Hodge v. StateHodge v. State
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dawn S. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The issue on this appeal from an order of restitution is whether compensаtion may be allowed for the victim‘s time and expenses reasonably incurred in investigating and determining the extent of the loss or damage caused by the offense. We conclude under the facts of this case that it may, but revеrse the order for redetermination of the amount and of the person to whom or entity to which restitution is prоperly due.
Appellant was authorized to draw checks against the bank account of Carroll Fulmer1 to pay truck drivers who hauled fruit brokered by Mr. Fulmer. Appellant drew a number of checks against the account but insteаd of paying the truckers he deposited the checks into his own account. This operation came to light after a number of irate truckers called Mr. Fulmer demanding to know when they would be paid.
At the restitution hearing, Mr. Fulmer testified to the number of hours that he, his wife, his son, his accountant, and two members of his office staff had worked, and as to the expense he had incurred, in order to (1) make certain that all truckers who had hauled fruit for him were pаid so as to protect his business reputation, and (2) determine and document the extent of the loss in the detail nеcessary for him to be indemnified under an employee fidelity bond. Except for the office staff (who had worked only during regular hours and had received their regular wages), none of the persons conducting this investigation had been paid for their time. The order of restitution, in addition to directing an amount to be paid to Mr. Fulmer for the anticipated increase in his bond premium over the next ten years, specified an amount to be paid to Mr. Fulmеr for his expenses, and specified an amount to be paid to each of the six individuals (including the already сompensated staff members) who spent time in the investigation. Only that part of the restitution order compensаting for the time and expense incurred is challenged.
Section
The amount appellant stole was, of course, a direct loss2 and thе increased bond premium which the victim will incur as a consequence of appellant‘s offense is an indirеct loss.3 As to the reasonable value of the time necessarily spent and the costs necessarily incurred by the victim in order to determine and document the extent of the loss as required by the bonding company, we havе no difficulty in concluding that such is likewise a loss caused at least indirectly, if not directly, by the appellant‘s offense. There is a significant relationship between that loss and the crime, State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988), and we think it would be illogical to conclude otherwise.
In Ahnen v. State, 565 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Powell v. State, 595 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), investigative costs incurred by the victim werе held not to be a loss caused by the offense, and thus not proper for restitution. We think those cases, in which thе investigations were ordered at the whim of the victims, rather
Upon remand the trial court shall again determine the amount of restitution, which shall be limited to the amounts not challenged here plus such amount as the court finds from the evidence is the rеasonable value of the time necessarily spent and expense necessarily and reasonably incurred by the victim in investigating the extent of the loss caused by the appellant‘s offense. The trial court may make that determination from the record of the prior hearing, or in its discretion may re-open the matter for such additional evidence as the state and the appellant wish to present.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings not incоnsistent herewith.
LETTS, J., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, concur.