Court Opinion

ID: 9736299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:50:14.680903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.552067
License: Public Domain

CADY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Although the set-off rule of section 910.8 is clearly limited by its language to judgments, the majority ultimately concludes it is required to interpret the statute to include settlements to prevent the statute from achieving an absurd result. I would limit the statute to its plain language, as courts are required to do, because this plain language does not in any way create an absurd result.
I agree with the majority that the purpose of the statute is to prevent a financial windfall for the plaintiff and, conversely, avoid the imposition of an additional financial hardship on the defendant. Yet, the statute does not need to be read to include settlements to accomplish this purpose. The reason is that, absent a statute or court order, a restitution order entered in a criminal case is unaffected by any judgment entered in a civil case arising out of the same facts and circumstances. The order and judgment are both enforceable court orders. Thus, to prevent the windfall that would otherwise result, our legislature provided for a setoff. However, if a civil action is concluded by settlement instead of a judgment, the parties to the settlement can include the necessary provisions in the settlement agreement to prevent any windfall. For example, the settlement agreement could include a provision that the first $150,000 of the settlement proceeds would be paid to the plaintiff through the clerk of court or other person designated under the restitution order so the defendant would receive a credit on the restitution.
The problem with the majority’s conclusion is twofold. For all we know, because the settlement agreement contained no special provisions, the parties to the settlement agreement in this case could have intended for both orders to be satisfied. Thus, the majority not only interferes with the role of the legislative branch in this case by adding language to the statute, it may also have interfered with the rights of the parties to contract. In short, the stat*277ute does its intended job, and we should apply it as written.