United States v. Hanna
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25986
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Hanna was divorced and Illinois court ordered biweekly child support through August 2014.
- He moved to Washington State, stopped paying, and faced notices and a license suspension.
- From 2005–2009 Hanna enjoyed a lavish lifestyle with luxury car leases, travel, and gifts from family.
- He maintained Canadian bank accounts with over $500,000 in deposits, suggesting resources beyond basic subsistence.
- In May 2005 Hanna was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 228 for willfully failing to pay support to a child in another state; he was convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and restitution of $247,843.99.
- On appeal Hanna challenged evidence of income and willfulness, jury instructions regarding tax law, evidentiary disputes, and restitution calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient income to prove willfulness | Hanna argues gifts aren’t income for support | Use broader resources to assess ability to pay | Evidence supported willfulness; resources beyond taxable income permissible |
| Whether willfulness was proven given gifts with strings attached | Gifts came with conditions, negating willfulness | Jury could disbelieve strings; wouldful violation of legal duty shown | Willfulness established by intentional nonpayment despite available resources |
| Whether the district court erred by failing to instruct on the Tax Code § 102(g) gifts exclusion | Tax exclusion for gifts could have aided defense | Argument forfeited; no plain error | No reversible error; instruction not required |
| Whether restitution amount should reflect Hanna's post-conviction payment | Restitution should reflect arrears as of sentencing | Credit for $167,000 payment should reduce restitution | Restitution properly calculated as $247,843.99 minus paid amount; $80,843.99 remaining |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edelkind, 525 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.2008) (willfulness can be shown by using money for other expenses instead of paying support)
- United States v. Smith, 278 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.2002) (proof that defendant had sufficient funds to pay supports willful)
- United States v. Ballek, 170 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.1999) (willful can mean having money and refusing to use it for support)
- United States v. Kukafka, 478 F.3d 531 (3d Cir.2007) (ability to pay instruction considering resources beyond income)
- United States v. Mattice, 186 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.1999) (ability to pay derives from basic subsistence, not tax income)
- United States v. Black, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir.1997) (income concept broader than tax-defined income)