State v. Chadwick, 486 P.3d 90

Background

Homeowners hired Kristopher Chadwick to remodel two bathrooms for $7,270. Chadwick held only a handyman license (authorized for projects ≤ $3,000) and had prior misdemeanor convictions for contracting without a license.
Work defects included an oversized vanity, improperly laid floor tile that could be lifted by hand, and large holes in shower grout on walls and ceilings.
Homeowners discovered Chadwick’s license status via DOPL, terminated the contract, and sent DOPL a complaint letter describing defects and stating they had obtained estimates to re-tile floors and re-grout showers.
State charged Chadwick with communications fraud (felony) and contracting without a license (misdemeanor); Chadwick pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor and agreed to pay restitution as ordered.
At the restitution hearing, the State introduced photos, video, the DOPL letter, and testimony; Chadwick conceded some restitution items but contested payment for complete retiling of shower walls/ceilings (arguing only regrouting was necessary).
The district court ordered restitution including full retiling of shower walls/ceilings; on appeal the court vacated that portion for insufficient evidence and remanded to calculate restitution for vanity replacement, floor retiling, and regrouting (not full retiling) of shower walls/ceilings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported restitution for complete retiling of shower walls/ceilings	Homeowners/State: overall poor tile work justified tearing out and fully replacing shower tile; court may infer contractors would not rework the grout only	Chadwick: no direct evidence the tile itself was improperly installed; only grout problems shown; Homeowners’ letter and testimony indicated regrouting estimates, not full retiling	Reversed as to full retiling: no reasonable evidentiary basis for requiring replacement of tile (only regrouting supported)
Whether Homeowners’ lack of confidence in Chadwick’s work sufficed	State: lack of confidence justified allowing Homeowners to do whatever necessary to be made whole	Chadwick: general distrust cannot substitute for proof that each specific item was defective	Rejected: plaintiff must prove each restitution item; general lack of confidence is inadequate evidence
Whether absence of a contractor willing to reuse materials supports full retiling	State: implied that no subcontractor would use the materials, so full replacement necessary	Chadwick: record contains no contractor testimony or bid to that effect; one bid referenced supported only regrouting	Rejected: speculation unsupported by bids/testimony cannot justify restitution for full retiling
Whether the court could take judicial notice of contractors’ practices	State: court statements could be viewed as judicial notice that contractors would not regrout others’ work	Chadwick: such facts are not "common and general knowledge" and are disputable	Rejected: inappropriate to judicially notice the disputed factual question whether contractors would regrout another’s work

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ogden, 416 P.3d 1132 (Utah 2018) (standard for reviewing restitution; State must show expenses necessary and amount established in record)
State v. Bird, 405 P.3d 726 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion and burden when challenging restitution sufficiency)
State v. Mooers, 424 P.3d 1126 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (court abused discretion awarding restitution absent evidence linking purchases to statutory factors)
State v. Granados, 451 P.3d 289 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (distinguishing reasonable inferences from speculation)
Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 358 P.3d 1067 (Utah 2015) (discussing difference between inference and speculation)
DeFusion Co. v. Utah Liquor Control Comm’n, 613 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1980) (limitations on judicial notice—matters must be common and not disputable)