There are three different types of restitution: restitution fines, parole revocation fines, and direct orders. The court can order all three types of restitution in the same case. If the offender is found guilty in multiple cases, the court can order all three types of restitution in each case.
A. The court orders a direct order of restitution to pay back the victim(s) of the crime. The amount of the direct order is based on the amount of the loss each victim suffered as a result of the crime. There is no maximum amount a judge can order for this type of restitution. This type of restitution goes directly to the victim.
A. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) automatically collects 50 percent of prison wages or other money deposited into your trust account to pay your restitution. The CDCR will always collect money to pay direct orders before collecting money to pay for restitution fines.
A. You can send voluntary payments on your restitution to the accounting trust office at the institution where you are housed. Exact procedures vary between institutions. For more information you can talk to your Correctional Counselor.
A. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will refer your direct order restitution debt to the California Franchise Tax Board for collection once you are released from prison. You must make arrangements with the Franchise Tax Board from that point forward to satisfy your direct order restitution.
Clearly mark your name and CDC number on the check or money order and make it payable to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Upon discharge from parole any unpaid restitution fines and parole revocation fines will also be referred to the Franchise Tax Board for collection.
A. You must pay off your restitution in full to transfer your parole to another state. Once you pay off your restitution, your parole agent will request a receipt showing a zero balance to submit with your transfer request.
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to give up their gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to pay the claimant for their loss.
The word "restitution" was used in the earlier common law to denote the return or restoration of a specific thing or condition. In modern legal usage, its meaning has frequently been extended to include not only the restoration or giving back of something to its rightful owner and returning to the status quo but also compensation, reimbursement, indemnification, or reparation for benefits derived from, or for loss or injury caused to, another. In summary, therefore, the word "restitution" means the relinquishment of a benefit or the return of money or other property obtained through an improper means to the person from whom the property was taken.
Restitution may be either a legal remedy or an equitable remedy, "depend[ing] upon the basis for the plaintiff's claim and the nature of the underlying remedies sought". Generally, restitution and equitable tracing is an equitable remedy when the money or property wrongfully in the possession of defendant is traceable (i.e., can be tied to "particular funds or property"). In such a case, restitution comes in the form of a constructive trust or equitable lien.
Where the particular property at issue cannot be particularly identified, restitution is a legal remedy. This occurs, for example, when the plaintiff "seeks a judgment imposing personal liability to pay a sum of money". Unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are sometimes identified as types of a disgorgement legal remedies.
This type of damages restores the benefit conferred to the non-breaching party. Put simply, the plaintiff will get the value of whatever was conferred to the defendant when there was a contract. There are two general limits to recovery, which is that a complete breach of contract is needed, and the damages will be capped at the contract price if the restitution damages exceed it.
The orthodox view suggests that there is only one principle on which the law of restitution is dependent, namely the principle of unjust enrichment. However, the view that restitution, like other legal responses, can be triggered by any one of a variety of causative events is increasingly prevalent. These are events in the real world which trigger a legal response. It is beyond doubt that unjust enrichment and wrongs can trigger an obligation to make restitution. Certain commentators propose that there is a third basis for restitution, namely the vindication of property rights with which the defendant has interfered. It is arguable that other types of causative event can also trigger an obligation to make restitution.
Imagine that A commits a wrong against B and B sues in respect of that wrong. A will certainly be liable to pay compensation to B. If B seeks compensation then the court award will be measured by reference to the loss that B has suffered as a result of A's wrongful act. However, in certain circumstances it will be open to B to seek restitution rather than compensation. It will be in B's interest to do so if the profit that A made by his wrongful act is greater than the loss suffered by B. Or in some circumstances, the lost good "G" carries a more value to B than the actual cost of "G". For example, B possesses a rare book of say, 14th century [G], which cost only Rs 10 in that period. A has illegally stolen G [from B] and has destroyed it. Currently very few samples of G exist in the world, yet since its demand is not much, G still costs Rs 10. Since very few samples exist in the world, it is near impossible to find a person from whom G could be bought. In such a circumstance, B is entitled to get Rs 10 from A under the law of torts. However B might prefer to apply law of restitution instead [waiver of torts], and claim that he needs a copy of G rather than Rs. 10.
Whether or not a claimant can seek restitution for a wrong depends to a large extent on the particular wrong in question. For example, in English law, restitution for breach of fiduciary duty is widely available but restitution for breach of contract is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types:
In Attorney General v Blake, an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The defendant had made a profit somewhere in the region of 60,000 as a direct result of breaching his contract with the claimant. The claimant was undoubtedly entitled to claim compensatory damages but had suffered little or no identifiable loss. It therefore decided to seek restitution for the wrong of breach of contract. The claimant won the case and the defendant was ordered to pay over his profits to the claimant. However, the court was careful to point out that the normal legal response to a breach of contract is to award compensation. An order to make restitution was said to be available only in exceptional circumstances.
In the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") entitles a buyer who defaults restitution of the buyer's deposit to the extent it exceeds reasonable liquidated damages or actual damages. If the contract does not have a liquidated damages clause, the UCC provides a statutory sum: 20% of the price or $500, whichever is less, and the buyer who defaulted is entitled to restitution of any excess.
The point of restitution is to return what has been lost or stolen or to repair the damage or injury that has been done so that things can be returned to how they originally were or as close as possible.
The word reparations is sometimes used interchangeably with restitution and refers to forms of restitution or compensation provided to those who have suffered wrongdoing or to their descendents. The word reparations is sometimes thought to be inappropriate for the type of compensation sought by some groups, who may consider it a payment of an existing debt, rather than a form of restitution.
Restitution is court ordered monetary compensation for crime victims. A legitimate order for restitution is applied during the sentencing of an offender and the amount and manner of payment is determined by the courts. Once an offender is under community supervision, supervision officers facilitate and monitor offender restitution payment compliance.
The Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005 mandates that any offender sentenced on or after July 1, 2005, with a court order specifying restitution to the victim(s), is required to make restitution payments while under supervision.
The judge will then order the defendant to pay restitution to you. If the defendant is sentenced locally, like probation or county jail for example, the Comprehensive Collections Unit (CCU) of the San Francisco Superior Court will collect restitution from the defendant.
In California, victims of crime have a constitutional right to restitution. Restitution involves restoring economic losses incurred by crime victims or returning what was taken away from them as a result of a crime. The Sonoma County District Attorney Restitution Specialist will assist victims in obtaining restitution from convicted defendants in every appropriate case. Prosecutors accomplish this by seeking a restitution order from the judge handling the criminal case.
Victims of violent crimes can also receive some reimbursement for eligible losses from the state. The California Victim Compensation Board administers the program that is primarily funded by restitution fines that the courts order convicted offenders to pay in every case. Victims begin the process with the assistance of a victim advocate by submitting an application for Crime Victim Compensation.
Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat is Restitution?Restitution means that the offender who committed the crime must pay the victim back for any crime related bills. When the offender is sentenced, the judge issues several orders. The judge must require the offender to pay restitution fines, restitution orders, other fines and penalty assessments. The restitution order is the amount the offender must pay back the victim or the Victim Compensation Program for crime-related expenses. The judge makes this order when the offender is sentenced. The judge must order the offender to pay restitution for the entire amount of those losses. 041b061a72