356 P.3d 698
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeremy Flygare was subject to a 2005 criminal judgment ordering restitution recorded on the civil docket.
- He moved in district court for satisfaction of judgment, arguing the restitution judgment expired under the eight-year judgment statute.
- Utah law generally provides civil judgments expire after eight years unless renewed. (Utah Code § 78B-5-202)
- Utah Criminal Code required victims to timely renew restitution judgments, but the Crime Victims Restitution Act contains an exemption stating restitution judgments entered on the civil docket expire only upon full payment. (Utah Code § 77-38a-401(4))
- The district court denied Flygare’s motion; he appealed claiming misinterpretation of the statutes and suggesting ex post facto concerns with post hoc statutes.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Exemption Provision controls and there is no ex post facto problem based on legislative history and prior amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Flygare's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a restitution judgment recorded on the civil docket expires after eight years under the general judgment statute | The eight-year statute of limitations extinguished the restitution judgment | The Crime Victims Restitution Act exempts restitution judgments from the eight-year expiration; they expire only on full payment | The Exemption Provision controls; restitution judgments recorded on the civil docket do not expire after eight years and remain until paid in full |
| Whether the Renewal Provision (victim must renew) governs restitution judgments recorded on the civil docket | Victim must timely renew; otherwise judgment lapses after eight years | The Exemption Provision’s "notwithstanding" language nullifies the Renewal Provision as to civil-docket restitution judgments | The Renewal Provision is superseded for restitution judgments on the civil docket by the Exemption Provision |
| Whether applying the post-2005 amendments to § 77-38a-401(4) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Amendments that extend or make restitution judgments indefinite cannot apply retroactively | The amendments applied to unpaid restitution judgments and Flygare’s judgment remained unpaid by the statutory cutoff | No ex post facto violation; statute applies to unpaid judgments and Flygare had not paid by the relevant date |
| Whether legislative history and related statutes support the statutory interpretation | Argued amendments shouldn’t be read to change prior obligations | Legislature’s amendments and legislative history clarify restitution judgments shouldn’t lapse; other statutes (e.g., bankruptcy exemption) align with this view | Legislative history and related provisions support treating restitution judgments as non-expiring until paid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gallegos, 171 P.3d 426 (Utah 2007) (standard of review and statutory construction principles)
- Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co., 70 P.3d 1 (Utah 2003) (harmonizing provisions to give each meaning)
- Miller v. State, 226 P.3d 743 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (presumption that legislature uses words according to ordinary meaning)