Matter of K.E.G. Youth, 298 P.3d 1151

K.E.G. is a 15-year-old delinquent youth who participated in a multi-night vandalism spree resulting in $78,702.09 in restitution.
The Youth Court determined K.E.G. was jointly and severally liable for the aggregate damages under a common-scheme theory.
K.E.G. admitted to two of ten nights of vandalism; damages for those two nights totaled $16,020.63.
The Youth Court requested restitution of the full aggregate amount and did not adequately assess K.E.G.’s ability to pay.
Dispositional order awarded restitution joint and several with payments, while Youth Court retained jurisdiction until age 21 or full payment.
K.E.G. appeals asserting improper aggregation and lack of consideration of ability to pay; the State argues for aggregate restitution under the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain error occurred by imposing aggregate restitution without ability to pay consideration	KE.G. argues lack of ability-to-pay review taints the order	State contends aggregation is authorized by statute and serves accountability	Plain error found; remand for new restitution hearing to evaluate ability to pay
Whether aggregation of damages over ten nights was appropriate under the Youth Court Act	KE.G. contends only two nights should be charged	State asserts common-scheme damages may be aggregated	Aggregation deemed permissible but requires ability-to-pay consideration and proper factual basis
Whether the court improperly applied adult sentencing statutes to a youth proceeding	KE.G. not convicted; adult statutes inapplicable	Court relied on aggregation provisions of adult statute	Court erred; restitution must follow Youth Court Act provisions (not adult sentencing)
Whether there was a proper causal link between KE.G.’s conduct and the aggregate damages	Damages beyond two nights were not caused by KE.G.	Damages from common scheme attributed to KE.G.	Damages must be limited to those arising from KE.G.’s conduct; remand for corrected amount will be needed

In re T.M.R., 334 Mont. 64, 144 P.3d 809 (2006 MT 246) (excludes adult statutes where not expressly authorized by Youth Court Act)
City of Billings v. Edward, 366 Mont. 107, 285 P.3d 523 (2012 MT 186) (restitution must arise from the offender’s conduct; cannot exceed damages)
Beavers v. Beavers, 300 Mont. 49, 3 P.3d 614 (2000 MT 145) (restitution limits tied to damages caused by conduct)
Breeding v. State, 343 Mont. 323, 184 P.3d 313 (2008 MT 162) (restitution context; causation and damages)
Brownback, 356 Mont. 190, 232 P.3d 385 (2010 MT 96) (causation and effects of restitution on youth)