Court Opinion

ID: 9908198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 05:05:37.989638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:59.062596
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                             COURT OF APPEALS

In re C.A.B., Minor.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                       UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       December 7, 2023
               Petitioner-Appellee,

v                                                                      No. 364128
                                                                       Genesee Circuit Court
C.A.B., Minor.                                                         Family Division
                                                                       LC No. 20-136942-DL
               Respondent-Appellant,

and

LANNY BUCKNER and DANIELLE BUCKNER,

               Appellants.

Before: HOOD, PJ., and JANSEN and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

         Respondent and his parents appeal by right the circuit court’s decision ordering restitution
of $53,629.54 for property damage sustained as a result of his juvenile-delinquency admissions to
felonious assault, MCL 750.82(1), and attempted first-degree arson, MCL 750.72(1)(a) and MCL
750.92, after he set fire to the victims’ home. Respondent argues that the trial court’s decision
ordering the replacement value of the home was contrary to In re White, 330 Mich App 476; 948
NW2d 643 (2019), in which this Court held that a court may not order a juvenile delinquent to pay
restitution in the amount of a property’s replacement value. Because it is unclear how the trial
court achieved its final restitution calculation, it is necessary to remand this case to the trial court
for a more detailed explanation of its determination of $52,891 in restitution after the juvenile set
fire to the victim’s home. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

                                                  -1-
                                       I. BACKGROUND

       In the middle of the night on June 5, 2020, respondent poured gasoline on the exterior of
the garage of the home where his former friend lived and lit the gasoline on fire. He knew what
he had done, and he instantly regretted it. At the time, four people were asleep in the home.
Respondent admitted to felonious assault and attempted first-degree arson.

         At the restitution hearing, the homeowner testified that he had purchased the home for
$165,000 in 2014. He opined that, at that time, it had been “the rock bottom of the real estate
market in our area” and that he had received a “great deal” on the home which was built in 1857.
The homeowner testified that the home was a total loss because even portions of the home that did
not burn had been damaged. He testified both that he had had to demolish and rebuild the house,
and that he had been able to save portions of the home through restoration. Insurance had provided
the replacement cost of the home, with an additional amount for code upgrades, but the victims
had had to pay almost $97,000 out of pocket to rebuild the home due to the costs of obtaining
building materials and construction during the COVID-19 pandemic. The homeowner also
testified that he had to pay $6,690.56 out of pocket to replace the 2016 Tahoe that he purchased 5
months before the fire and that was a total loss. He found a Tahoe in New York that had similar
miles and the same model year, and flew there to retrieve it but had to pay more than he paid for
the original Tahoe due to COVID. The homeowner also testified that he paid over $700 to tow
and re-key the electronic key fob for his son’s Chevrolet Malibu as the key was melted in the fire.

       Respondent argued that, pursuant to Michigan common law and statute, the trial court
could not order respondent to pay replacement costs. Rather, the proper amount of restitution was
the decrease in the fair market value of the home caused by respondent’s conduct. Following the
hearing, the trial court found that the victims had suffered significant damages as a result of
respondent’s crimes. The court found that the prosecutor did not establish the home’s fair market
value and therefore, it opined that it must consider the evidence presented. After finding that the
victims’ insurance company had determined that the replacement cost of the home was $428,750,
and had provided an additional $78,224.50 for code upgrades, the court determined that a
reasonable amount of restitution was $52,891, which accounted for some of the out-of-pocket
expenses but did not include owner-approved overages, change orders, and debris removal:1

       The total loss exceeded the limits of the insurance coverage, which left the victim
       to pay out-of-pocket costs of $96,694.27. The statute [MCL 712A.30(3) and MCL
       780.794] does not contemplate COVID construction upcharges or owner approved
       overages. Therefore, the court determines the reasonable amount of restitution as
       to the house to be $52,891.00 which accounts for some of the out-of-pocket
       expenses, minus the owner approved overages and changes orders and additional
       debris removal paid by insurance. There was no evidence related to the fair market
       value or replacement value of the Chevy Tahoe on the day of the loss or the date of

1
  The trial court also declined to award the victims’ requested replacement value for a car and
found that their claims for work-loss and counseling costs had not been supported. On appeal,
respondent does not challenge the portion of the restitution order requiring him to pay for new
keys for a car whose keys were lost in the fire.

                                                -2-
       the disposition. Exhibit #1 did include an invoice for the cost of the new Tahoe that
       was purchased, however that statute doesn’t contemplate COVID increases, and the
       victim was reimbursed replacement cost by insurance in the amount of $36,871.20.
       The Court will order that the cost of the towing and re-keying of the Malibu be
       added to the restitution order in the amount of $738.54.

While the homeowner testified about his wife taking three weeks off work as a nurse at Hackley
Hospital to ensure that the family had a place to live, clothing, food, and transportation, there was
no other evidence presented regarding her lost wages or their son’s counseling fees as he was
struggling with severe anxiety after the fire. The trial court also determined that the juvenile’s
parents would be ordered to also pay on the restitution amount pursuant to MCL 780.794.

                                   II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

        This Court reviews the trial court’s calculation of a restitution amount for an abuse of
discretion. White, 330 Mich App at 481. The trial court abuses its discretion when its chosen
outcome falls outside the range of principled outcomes or when the court has made an error of law.
Id. This Court reviews de novo issues of law, including issues of statutory interpretation. Id.

                                           III. ANALYSIS

        Respondent argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay the replacement cost of
the victims’ damaged home rather than the reduction in the home’s fair market value.

         A juvenile offense is “a violation by a juvenile of a penal law of this state or a violation by
a juvenile of an ordinance of a local unit of government of this state punishable by imprisonment
or by a fine that is not a civil fine.” MCL 712A.30(1)(a). At the dispositional hearing for a juvenile
offense, “the court shall order, in addition to or in lieu of any other disposition authorized by law,
that the juvenile make full restitution to any victim of the juvenile’s course of conduct that gives
rise to the disposition or to the victim’s estate.” MCL 712A.30(2). Section 3 of MCL 712A.30
states:

               If a juvenile offense results in damage to or loss or destruction of property
       of a victim of the juvenile offense, or results in the seizure or impoundment of
       property of a victim of the juvenile offense, the order of restitution may require that
       the juvenile do 1 or more of the following, as applicable:

              (a) Return the property to the owner of the property or to a person
       designated by the owner.

               (b) If return of the property under subdivision (a) is impossible, impractical,
       or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of subparagraph (i) or (ii), less
       the value, determined as of the date the property is returned, of that property or any
       part of the property that is returned:

               (i) The value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction.

               (ii) The value of the property on the date of disposition.

                                                  -3-
             (c) Pay the costs of the seizure or impoundment, or both.                 [MCL
       712A.30(3); emphasis added.]

MCL 712A.31 states in relevant part:

       (1) In determining the amount of restitution to order under section 30 of this
       chapter, the court shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as
       a result of the juvenile offense….

                                              ***

       (4) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by
       the court by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the
       amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the juvenile offense shall be
       on the prosecuting attorney….

         Restitution is “compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.” People v
Gubachy, 272 Mich App 706, 708; 728 NW2d 891 (2006). “The controlling factor with respect to
determining the amount of restitution is the victim’s loss.” In re White, 330 Mich App at 482-483.
“Under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA), MCL 780.751 et seq.[,] … if a felony … results
in the loss of a victim’s property, the trial court may order the defendant to pay to the victim, as
restitution, the value of the property that was lost.” Gubachy, 272 Mich App at 708, citing MCL
780.766(3) of the CVRA. “The juvenile code, MCL 712A.30 and MCL 712A.31, utilizes the same
statutory scheme for restitution that was delineated in the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA),
MCL 780.766 and MCL 780.767, and therefore judicial interpretations of the CVRA may be
applied to the corresponding provisions in the juvenile code. In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App 55, 61-
63; 704 NW2d 78 (2005).” In re White, 330 Mich App 476, 480; 948 NW2d 643 (2019).2 We

2
  The CVRA, MCL 780.766, substantially mirrors MCL 712A.30, including the provision
regarding the juvenile’s parents being required to pay any restitution amounts, but there are notable
differences:
               (3) If a crime results in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a
       victim of the crime or results in the seizure or impoundment of property of a victim
       of the crime, the order of restitution shall require that the defendant do 1 or more
       of the following, as applicable:

              (a) Return the property to the owner of the property or to a person
       designated by the owner.

               (b) If return of the property under subdivision (a) is impossible, impractical,
       or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of subparagraph (i) or (ii), less
       the value, determined as of the date the property is returned, of that property or any
       part of the property that is returned:

                                                -4-
        (i) The fair market value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or
destruction. However, if the fair market value of the property cannot be determined
or is impractical to ascertain, then the replacement value of the property shall be
utilized in lieu of the fair market value.

        (ii) The fair market value of the property on the date of sentencing.
However, if the fair market value of the property cannot be determined or is
impractical to ascertain, then the replacement value of the property shall be utilized
in lieu of the fair market value.

       (c) Pay the costs of the seizure or impoundment, or both.

                                        ***

        (15) If the court determines that a juvenile is or will be unable to pay all of
the restitution ordered, after notice to the juvenile's parent or parents and an
opportunity for the parent or parents to be heard the court may order the parent or
parents having supervisory responsibility for the juvenile at the time of the acts
upon which an order of restitution is based to pay any portion of the restitution
ordered that is outstanding. An order under this subsection does not relieve the
juvenile of his or her obligation to pay restitution as ordered, but the amount owed
by the juvenile shall be offset by any amount paid by his or her parent. As used in
this subsection:

        (a) "Juvenile" means a person within the court's jurisdiction under section
2d or 4 of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.2d
and 712A.4.

       (b) "Parent" does not include a foster parent.

        (16) If the court orders a parent to pay restitution under subsection (15), the
court shall take into account the parent's financial resources and the burden that the
payment of restitution will impose, with due regard to any other moral or legal
financial obligations the parent may have. If a parent is required to pay restitution
under subsection (15), the court shall provide for payment to be made in specified
installments and within a specified period of time.

         (17) A parent who has been ordered to pay restitution under subsection (15)
may petition the court for a modification of the amount of restitution owed by the
parent or for a cancellation of any unpaid portion of the parent's obligation. The
court shall cancel all or part of the parent's obligation due if the court determines
that payment of the amount due will impose a manifest hardship on the parent and
if the court also determines that modifying the method of payment will not impose
a manifest hardship on the victim. [Emphasis added.]

                                         -5-
note that, while White and McEvoy referred to MCL 780.766 and MCL 780.767, more applicable
to juvenile proceedings would be MCL 780.794 and MCL 780.795 which has substantially similar
language, particularly with respect to the reference to utilizing replacement cost. In fact, it was
MCL 780.794, not MCL 780.766, that the trial court relied upon in its opinion.3

       Principles of stare decisis “require this Court to reach the same result in a case that presents
the same or substantially similar issues presented in a case that another panel of this Court has
decided.” Enbridge Energy, LP v Michigan, 332 Mich App 540, 554; 957 NW2d 53 (2020). See
MCR 7.215(C)(2). This Court has held that “a restitution award premised on the basis of the
replacement value of damaged property is improper.” White, 330 Mich App at 483 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). This Court further stated:

       The value of a victim’s loss due to damaged property . . . is not based on the cost
       to repair it or to return it to the condition it was in before the damage. Rather, the
       value of a victim’s loss due to damaged property is based on the decrease in the
       property’s fair market value due to the damage. [White, 330 Mich App at 486.]

        In this case, the trial court held that the proper amount of restitution was the replacement
value of the home, and its award included out-of-pocket expenses that the victims paid when
restoring the home to its previous condition. Thus, the question presented is whether White
controls the case at bar. We conclude that it does not.

        As noted above, White relied upon McEvoy. The problem with relying on McEvoy is that
it was decided in 2005. But, effective July 1, 2009, 2009 PA 28 added the same sentence to all
four locations in MCL 780.766(3)(b)(i) and (ii) and MCL 780.794(3)(b)(i) and (ii): “However, if
the fair market value of the property cannot be determined or is impractical to ascertain, then the
replacement value of the property shall be utilized in lieu of the fair market value.” And while
White was decided after this amendment to the statutes, it did not consider the effect of those
provisions. Moreover, the facts of White are substantially different than those in the case at bar.
White did not involve the destruction of real estate. Rather, it involved a stolen vehicle that was
recovered and returned to the victim, except that a hidden key to the vehicle was not recovered.
Rather than having the locks changed, the victim chose to replace the vehicle. The trial court
ordered restitution which included what the cost of replacing the locks would have been. 330 Mich
App at 478-480.

        Given the substantially different facts in White and that White did not analyze whether the
language added by the 2009 amendment to the CVRA applied to that case, we conclude that this
case is not bound by the decision in White. But the question remains whether it was impossible or
impractical for the trial court to ascertain the destroyed property’s fair market value and, therefore,
whether the trial court properly looked to the replacement cost in determining restitution.

3
  Curiously, respondents argue on appeal that MCL 780.794 has no applicability to juveniles. Yet
all of Article 2 of the CVRA, which includes MCL 780.794, explicitly applies to juvenile
proceedings.

                                                 -6-
         As there was no evidence in the record regarding fair market value as required under MCL
712A.30(3)(b), nor any fair market value analysis by the trial court, on remand, the trial court shall
conduct a new restitution hearing wherein the burden is on the prosecution to offer evidence
regarding fair market value as of the date of the arson and the date of disposition, or evidence why
it is impossible or impractical to determine that amount. MCL 712A.30(3)(b)(i), (ii) MCL
712A.31(4).4 The prosecution may elect to present additional testimony, see People v Corbin, 312
Mich App 352, 371; 880 NW2d 2 (2015), but restitution is not properly awarded for losses covered
by insurance, People v Corbin, 312 Mich App 352, 360; 880 NW2d 2 (2015). If the trial court
determines that it is possible and practical to determine the fair market value of the property, it
shall proceed to do so and enter a restitution award accordingly. If the trial court determines that
it is impossible or impractical to determine fair market value, it may then enter an award reflecting
the replacement cost of the property. In this event, the trial court shall enter detailed findings
explaining how it reached the amount awarded.

         We reverse and remand for new proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.

                                                              /s/ Noah P. Hood
                                                              /s/ Kathleen Jansen
                                                              /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

4
  In making this determination, the trial court may consider whether awarding fair market value
rather than replacement cost is practical given the destruction of the property and the need to
rebuild the house.

                                                 -7-