J.D.H., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
J.D.H. appeals a restitution order requiring him to pay the original purchase price of a stolen dirt bike. The court holds that fair market value, not original purchase price, is the correct measure of restitution absent special circumstances, and reverses the order for a new hearing.
The trial court abused its discretion by using only the original purchase price as the measure of restitution. Fair market value, which considers original cost, manner of use, condition, and depreciation, is the correct measure of restitution absent special circumstances.
[1] The burden of demonstrating financial resources and needs for restitution rests on the defendant.
[2] The state bears the burden of proving the amount of loss sustained by the victim for restitution purposes.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the fair market value of the stolen item is the correct measure”
States the core holding that fair market value, not purchase price, governs restitution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.D.H. stole a dirt bike that the victim had purchased in October 2002 for $2,436.96. At the restitution hearing in April 2005, the victim testified a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Original Market Cost cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
J.D.H. appeals an order rendered by the trial court ordering him to pay as restitution the original purchase price of a two and a half year old dirt bike that he had stolen. Because the fair market value of the stolen item is the correct measure, we reverse.
At the restitution hearing held in April of 2005, the victim testified from his bill of sale that he paid $2,436.96 for the dirt bike when he purchased it in October of 2002. He testified, as well, that the motorcycle was in excellent shape. There was no testimony regarding the fair market value of the bike, nor was there any evidence that would demonstrate the effect of the lapse of time and the condition of the bike on the fair market value. The trial judge simply adopted the victim’s purchase price in setting the restitution amount.
We review an order of restitution using an abuse of discretion standard. See Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 905 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2005); Bernard v. State, 859 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). If the award of restitution is supported by competent evidence, an appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s reasonable exercise of discretion. Bernard, 859 So. 2d at 562.
This court has held that, absent special circumstances, the fair market value, not the replacement value is generally the correct measure of damages. Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A determination of the fair market value takes into consideration the original market cost, the manner in which the item was used, the general condition and quality of the item, and the percentage of depreciation. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds by, F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla.2003). Courts are not required to use the fair market value as the sole standard of determining restitution, but where the fair market value would provide adequate compensation to the victim or serve other purposes of restitution, the value of the property should be established through the factors listed in Negron. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991). Here, fair market value should have been used. Market cost alone was insufficient.
Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J. and SHARP, W., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.A.B. v. State, 993 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…urden of proving any inability to pay resting with the defendant.4 If competent, substantial evidence supports the amount of the restitution award, we review the amount and any payment schedule under an abuse of discretion standard. J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Notably, although section 775.089(6) previously required a court ordering restitution in an adult case to consider both the losses sustained by the victim and the defendant’s financial resources and needs in setting the am…
-
BOX v. State, 993 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…at which two charges were eliminated from the amount because causality was unclear, the trial court entered the final restitution judgment now being appealed. We review restitution orders using an abuse of discretion standard. See J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Bernard, v. State, 859 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Thus, if the award is supported by substantial competent evidence, we will not interfere with the trial court’s reasonable exercise of discretion. Bernard, 859 So. 2d at 562…
-
H.L.C. v. State, 950 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…er $50, and the ammunition $10. We review an order of restitution using an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1991). The issue is whether the restitution order was supported by competent evidence. J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Here, there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion as to the fair market value of each of the stolen items. As we have previously stated: “Fair market value takes into consideration not only the purchase…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Bernard v. State, 859 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Immon Nabil Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Koile v. State, 905 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2005)