arose before order relief concerning debtor." examined statute Restitution appears enumerated Conn.Gen.Stat. 53a-30 (1985). section, Office. code provide victim, authorize trial issue warrant arrest defendant who violated 53a-32. 8 Because enforce receive payment," hence owed It argued: "Unlike arises out contractual, statutory common law duty, rooted responsibility protect citizens enforcing statutes rehabilitate imposing sanction intended purpose." B.R., 133. acknowledged tension between expansive definition debt, found "the long-standing tradition restraint interference functions governments." Id., 134. that, subsection 9 also purpose promote rehabilitation offender, compensate victim." 137. specifically rejected argument deemed compensatory precisely matched loss. noted allows "make fruits his offense he can afford suitable manner, loss damage caused thereby," 53a-30(a)(4) view, focuses "upon . penalty rather held Pellegrino's dispositions without alteration. 10 Second Circuit Robinson, first recognized reached opposite conclusion, relied legislative history evinced Congress' broaden much narrower 1898. anomalies result Most importantly, nondebt status deprive opportunity debtor's Having debts, turned question dischargeability. stated appropriate agency probably avoided objected §§ 523(a)(2) 523(a)(4) Code.3 were filed, rely only 523(a)(7), automatic nondischargeability certain debts.4 looked text determine "compensation loss" within meaning 523(a)(7). But where entire system, focused assessed "for [by crime]," thought compelled held, therefore, particular protected Accordingly, reversed 12 writ certiorari. 475 1009, 1181, 89 298 (1986). jurisdiction 28 1254(1). reverse. II 13 Appeals' primarily 101 523 Of course, "starting point every involving construction itself." Blue Chip Stamps Manor Drug Stores, 421 723, 756, 95 1917, 1935, 44 539 (1975) (POWELL, concurring). starting point. O'CONNOR explained last Term: " ' "In expounding statute, we guided single member sentence, look provisions whole law, policy." Offshore Logistics, Inc. Tallentire, 477 207, 222, 2485, 2494, 91 174 (1986) (quoting Mastro Plastics Corp. NLRB, 350 270, 285, 76 349, 359, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956) (in quoting Heirs Boisdore, How. 113, 122, 1009 (1849))). consider light deference interests unfettered administration their A. 14 Courts traditionally reluctant interpret remit judgments. Title 11, commonly referred 1978 replace 1898, ch. 541, Stat. 544.5 treatment informs our understanding 15 57 established category "allowable" debts. Collier ¶ (14th ed. 1977). Only allowable creditor share bankrupt's assets. 65(a). For important note 57(j) excluded class debts government entities. section provided: 16 "Debts owing States, State, county, district, municipality shall allowed, except sustained act, transaction, arose." 561. 17 Second, 63 separate "provable" 3A 1975). provided "release[d] bankrupt all provable debts," several exceptions later portions 17. excepted four types mention kind. natural Act, discharged though entitled passed Act; clearly nonallowable. failure expressly same offered substantial support penalties. 18 way. clear language, court. leading reasoned: 19 "It admitted sections to, embrace [criminal penalties]; settled cases literal admissible. suffice say nothing ruling higher convince me congress, provision permit operations, rendered fine laws. act alone civil liabilities, demands creditors, such, punishment inflicted pro bono publico crimes committed." Moore, 111 F. 145, 148-149 (WD Ky.1901).6 20 This reasoning new commentator flatly "fines discharge." 1A 17.13, pp. 1609-1610, n. 1978). 21 few faced sentences affecting instance, years York Supreme stated: 22 "A effect whatsoever upon A nature relieve honest unfortunate him begin financial life anew. conviction. debtor-creditor relationship persons making receiving other probationary means insure will lead law-abiding thereafter." Mosesson, 78 Misc.2d 217, 218, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483, 484 (1974) (citations omitted).7 23 background orders, face drafted considerable care specificity. 24 Just Term declined hold silently abrogated another old Act. 859 (1986), trustee asked us implicitly repealed trustee's abandonment power. health safety regulations, consideration comparable States' implicated case. 25 "The normal codifications. If wishes grant extraordinary exemption nonbankruptcy 'the intention expressed, left collected inferred disputable considerations convenience administering estate bankrupt.' 501, S.Ct., 759 Swarts Hammer, 194 441, 444, 695, 696, 48 1060 (1904)) omitted). B 26 Our reflect exception, formulate sanctions aspect sovereignty retained States. emphasized repeatedly fundamental policy prosecutions." Younger Harris, 401 37, 46, 746, 751, 27 669 (1971). nevertheless holding 523(c). many cases, hardly justifies discharge," 1610 some require prosecutors defend courts.8 BRENNAN noted, adjudication matters already "an unwarranted unseemly duplication own adjudicative process." Perez Ledesma, 82, 121, 674, (1971) (opinion concurring part).9 Also, conceded oral argument, enter objection example, negligent homicide conditioned paying husband killed wife. fit terms do force judges. 29 prospect, systems.10 think lightly limit options available interpreting Douglas remarked: "[W]e these words ease computer. There overriding equitable principles govern exercise jurisdiction." Marin England, 385 99, 103, 87 274, 277, 197 (1966). interest systems free powerful influence considering relief. supra, U.S., 44-45, 750-751. reflection federalism case.11 III 31 law—that judgments—we serious doubts "debts" 101(4).12 need address 32 relevant portion 33 extent 34 interpretation. certainly Appeals, Nowhere indication intrusively.13 congress intended, provision, "we hearings, testimony, debate consequences wasteful, inimical purposes previously important, arouse public outrage," TVA Hill, 437 153, 209, 98 2279, 2309, 117 (1978) dissenting). 35 reading differs Circuit. creates broad sanctions, denominated penalties, forfeitures. included two phrases; fines; codifies major differences fine. Unlike caused. clauses system operated victims, society whole. concerned punishing rehabilitating him. resemble of" context undermines conclusion. control over awarded award situation defendant. Judge Pellegrino: 37 illustrated imposed. authorizes eight specified "any reasonably related rehabilitation." 53a-30(a)(9) Clause (4) 38 thereby fix thereof manner performance." clause imposition Instead, flexible remedy tailored 39 focus punishment, desire compensation, conclude operate State. Similarly, compensation" following necessarily considers State.14 Those sufficient place 40 strong uniform three-quarters century, absence significant evidence area, believe best effectuates Congress. 41 Reversed. whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 43 Petitioners failed assert timely majority goes lengths excuse default. Respondent concedes petitioners fashion. Tr. Oral Arg. 30.1 respondent's proceeding, however, nothing. They told so. counsel belief payments, respond. Not almost after inform order. charitably attributes petitioners' inaction start here. Ante, 39. representations suggest "state admittedly somewhat confused how handle it," 9, "a little perplexed happened." 16. seek confusion-induced waiver guarantee my cannot fairly arrive reaches today. concludes ." Ibid. I find unconvincing majority's "COMPENSATION loss."2 While sanction, victims injuries. permits defendant, thereby. (1985) (emphasis added). Were purely penal, connect Tying strongly suggests payment meant comports theory underlying sanctions. simply incidentally compensates Indeed, essential element scheme, wrong crime redressed just penalizing restoring far possible, [he] original never occurred." R. Barnett & Hagel, Assessing Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, Legal Process, Process 1, (1977); see id., 25-28. what sum mean loss.3 46 Nor accept avoid finding "debt." expansive. "Debt" defined claim," payment." given "broadest possible definition." H.R.Rep. 95-595, S.Rep. 95-989, (1978), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 5808, 6266; Ohio Kovacs, 469 279, 105 705, 708, 83 649 ("[I]t apparent desired 'claim' "). agree notwithstanding "that enforceable threat revocation incarceration levy property. cognizable obligor suffer freedom property pay." 30, 1985).4 47 intentionally ensure meaningful creditors 180, 6141: "[U]nder liquidation chapters [1898] permitted non-provable claims, claims. incomplete, collect complete settlement affairs debtor, fresh start" (footnote 49 observed, "would produce anomalous holder distributions assets liquidation. result." F.2d, 35-36. contrary, plainly forfeitures eligible estate, explicitly participation. 726(a)(4).5 very "debts"; 524, 50 am wholly sympathy "in constitutional commitment separation powers too pre-empt congressional action decreeing accords 'common sense weal.' Constitution vests responsibilities political branches." 195, 2302, (1978). amended achieve confronted question, "[i]t speculate, stance specific events anticipated." 185, 2297. affirm Congress, inclined, amend bankruptcy.6 respectfully dissent. Gen.Stat. sets uncertainty about total $9,932.95, $6,000. 523(a)(2)(A) obtaining money, property, services, extension, renewal, refinance credit, false pretenses, representation, fraud." fraud defalcation while acting fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, larceny." 523(c), unless files during convicted larceny, 523(a)(4), quite "debt," subsection. requirement limited &Par; (2), (4), (6) 523(a). there, described paragraph general prescribed opening 523(a) (providing "discharge 727 title individual debt" paragraphs follow). times 1978. numerous technical changes Amendments Federal Judgeship Pub.L. 98-353, 380. None decision. differed boundaries particularly nonmonetary Moore accepted. See, e.g., Parker 153 66, 71 (CA1 1946) (citing noting contemplation power employed pardon offense"); Zwick Freeman, 373 110, 116 1967) stating "governmental regarded monetary payments"). federal-court allowing Alderson, 588 (W.Va.1899). decisions adopting reasoning, People Topping Bros., 79 260, 262, 359 985, 987-988 (Crim.Ct.1974); Washburn, 97 Cal.App.3d 621, 625-626, 158 Cal.Rptr. 822, 825 (1979). preclusion obviate reexamine factual questions, law. elements frequently hinder application preclusion. apart burden participating submit often duplicate processes petitions habeas corpus. explicit Constitution, Art. I, cl. 2, testifies importance Here, relitigation rests ambiguous effective forces confront, concrete terms, actions Such differently abstract impersonal entity, regard direct relation gives precise Note, Victim Process: Procedural Analysis, Harv.L.Rev. 931, 937-941 Frankfurter advocated approach regulatory infringe interests: task accommodation assertions authority historic states. character therefore construed implications dual government. assumptions government, consequent presuppositions draftsmanship expressive habits, cut across otherwise implied range legislation. justif[ies] generalization Government local radiations vast network national economic enterprise radically readjusts balance authority, charged duty legislating explicit." Frankfurter, Some Reflections Reading Statutes, Colum.L.Rev. 527, 539-540 (1947). recognize, emphasized, broadly drafted, history, various priority dischargeability provisions, supports definition. compels respect section-by-section Reports, 363 5787, 5864, 6318. explanations commentators, 523.17 (15th 1986); W. Norton, Law Practice 27.37 (1982). fact, commentators intrusive sought Robinson. 523.17, 523-123, 4; Norton 27.37, 55, 2. seems limitation unit" private punitive damages. H.R. Doc. 93-137, pt. 116, 141 (1973). loss," Report main being tax 79, 5865. acknowledge comments hearings Laws Commission bears none statements Member official Reports. decline accord significance statements. McCaughn Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 488, 493-494, 51 510, 512, 75 1183 (1931); 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction 48.10, 319 321, (4th 1984). forced evaluate determining "compensatory" "penal." Several lower addressed constitutionality Witness Protection 3579. defendants jury Seventh Amendment Right Jury Trial Determine 1982, Texas L.Rev. 671 Every contesting assessment protections Amendment. 672, cases). doubtless come respectively money fraud," ., To notice hearing. 523(c); Bkrtcy.Rule 4007(c). Rather argue solely fits prior enactment contends "Congress sentences," ante, abrogate But, abrogating matter, codified added requirements historical negate additional limitations expressed statute. qualification "payable meets requirement. so, agency. Where individual, legitimately said destined unit." repay done comes 101(21), benefited served. take approach, stating: whole." 46. broadly, superfluous. Though jurisdictions do. 3579(h) (any "may enforced named action"); Ga.Code Ann. 17-14-13(a) (1982) ("A execution"). difficult payment" consequently Compare 129, 132 (Bkrtcy.Ct.Conn.1984) ("Since 'right payment,' 'debt' 101(11)"), Newton, 710 (Bkrtcy.Ct.ND Ga.1981) (holding since Georgia Georgia, debt"). distributed "claims," 726. "are coextensive: debtor; owes creditor." 310 (1977), 6267. solution postpones problem: leaves open possibility 13. 1328(a), 78.01 (1981); 1328.01[1][c] 1986) (broader incentive debtors performance plans); 1328). lay rest difficulties coordinating statutes.

Category: 7