In Re Imran Q.

California Court of Appeal Apr 18, 2007 No. B188613Published

Before: Rubin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile offender may be ordered to pay restitution for a victim's attorney's fees and costs incurred to collect restitution, but such recovery is limited to fees attributable to the recovery of economic losses rather than non-economic damages like pain and suffering.

Issues

Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 authorizes restitution for a victim's attorney's fees and costs incurred to collect restitution.
Whether a restitution order for attorney's fees must be apportioned between economic losses and non-economic damages recovered in a settlement.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We thus find section 730.6's silence on attorney's fees and costs a mere legislative oversight.”

“The restitution statutes do not authorize restitution for legal fees incurred to recover general damages, only those incurred to collect restitution.”

“We remand to the trial court to determine the allocation, if any, of the settlement between those categories.”

57 Cal.Rptr.3d 233 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 581 In re IMRAN Q., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Imran Q., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B188613. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Eight.

April 9, 2007. As Modified April 18, 2007. [234] Anne E. Fragasso, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Marc E. Turchin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

RUBIN, J.

Imran Q. appeals from the juvenile court's order that he pay $17,958.13 in restitution to Joseph Iaquinto. We remand this matter to the juvenile court for it to recalculate the restitution amount.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In April 2003, then 16-year-old appellant Imran Q. fled from a car accident in which he injured Joseph Iaquinto. Appellant later admitted in juvenile court to one count of hit and run with an injury and one count of hit and run with property damage. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and sentenced him to home on probation. It also ordered him to pay $57,499.74 in restitution to Iaquinto for his economic losses, consisting of medical expenses, property damage, and lost income.[1]

Appellant eventually settled Iaquinto's personal injury lawsuit against him for $100,000, the policy limit of appellant's insurance coverage.[2] Iaquinto's attorney received $29,229.13 in fees and costs off the top of the settlement, meaning Iaquinto netted $70,770.87 from his lawsuit. Iaquinto thereafter moved to recover as further restitution the fees and costs he paid to his attorney to achieve the settlement. In addition, Iaquinto asked the court to award him the $2,000 he owed to the attorney [235]

In Re Imran Q.

AI Brief

RUBIN, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief