Opinion ID: 4546475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: To me, it was basically to –– trying to –– I don't

Text: want to say replace my mom, but the $100,000 was towards her life. Like I say, I don't want to try to replace, but giving us money for replacing her, what they valued her life at was $100,000. H.M.'s husband was allowed to speak, though he was not under oath. Muth did not object. H.M's husband stated: [R.M.]: Your Honor, may I say a word? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Your name? [R.M.]: [R.M.] I was the main contact for the insurance companies contacting me. We had to deal with Progressive and State Farm because of our vehicle. Progressive, the way it was explained to me it, was that it was towards any civil suit. I was not under the stipulation that it was for any of the state criminal case at all. THE COURT: The $100,000 was to resolve any civil? [R.M.]: Civil, right. THE COURT: Okay. [R.M.]: Basically what they explained to me is they could not come after Progressive, they did not want to pay anything over $100,000. That is what Progressive told me. 4 No. 2018AP875-CR The circuit court ordered restitution to the adult children after considering the civil settlement and Muth's claim that the settlement precluded restitution. ¶6 The circuit court granted two requests that are the subject of this dispute. H.M. and K.M. requested $2,600 and $6,480, respectively, as compensation for income lost as a result of their spouses missing work due to Muth's criminal conduct. H.M.'s spouse missed 13 eight-hour shifts, and he earned $25 per hour. K.M.'s spouse missed 54 hours of work, and he earned $120 per hour. In K.M.'s household, her spouse was the sole source of income. ¶7 Muth filed a written objection to all restitution on two grounds. First, he argued that the civil settlement precluded restitution to the adult children. Specifically, he argued accord and satisfaction arose from the insurance company payment and barred liability for restitution. He also argued that setoff of their claimed damages against the insurance company payment would preclude restitution as well.3 Second, he argued that T.K.'s sons- 3 Accord and satisfaction is a common law contractual doctrine that may be applied if accord and satisfaction is in consideration for the settlement of all disputes between parties who have an interest in the controversy. Superior Builders, Inc. v. Large, 52 Wis. 2d 563, 565-66, 190 N.W.2d 901 (1971). [A]ccord and satisfaction is an agreement to discharge an existing disputed claim and constitutes a defense to an action to enforce the claim. Parsons ex rel Cabaniss v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2007 WI App 211, ¶9, 305 Wis. 2d 630, 740 N.W.2d 399 (citing Hoffman v. Ralston Purina Co., 86 Wis. 2d 445, 453, 273 N.W.2d 214 (1979)). Setoff is also a common law doctrine that operates much like a counterclaim. For example, if a contract is substantially performed in the construction of a building, the contractor can 5 No. 2018AP875-CR in-law were not victims, and, therefore, the circuit court should not have imposed restitution for their lost wages. ¶8 The State responded that restitution to the adult children was proper because Muth failed to prove that the children would receive a double recovery of special damages. The State further argued that H.M. and K.M. could be compensated for the income their spouses would have earned because Wisconsin is a marital property state.4 ¶9 The circuit court upheld its restitution order. The circuit court acknowledged that victims are not permitted to receive a double recovery, but it rejected Muth's first argument because he had failed to prove that a double recovery of special damages would result from the imposition of restitution. The court explained that the civil settlement was quite broad and was a release for both special damages and general damages. The circuit court found that H.M. and K.M. suffered both special and general damages and concluded that Muth did not present evidence that particular amounts of the civil settlement were for general collect the contract price less any setoff for such things as defective workmanship that the owner paid another contractor to correct. Klug & Smith Co. v. Sommer, 83 Wis. 2d 378, 385-86, 265 N.W.2d 269 (1978). Setoff also can be a contractual right. For example, an insurance policy may assert that payout under the policy will be subject to setoff by amounts paid by the tortfeasor. Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶20, 302 Wis. 2d 428, 734 N.W.2d 411. 4 In a letter dated March 28, 2017, to the Washington County Circuit Court, the State argued that the amount of restitution should include the entirety of the spouses' lost wages because Wisconsin is a marital property state. 6 No. 2018AP875-CR damages and other specific amounts were for special damages. Therefore, the circuit court concluded that the civil settlement did not preclude restitution by providing a double recovery of special damages. ¶10 Furthermore, while the circuit court agreed that the sons-in-law were not victims, it reasoned that [l]oss of wages to the husband is a loss of a marital asset. If it damages him, it damages her. Because no one disputed that H.M. and K.M. were victims, the circuit court reasoned that marital property law authorized the imposition of restitution for income lost by their spouses missing work due to Muth's criminal conduct.