State v. Dent
2021 Ohio 2551
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Around 2014–2015, Ameen R. Dent applied for student loans naming his mother, Malkia Dent, as guarantor and providing her personal information; three loans were approved and later defaulted.
- Ms. Dent discovered the defaults years later when her credit score dropped; the Department of Education had not filed any claim against her.
- Dent entered an Alford plea to one count of first-degree misdemeanor theft; the state indicated conviction would allow Ms. Dent to be removed as guarantor and clear her credit.
- At sentencing the Willoughby Municipal Court imposed probation and ordered monthly payments on the defaulted student loans as a restitution/probation condition.
- Dent objected, arguing the Department of Education is not a statutory “victim” and the loan payments are not the direct and proximate cause of his mother’s economic loss; the state did not dispute his position on appeal.
- The court of appeals vacated the portion of the sentence ordering restitution/payments to the Department of Education.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering repayment of defaulted student loans to the U.S. Department of Education as restitution for theft of a parent’s personal information was proper | State concedes DOE is not a recognized victim under recent authority and does not disagree with Dent’s assignment of error | DOE is not a "victim" entitled to restitution and loan payments are not the direct and proximate economic loss suffered by Ms. Dent | Court reversed/vacated the restitution order to the Department of Education: government lender not a victim in this case and loan repayment did not bear a reasonable relationship to Ms. Dent’s economic loss |
Key Cases Cited
- Centerville v. Knab, 166 N.E.3d 1167 (Ohio 2020) (municipal corporation performing ordinary duties is not a victim under Marsy’s Law and not entitled to restitution)
- State v. Allen, 147 N.E.3d 618 (Ohio 2019) (bank was a victim entitled to restitution where it suffered an identifiable economic loss and was the target of the crime)
- State v. Ciresi, 162 N.E.3d 846 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (discussion of “economic loss” requirement for restitution and need for reasonable relationship to actual loss)
- State v. Williams, 516 N.E.2d 1270 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (restitution limited to actual damage caused by the offense and must be proved to a reasonable degree of certainty)