Determination of the appropriate measure of restitution is a question of law. The standard of review of a district court's conclusions of law is whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Pritchett argues that, by law, the appropriate measure of the Hunters' pecuniary loss is the market value of their property at the time of its destruction. The Hunters, however, estimated the value of their lost property as the cost of replacing it with new items at current prices . Pritchett argues that, in adopting the Hunters' replacement valuation method, the District Court made an error of law that resulted in a significant over-statement of his restitution obligation.
Restitution is limited to the pecuniary loss resulting from the offense.
Pritchett argues, and the State seems to agree, that the appropriate civil action arising out of Pritchett's destruction of the Hunters' garage and its contents would be an action for conversion. The loss caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property is presumed to be the value of the property at the time of its conversion. Both parties acknowledge that the Hunters lost a number of irreplaceable personal items with great sentimental value. However, during the sentencing hearing the State submitted, as evidence of the Hunters' pecuniary loss , a specific and extensive list compiled by the Hunters for insurance purposes. The list included a description of each item destroyed in the fire along with its value.