265 N.C. App. 657
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- Tamora Williams worked as office manager for GCF (owner: Charles Fogleman) and had exclusive access to the business checking account and debit card.
- Fogleman discovered extensive personal charges on the company debit card (354 items) covering ~17 months; he fired Williams and turned an itemized spreadsheet over to police.
- Williams was criminally charged with embezzlement; she later pled guilty by Alford plea to one embezzlement count; multiple related counts were dismissed as part of the plea bargain.
- Before the criminal disposition, Williams and Fogleman settled their civil dispute: Williams paid $13,500 under a settlement containing a broad release of claims "from the beginning of time to the date hereof."
- At a restitution hearing the State sought $41,204.85; the trial court found the gross loss that amount, credited Williams $13,500 from the civil settlement, and ordered $27,704.85 restitution as a condition of probation.
- Williams appealed (via certiorari) arguing the civil release barred further recovery (restitution) in the criminal case; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a civil settlement/release between victim and defendant bars the State from obtaining criminal restitution for the same loss | State: civil settlement does not bind the State; restitution is a separate statutory remedy the State may enforce | Williams: the release discharged all claims between the parties and bars additional recovery (restitution) | Court: Civil settlement and criminal restitution are distinct; release between private parties does not preclude restitution ordered by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Florida, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2003) (civil settlement between victim and defendant does not bar criminal restitution because remedies serve different purposes)
- New Jersey v. DeAngelis, 747 A.2d 289 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (civil settlement or release does not absolve defendant of criminal restitution)
- Haltom v. Indiana, 832 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 2005) (civil settlement cannot preclude State's authority to impose restitution as part of criminal punishment)
- People v. Bell, 741 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (criminal restitution is required irrespective of a civil settlement)
- Minnesota v. Arends, 786 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (contrary rule: a complete valid civil settlement may preclude state from seeking restitution)
- State v. Pace, 186 S.E. 366 (N.C. 1936) (restitution or return of stolen property does not bar criminal prosecution)