Opinion
No. 22870-3-III
Filed: May 3, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No: 95-1-01874-3. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/03/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Linda G Tompkins.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Kevin Michael Korsmo, Attorney at Law, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-2043.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In 1996, Lisa Wolf pleaded guilty to one count of first degree theft. As part of her sentence, the trial court ordered Ms. Wolf to pay restitution in the amount of $9,123.50. In 2004, Ms. Wolf paid the restitution amount and some of the interest, but a balance of over $6,000 remained. Pro se, Ms. Wolf asked the court to discharge the interest owed or, alternately, to reduce the rate of interest. The court reduced the amount due by one-half and imposed interest of 12 percent. The State appeals, contending the court lacked the authority to reduce the amount due or to change the rate of interest. We conclude the superior court erred by reducing Ms. Wolf's restitution obligation.
FACTS
In 1996, Lisa Wolf pleaded guilty to one count of first degree theft. The charge arose from payments made to Ms. Wolf by two insurance companies that relied upon Ms. Wolf's false claims of lost paychecks. The trial court imposed a standard range sentence and ordered Ms. Wolf to pay restitution in the sum of $9,123.50. Later, a second order was filed clarifying the distribution of the restitution. Under RCW 19.52.020, the statutory rate of interest of 12 percent per annum applied to the judgment.
Ms. Wolf failed to comply with the order. In December 1996, the State requested a bench order based on a notice from the Division of Community Corrections. This notice stated that Ms. Wolf had not paid the restitution owed and that she had also failed to pay the agreed-upon amount of $5 per month.
In September 2003, Ms. Wolf paid the amount of $9,893.50, with funds from her husband's retirement account. In March 2004, a notice was filed stating that the $9,893.50 had been paid, but interest was owed in the amount of $6,027.26.
Meanwhile, in February 2004, pro se, Ms. Wolf moved the court for discharge of the interest owing on the restitution and, alternatively, for a reduction of the interest owing on the restitution. Ms. Wolf characterized the financial obligation remaining as the amount of interest that accumulated over the years. Her request was based on her belief that `years of bad advice from people who should have been helping me to do the right thing to resolve this matter.' Clerk's Papers at 35. Also, pro se, she stated her belief that she had paid enough and needed to move on. The State filed a written objection to Ms. Wolf's request.
Pursuant to Ms. Wolf's motion, argument was conducted in superior court. Ms. Wolf asked the court to reduce the remainder of the judgment owed because her public defender had told her `not to worry about that because [she] would never have to pay.' Report of Proceedings (RP) at 4. When issuing its opinion, the court acknowledged that it could not change the amount determined as restitution, but the court noted that the statutory interest rate was inherently unreasonable when compared with the rates in the marketplace. The court then reduced the remaining balance by one-half, setting the amount owing at $3,018.
The State appeals.
ANALYSIS
The statutes governing the financial obligation imposed in criminal cases are set forth in chapter 10.82 RCW. These provisions describe the court's authority when imposing restitution in these cases.
RCW 10.82.090 provides, in part, that a financial obligation imposed in a judgment shall bear interest from the date of the judgment until payment, at the rate applicable to a civil judgment. RCW 4.56.110(4) sets forth the interest rates applicable in several situations. As applied here, RCW 4.56.110(4) provides that `judgments shall bear interest from the date of entry at the maximum rate permitted under RCW 19.52.020 on the date of entry thereof.' Neither statute indicates that some other rate of interest applies or that the applicable period of interest can be modified. For this case,
RCW 4.56.110 was amended effective June 10, 2004. None of the changes affect the language here. Laws of 2004, ch. 185, sec.2.
RCW 19.52.020 establishes that the rate of interest applicable is 12 percent.
Although not applicable here, subsequent amendments to RCW 10.82.090 would have permitted the court to reduce the rate of interest. These amendments did not take effect until June 10, 2004, and Ms. Wolf filed her motion in February 2004. The order was entered in March 2004. The superior court was frustrated by the amendments and the timing of Ms. Wolf's motion; under the law in effect at the time of Ms. Wolf's motion, the court could not change the interest portion of the amount due. The court stated:
The interest rate on this [$]3,000 I cannot modify. That is statutory. That is going to be at the 12 percent figure, so I am recognizing over the course of time, the law has changed on the lack of Corrections enforcement on these legal financial obligations and that the market has changed with regard to the extraordinary impact of long term 12 percent. That is the reason for me reducing that principal balance to $3,018. I do not have the statutory authority to change that currently applicable interest rate which is [at] 12 percent.
RP at 9.
The order entered formalizing the court's oral ruling was prepared by the State. The order stated that the court found that the changes in law terminated the legal obligations as well as the factual impact of interest rates not consistent with market rates and that this supported a reduction in the principal. The court ordered Ms. Wolf to pay an amended restitution amount of $3,018, payable in increments of $50 per month.
Under the terms of the court's ruling, the use of the word principal may or may not refer to the principal amount of the interest rather than the principal paid on the restitution amount that did not include interest. Ms. Wolf's motion was described as a motion for a discharge of the interest owed, or a reduction of the interest owed. But the written order requires Ms. Wolf to pay an amended restitution amount.
Regardless of this confusion, Ms. Wolf does not prevail here because the court had no authority to change the restitution amount or the amount of interest applied to the restitution amount. The court erred by reducing Ms. Wolf's restitution from $6,027.26 to $3,018. The order of the court is reversed.
The majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SWEENEY, A.C.J. and BROWN, J., Concur.