State v. Gates
2015 ND 177
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Joan Gates, as personal representative of the Estate of Lela Gates, was convicted by a jury of misapplication of entrusted property; the district court initially ordered $23,537.72 in restitution and reserved additional restitution for later hearing.
- After post-trial proceedings and a supplemental hearing, the State sought total restitution of $368,459.66; the district court ultimately ordered Gates to pay $93,257.74 to the estate’s personal representative.
- The district court’s supplemental award broke the restitution into categories: improper fiduciary expenditures ($37,757.72), misappropriated stock proceeds ($46,857.51), misappropriated oil checks ($2,742.51), legal fees ($2,400), and personal representative fees ($3,500).
- Gates contended (1) oil checks and stock-sale proceeds were deposited into the estate accounts and used for estate expenses/liens, and (2) some items were double-counted or unsupported.
- The district court relied largely on testimony by the estate’s personal representative, Mark Westereng, and bank records; it found some deposits unaccounted for and listed several suspicious withdrawals.
- The Supreme Court found certain items unsupported (stock proceeds and a $7,250 weed-spraying check that was never cashed) and reduced the restitution; it affirmed the remainder of the restitution award and denied Gates’ post-conviction relief application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in awarding additional restitution | State: evidence (testimony, bank records) supports award for improper expenditures, oil checks, stock proceeds, fees | Gates: stock and oil proceeds were deposited into estate accounts and used for estate purposes; some items duplicated or unsupported | Court modified award: affirmed restitution generally but reversed inclusion of stock proceeds and $7,250 uncashed check; reduced total to $39,150.23 |
| Whether oil-check amounts were proven misappropriated | State: company records show checks issued totaling $2,742.51 and funds are unaccounted for | Gates: bank statements show at least one matching deposit and funds used for bills | Court: reasonable to order restitution for oil checks because remaining checks were unaccounted for; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether stock-sale proceeds were misappropriated | State: deposits existed but finder could conclude funds unaccounted for by fiduciary | Gates: deposit slips and checks show stock proceeds were deposited and used by estate to pay liens | Court: record shows deposits of $46,857.51 into estate accounts; no evidence supports treating them as misappropriated; reversed those items from restitution |
| Whether some restitution was double-counted in amended judgment | State: amended judgment incorporated, not duplicated, earlier amount | Gates: initial $23,537.72 was repeated and would create double liability | Court: no double recovery; amended order replaced earlier restitution rather than adding to it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bingaman, 655 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2002) (standard of review for restitution orders)
- State v. Kleppe, 800 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2011) (abuse of discretion and burden to prove restitution)
- State v. Gendron, 747 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 2008) (district courts have wide discretion in restitution; evidentiary imprecision does not preclude recovery)
- Keller v. Bolding, 678 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2004) (principle that imprecision in damages does not bar recovery)
- B.W.S. Invs. v. Mid-Am Restaurants, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1990) (amount of damages when hard to prove is left to finder’s discretion)