Court Opinion

ID: 9670642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:50.327814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.817245
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in that part of the majority’s decision affirming appellant’s conviction for deprivation of custodial or parental rights. I respectfully dissent, however, from that part of the majority’s decision affirming the sentencing court’s order that appellant pay over $147,000 in restitution.
Today, this court’s countenance of the restitution award is akin to the indenture practice in ancient times. I thought that by now our society had recognized the danger of involuntary servitude resulting from obligations that are beyond a debtor’s ability to pay. We could learn from our past.
Hebrew tradition commanded a Jubilee. Every fiftieth year, the Israelites were to observe a period in which all debts were canceled, slavery was terminated and land was restored to its original owners. Additionally, every seven years, the Israelites had a sabbatical year of release described in the fifteenth chapter of Deuteronomy.
The Babylonian king Hammurabi codified the concept of bankruptcy in his famous Code. It provided for creditors to take all of an insolvent debtor’s goods as payment in full of the debt.
Even the Romans eventually modified their view of debtors rights. Early Roman law provided for “vengeance” — entitling a citizen to dismember any debtor who could not or would not pay. During the time of Julius Caesar, however, Roman jurisprudence incorporated the humane principle that where an insolvent debtor honestly turned over all property for the benefit of creditors, the debtor would no longer be subject to capital punishment, slavery or imprisonment. Today, some historians trace the origins of modem bankruptcy law to Roman law in 118 B.C.
American bankruptcy law finds its origin in the English Bankruptcy Acts dating back to 1542. When our Constitution was framed in 1787, Congress was given the right to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 4. The first actual bankruptcy law of the United States was passed in 1800. Modern bankruptcy law serves in part to free a debtor from the burden of unpaid debts.
More recently, following the unhappy experience of the Great Depression, our own legislature attempted to prevent economic serfdom by outlawing deficiency judgments in mortgage foreclosure actions. See Minn. Stat. § 580.225 (1992) (amount received from foreclosure sale is full satisfaction of the mortgage debt). Moreover, modern mortgage law also gives the debtor an opportunity to redeem the property. See Minn.Stat. 580.23 (Supp.1993).
I am afraid the sentencing court’s decision invites us to ignore history, reality and our society’s evolving attempt to assist debtors who are burdened with debts beyond their ability to pay. There is no question that crime victims may suffer enormous pecuniary damages. In many cases, a victim’s damages will even exceed those sustained here by Aimee Maidi. Additionally, there is no doubt that victims deserve to be compensated. Our experience has taught us, however, that debilitating a person with a judgment that can *421never be satisfied involves a greater misfortune.
Restitution has a twofold purpose: to rehabilitate the defendant and to compensate the victim. See State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.1984). In Fader, the supreme court determined that the primary purpose of restitution is to compensate the victim. See id. Fader, however, “must be interpreted in light of’ case law from the United States Supreme Court. State v. O’Brien, 459 N.W.2d 131, 134 (Minn.App.1990).
After Fader, the United States Supreme Court, in a case examining the dischargeability of criminal restitution obligations in bankruptcy, stated:
The criminal justice system is not operated primarily for the benefit of victims, but for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus, it is concerned not only with punishing the offender, but also with rehabilitating him.
Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 52, 107 S.Ct. 353, 362, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986). The Supreme Court concluded:
Because criminal proceedings focus on the State’s interests in rehabilitation and punishment, rather than the victim’s desire for compensation, we conclude that restitution orders imposed in such proceedings operate “for the benefit of’ the State. Similarly, they are not assessed “for * * * compensation” of the victim. The sentence following a criminal conviction necessarily considers the penal and rehabilitative interests of the State.
Id. at 53, 107 S.Ct. at 362-63. Thus, to the extent that Fader presupposes restitution only to achieve an economic “status quo ante” for the victim, it is “out of the context of subsequent United States Supreme Court case law.” O’Brien, 459 N.W.2d at 134.
In establishing restitution, a sentencing court must consider the “income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 (1992). In this case, appellant has been ordered to pay $200 per month in restitution. The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant has the ability to pay $200 per month.1 I believe, however, the sentencing court erred in failing to consider appellant’s ability to pay the restitution award as a whole. Cf. State v. Yost, 235 Neb. 325, 455 N.W.2d 162, 164 (1990) (court reversed $105,000 restitution award where sentencing court did not “meaningfully” consider the defendant’s earning ability, employment status, financial resources and other obligations).
The restitution award imposed upon appellant has been docketed as a judgment and is accruing interest at the statutory rate of three percent. See Minn.Stat. 549.09, subd. 1(a), (c) (Supp.1993) (money judgments accrue interest at rate indexed to treasury bills as determined by the state court administrator). At this rate, appellant’s payments are not sufficient to pay even the interest. This results in a negative amortization and a curious posture for appellant. Even if appellant makes timely payments, the debt will grow larger with each payment. Does this make sense? Is this good policy? The simple answer, of course, is no. The restitution award in this case is not “reasonable.” See State v. Belfry, 416 N.W.2d 811, 813 (Minn.App.1987). Moreover, such an award will not further the state’s interest in rehabilitating appellant. See Kelly, 479 U.S. at 53, 107 S.Ct. at 362-63.
In a free society, men and women voluntarily follow the law and court decisions. They do so with minimal supervision as their conduct is compelled by hope as well as fear. They cooperate because they hope for a better day — that their labors will be rewarded. When you take away a person’s ability to ever escape a growing economic burden, however, you defeat one of the most fundamental and provocative attractions to a free society. A person in appellant’s position can never expect to own real estate, will be denied credit, and may suffer adverse personal relationships due to the ever burgeoning judgment. More than at any time in human history, credit is the coin of the realm and a person without credit in this society is a *422persona non grata. To what end will the majority’s decision enhance appellant’s ability to requite the legitimate claim of Aimee Maidi?
I do not believe it is the sentencing court’s prerogative to create a scheme wherein each month, despite a defendant’s adherence to the plan, a debt continually grows larger and can never be paid in full. This is the work of Sisyphus. No scheduled payment by appellant will ever lessen the debt. Appellant should not awake every day for the rest of his life with the stone rolling down a steeper and steeper hill.2
Under the facts of this case, I would hold that the sentencing court abused its discretion in creating such a happenstance. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. Appellant’s restitution payment was based on his income of $6.50 per hour. There is nothing in the record to suggest that now, or in the foreseeable future, appellant will have the means to pay more than $200 per month.

. The slight possibility that appellant could win the lottery or unexpectedly come into a large sum of money some day does not justify an otherwise insurmountable restitution award. See People v. Alvarado, 142 Mich.App. 151, 369 N.W.2d 462, 466 (1984).