People v. Grundfor
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Defendant Drew Barrett Grundfor pled no contest to DUI causing injury with aggravating allegations; court placed him on probation and ordered restitution.
- Victim N.M. sued civilly; Allstate (defendant's insurer) settled the civil case for $445,000, with a release stating each side would bear its own attorney fees.
- N.M. paid her lawyer a $178,000 contingency fee (40% of recovery) plus $50,281 in costs.
- At the restitution hearing the trial court ordered Grundfor to pay $178,000 in restitution for attorney fees (plus interest).
- Grundfor argued the settlement release barred the restitution claim, that fees should be apportioned between economic and noneconomic recovery, and that the lodestar method should have been used to calculate fees.
- The trial court found the contingency fee reasonable, declined to apportion, and ordered full restitution; the court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | N.M.'s Argument | Grundfor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a civil settlement/release precludes criminal restitution for attorney fees | Settlement did not pay or offset the attorney fees; fees are actual losses recoverable as restitution | The release and settlement resolved all claims and thus preclude restitution for fees | Release between victim and insurer does not bar criminal restitution; restitution affirmed |
| Whether attorney fees must be apportioned between fees for economic vs noneconomic damages | Fees can be awarded if they were incurred to obtain economic damages; no reduction required absent proof of inclusion of nonrecoverable items | Fees must be apportioned because settlement largely compensated noneconomic losses | Defendant bears burden to show nonrecoverable inclusion; court credited victim's evidence and refused to apportion |
| Proper method to calculate attorney-fee restitution (lodestar vs contingency) | Any rational method is permitted; contingency fee paid is prima facie evidence of loss and may be used | Court should apply lodestar (hourly-times-hours) to ensure reasonableness | Trial court may use contingency if reasonable under circumstances; lodestar not mandatory |
| Whether public policy favoring civil settlements outweighs restitution policy | Both policies can be accommodated; settlement with insurer did not discharge defendant's criminal restitution obligation | Settlement policy should preclude restitution to avoid discouraging settlements | No conflict: civil settlement and criminal restitution operate independently; restitution still ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses standard of review for restitution and use of lodestar when contingency is unreasonable)
- People v. Bernal, 101 Cal.App.4th 155 (Cal. Ct. App.) (civil settlement with insurer does not relieve defendant of criminal restitution)
- People v. Fulton, 109 Cal.App.4th 876 (Cal. Ct. App.) (attorney fees are recoverable as economic loss when actual and reasonable)
- People v. Taylor, 197 Cal.App.4th 757 (Cal. Ct. App.) (any rational method may be used to calculate attorney-fee restitution; contingency fee is prima facie evidence)
- People v. Clifton, 172 Cal.App.3d 1165 (Cal. Ct. App.) (release in civil case does not bar restitution in criminal proceeding)
- People v. Vasquez, 190 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App.) (settlement between victim and insurer is distinct from state's right to restitution)
- Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc., 1 Cal.5th 480 (Cal.) (explains lodestar and multiplier methodology for attorney fees)