Estate of Casserley ( 2018 )

Filed 4/27/18
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Estate of NORMAN CASSERLEY,
Deceased.
D072298
THERESA HAWKINS, as administrator,
etc.,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No.
37-2015-00033629-PR-LA-CTL)
v.
EMERITA CRUZ JOYA,
Objector and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Julia C.
Kelety, Judge. Affirmed.
Legler & Tomlinson and Thomas M. Tomlinson for Objector and Appellant.
Preovolos Lewin & Hezlop, Carl J. Jones and Thanasi K. Preovolos for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Emerita Cruz Joya appeals from a probate court order approving the final accounting
and settling the estate of Norman Casserley (Decedent). Joya had filed a creditor's claim
against Decedent's estate based on a criminal restitution order entered in her husband's
favor, which was recorded after Decedent's death. The court rejected Joya's argument that
her claim was entitled to priority either as a recorded lien or under the state Constitution's
restitution provision. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Restitution Award and Original Abstract
Decedent and Paul Blazevich were once neighbors. A conflict arose between them
(the nature of which is not revealed in the record), as a result of which Decedent was
convicted of a crime that entitled Blazevich to restitution. On May 21, 1997, Decedent was
ordered to pay Blazevich restitution totaling $17,796, plus 10 percent interest from the date
of sentencing.
About 10 years later, on October 9, 2007, Blazevich obtained an "order for restitution
and abstract of judgment" (capitalization omitted; hereafter, Original Abstract) from the
court and recorded it.
Amended Abstract
About one week later, on October 17, 2007, Blazevich obtained an "amended order
for restitution and abstract of judgment" (capitalization omitted; hereafter, Amended
Abstract). The Amended Abstract reflected an additional $27,000 restitution award,
bringing the total to $44,796. The record does not indicate the basis for the additional
award. In addition to the new $27,000 award, the Amended Abstract indicated the balance
2
then due under the Original Abstract had grown from $17,796 to $36,532.93 (presumably
due to accrued interest on the $17,796).
Blazevich did not immediately record the Amended Abstract.
Assignment of Judgment
On February 8, 2008, Blazevich executed and recorded an assignment of judgment
(Assignment) in favor of his wife, Joya. The Assignment referred only to the Original
Abstract, but purported to convey Blazevich's interest in "all rights accrued or to accrue
under that judgment."
Probate Estate
On July 3, 2015, Decedent died intestate, with no surviving spouse, children, parents,
or grandparents. The respondent in this appeal, Theresa Hawkins (Administrator), filed a
probate petition seeking issuance of letters of administration and appointment as the estate's
personal representative.1 On January 21, 2016, the probate court appointed Administrator
1 " 'The "personal representative" is the person or firm appointed by the probate court
to administer the probate of a decedent's estate. [Citation.] The personal representative may
be the executor, who is the person named as such in the decedent's will, or it may be the
successor to the executor, or an administrator appointed by the court where the decedent
died without a will naming an executor [citation].' " (Estate of Wong (2012) 207
Cal. App. 4th 366, 375, fn. 3, italics added.) "It is the duty of the personal representative to
collect estate assets and preserve them until distribution, to pay claims against the estate
including taxes and the charges of administration, and to distribute the residue to those
entitled." (Estate of Gerber (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 96, 109; Prob. Code, § 9650.)
Administrator described herself to the probate court as "a private professional
fiduciary" licensed by the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau. She sought appointment as the
administrator inasmuch as she was unable to locate any of Decedent's next of kin, and the
county's public administrator declined to exercise priority. (See Prob. Code, § 8461
[specifying the order of priority for persons entitled to appointment as administrator].)
3
as the personal representative of Decedent's estate, with "full authority . . . to administer the
estate without court supervision under the Independent Administration of Estates Act."2
The San Diego County Public Administrator and the California Department of Health
Care Services—each an unsecured creditor—filed claims against the estate for $1,379.50
and $147,766.69, respectively.
Administrator determined the only asset in Decedent's estate was his residence. She
listed it for sale on May 16, 2016, and about one week later accepted an offer of $172,000,
with a 10-day escrow period.
Joya's Claim
About one week into the escrow period, Blazevich contacted Administrator and
explained that he had obtained an Amended Abstract but was unable to locate it. Blazevich
asked that the Administrator accept a retired judge's affidavit attesting to the Amended
Abstract as proof of its underlying obligation. Administrator declined and explained that the
unrecorded Amended Abstract did not encumber the residence. Administrator encouraged
Blazevich and his wife to submit their claim as to the recorded Original Abstract as soon as
possible so that escrow could close.
Neither Blazevich nor Joya immediately submitted a creditor's claim, which delayed
the close of escrow. To encourage them to submit an appropriate claim, Administrator
2 Full authority under the Independent Administration of Estates Act includes (among
other things) the authority to sell real property and to allow or reject creditors' claims
without prior court approval. (Prob. Code, §§ 10511, 10552, subd. (a).)
4
agreed not to distribute the sale proceeds to other creditors until the probate court resolved
the parties' claims regarding the Amended Abstract.
On June 10, 2016, Joya filed a creditor's claim for $178,000. She acknowledged in
her claim that only the Original Abstract had been recorded, and, thus, a dispute existed as
to whether the entire restitution award was secured.
On June 22, 2016—nearly one year after Decedent's death—the Amended Abstract
was recorded.
Escrow closed on July 8, 2016, and Joya received $51,867.04 from the sale
proceeds.3
One week later, Joya filed an amended creditor's claim for $93,358.22. On the
Original Abstract, Joya acknowledged receipt of the funds from escrow, as well as an
additional payment of $2,064.92 (the details of which are unclear from the record), but Joya
claimed there was still a balance due of $14,569.72.4 On the Amended Abstract, Joya
claimed a balance due of $78,788.50.5 In light of Joya's amended claim and the other
creditors' earlier-filed claims, Administrator determined the estate was insolvent.
3 The funds released to Joya from escrow appear to approximate 10 percent interest
accruing from the date restitution of $17,796 was ordered (May 21, 1997) to the date escrow
closed (July 8, 2016).
4 In light of the funds released to Joya from escrow, the record does not make clear
Joya's basis for this additional claim on the Original Abstract.
5 The record does not make clear how Joya calculated this amount.
5
Administrator's Final Accounting and Joya's Objection
On September 20, 2016, Administrator filed her "First and Final Account and Report
of Administrator and Petition for Settlement" (Final Accounting). In it, Administrator
proposed treating Joya's, the county's, and the state's claims all as unsecured general debts
entitled to the lowest level of priority.6 Administrator disputed a portion of Joya's amended
claim, and rejected Joya's view that her claim was entitled to priority over the county's or the
state's unsecured claims. First, Administrator asserted that because the Amended Abstract
was not recorded until after Decedent's death, the debt based on that abstract was governed
by the Probate Code's provisions regarding general unsecured debts (see fn. 6, ante), not the
Code of Civil Procedure's provisions regarding enforcement of judgments.7
Second, Administrator argued the amended claim's provenance as a criminal
restitution order did not entitle it to preference under the California Constitution's restitution
provision, which states: "All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any
6 Probate Code section 11420, subdivision (a) specifies the following order of priority
for payment of creditors' claims: (1) administrative expenses; (2) secured debts; (3) funeral
expenses; (4) expenses of last illness; (5) family allowance; (6) wage claims; and (7)
"[g]eneral debts, including judgments not secured by a lien . . . ."
7 Code of Civil Procedure section 686.020 states: "After the death of the judgment
debtor, enforcement of a judgment against property in the judgment debtor's estate is
governed by the Probate Code, and not [Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure]."
Probate Code section 9300 states: "[A]fter the death of the decedent all money
judgments against the decedent or against the personal representative on a claim against the
decedent or estate are payable in the course of administration and are not enforceable
against property in the estate of the decedent under the Enforcement of Judgments Law
(Title 9 (commencing with Section 680.010) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure)."
6
person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts
ordered as restitution to the victim." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(C).)
Joya filed an objection to the Final Accounting. She maintained the postdeath
recordation of the Amended Abstract created a lien on probate estate assets, irrespective of
Code of Civil Procedure section 686.020. She also insisted her claim was entitled to priority
under the Constitution's restitution provision.
Probate Court's Ruling
The probate court found Joya's claim was unsecured and, therefore, not entitled to
priority over the county's or the state's claims. The court rejected Joya's lien theory,
reasoning that Joya's creation of a lien against probate estate assets was tantamount to
enforcing a judgment because the only reason Joya created the lien was to establish higher
claim-distribution priority.
The court also rejected Joya's constitutional priority argument, explaining that
because restitution orders are "enforceable by a victim as if [they] . . . were a civil
judgment" (Pen. Code,8 § 1214, subd. (b)), and because civil judgments not recorded before
the debtor's death are governed by the Probate Code (and not the judgment-enforcement
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure), the restitution order was not entitled to priority
under the Constitution.
Joya appeals.
8 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
7
DISCUSSION
I. Standing
Each party contends the other lacks standing to participate in this appeal. We
disagree.
A. Joya's Standing
Administrator contends Joya lacks standing because this appeal concerns only the
Amended Abstract, and Blazevich assigned to Joya only his interest in the Original Abstract.
Administrator reasons Blazevich must not have intended to assign his rights under the
Amended Abstract to Joya because he was aware of the Amended Abstract when he
executed the Assignment, yet he did not expressly refer to it.
Joya counters that Administrator forfeited this challenge by failing to raise it in the
probate court. Alternatively, Joya maintains she has standing because the Assignment
expressly states it conveys all of Blazevich's interest in the Original Abstract, "together with
all rights accrued or to accrue under that judgment." (Italics added.)
Administrator's challenge to Joya's standing raises a factual issue regarding
Blazevich's intent. Because Administrator did not raise this issue in the probate court, we
will not consider it on appeal and reject Administrator's lack-of-standing argument. (See
Krechuniak v. Noorzoy (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 713, 726 [where a " 'new theory
contemplates a factual situation the consequences of which are open to controversy and
were not put in issue or presented at the trial[,] the opposing party should not be required to
defend against it on appeal.' "].)
8
B. Administrator's Standing
Joya contends Administrator lacks "standing to participate in this appeal" because she
is not "aggrieved." We disagree.
"[I]f a claim 'may diminish the estate to be finally distributed, or may make the fund
from which the creditors are to be paid insufficient for that purpose, the administrator is
interested, and in the event of an adverse ruling is a party aggrieved.' " (Estate of Kessler
(1948) 32 Cal. 2d 367, 370 (Kessler);9 see Estate of Goulet (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082
[same]; Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group
2017) ¶ 2:308, p. 2-198 ["Representative parties . . . have standing to appeal a judgment or
order that is detrimental to the estate, trust or fund that they represent (e.g., an order that
effectively diminishes the estate, trust or fund, or renders it inadequate to pay creditors)."].)
Administrator was responsible for ensuring the proper distribution of estate assets to
creditors with bona fide claims. Allowing Joya's disputed claim to attain priority would
have been detrimental to the estate because it would have left insufficient funds to satisfy
the county's and the state's undisputed claims. Thus, Administrator has standing to represent
the estate's interests in this appeal.
9 Joya cites a different passage in Kessler, in which the court recites the general rule
that the administrator of an estate is not an interested party. (Kessler, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p.
369.) However, in the following paragraphs, the Kessler court explains that the general rule
does not apply when—as is the case here—estate assets are insufficient to satisfy all
creditors' claims. (Id. at pp. 369-370.)
9
II. Postdeath Recordation of the Amended Abstract Did Not Create a Lien
We easily dispose of Joya's claim that the recordation of the Amended Abstract after
Decedent's death created a lien against his probate estate assets. Section 686.020 of the
Code of Civil Procedure states: "After the death of the judgment debtor, enforcement of a
judgment against property in the judgment debtor's estate is governed by the Probate Code,
and not by this title." The Law Revision Commission Comments to this section—which are
" 'deemed to express the Legislature's intent' " (Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th
1110, 1137-1138, fn. 20)—clearly state "the filing of an abstract of judgment after death of
the judgment debtor does not create a lien on estate property." (Cal. Law Revision Com.
com., 16B West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (2009 ed.) foll. § 686.020, p. 224, italics added).
Thus, because the Amended Abstract was recorded after Decedent's death, the probate court
correctly found the abstract did not create a lien on estate assets.
III. The Constitution's Restitution Provision Does Not Apply Here
A. Relevant Legal Principles
We review de novo the interpretation of a constitutional provision. (People v. Arroyo
(2016) 62 Cal. 4th 589, 593 (Arroyo).) "[O]ur interpretation of a ballot initiative is governed
by the same rules that apply in construing a statute enacted by the Legislature. [Citations.]
We therefore first look to 'the language of the statute, affording the words their ordinary and
usual meaning and viewing them in their statutory context.' " (People v. Park (2013) 56
Cal. 4th 782, 796 (Park); Arroyo, at p. 593 ["[t]he statutory language must also be construed
in the context of . . . the overall statutory scheme"].) " ' "When statutory language is clear
and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it."
10
[Citation.]' " (People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 508, 512.) However, " ' "[w]hen the
language is ambiguous, 'we refer to other indicia of the voters' intent, particularly the
analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.' " ' [Citation.] 'In other
words, our "task is simply to interpret and apply the initiative's language so as to effectuate
the electorate's intent." ' " (Arroyo, at p. 593; see People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347,
364 (Valencia) ["we examine the materials that were before the voters."].) " 'Where
uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a
particular interpretation.' " (Valencia, at p. 358.)
"In 1982, California voters passed Proposition 8, also known as The Victims' Bill of
Rights," which "added article I, section 28, subdivision (b) to the California Constitution[.]"
(People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 644, 652 (Giordano).) This provision mandated that
"[r]estitution shall be ordered from the convicted persons in every case, regardless of the
sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss, unless compelling
and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary." (Former Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b),
as adopted June 8, 1982, italics added; People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1318
(Gross).)
In response, " '[t]he Legislature has enacted, and frequently amended, a bewildering
array of responsive statutes.' " (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 652.) For example, in
1983, the Legislature enacted section 1202.4, which, over the years, "consolidated much of
the state's victim restitution scheme." (Giordano, at p. 653; see Luis M. v. Superior Court
(2014) 59 Cal. 4th 300, 304.) As it read in 2008, section 1202.4 directed trial courts to order
convicted defendants to pay restitution directly to any victim who suffered losses as a result
11
of the defendant's crime, and to pay a restitution fine to a state fund that compensates crime
victims. (Former § 1202.4, subds. (a)-(f); Gross, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1318.) The
statute gave courts the discretion not to order payment of direct restitution or a restitution
fine if the court found "compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so." (Former
§ 1202.4, subds. (b), (c), (f).)
In 2008, voters passed Proposition 9, also known as Marsy's Law, which "provides
for a broad spectrum of victims' rights, including restitution." (Gross, supra, 238
Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.)10 As relevant here, Marsy's Law eliminated trial courts' discretion
to not order direct victim restitution,11 and added a new provision regarding payment of
victim restitution orders. Article I, section 28, subdivision (b) now reads:
"(b) In order to preserve and protect a victim's rights to justice and due
process, a victim shall be entitled to the following rights: [¶] . . . [¶]
"(13) To restitution.
"(A) It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of
California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal
activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the
persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
10 Apart from restitution, Marsy's Law recognizes victims' rights by (among other
things) granting them additional rights of notice and participation in criminal proceedings,
and by reforming the "excessive" parole process. (See, e.g., Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subds.
(b)(1)-(13), (f)(6); People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94, 99-100.)
11 The Legislature, likewise, subsequently amended section 1202.4 to eliminate trial
courts' discretion to not order direct victim restitution. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f); Stats. 2016, ch.
37 (Assem. Bill No. 2295), § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2017.) However, courts retain that discretion
with respect to restitution fines. (§ 1202.4, subds. (b), (c).)
12
"(B) Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in
every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which
a crime victim suffers a loss.
"(C) All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any
person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied
to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim." (Italics
added.)
The voter information materials regarding Marsy's Law include a four-page analysis
by the Legislative Analyst. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008) analysis, pp. 58-61
(hereafter, Pamphlet).)12 Very little of that analysis relates to the restitution provision. For
example, only a single paragraph describes the "Changes Made by This Measure" with
respect to restitution:
"This measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered
from offenders who have been convicted, in every case in which a
victim suffers a loss. The measure also requires that any funds
collected by a court or law enforcement agencies from a person ordered
to pay restitution would go to pay that restitution first, in effect
prioritizing those payments over other fines and obligations an
offender may legally owe." (Pamphlet, supra, analysis, at p. 58, italics
added.)
Within the Legislative Analyst's two-page analysis of the fiscal impact of Marsy's
Law, only the following two paragraphs address the measure's restitution provision:
"The changes to the restitution process contained in this measure could
affect state and local programs. Currently, a number of different state
and local agencies receive funding from the fines and penalties
collected from criminal offenders. For example, revenues collected
12 In her reply brief, Joya "objects" to Administrator's appending of the Pamphlet to her
respondent's brief. The objection is not well-taken inasmuch as courts are authorized to
consider such material when construing an ambiguous ballot measure. (Arroyo, supra, 62
Cal.4th at p. 593.) Moreover, the material was before the probate court, and Joya discussed
it in her opening brief on appeal.
13
from offenders go to counties' general funds, the state Fish and Game
Preservation Fund for support of a variety of wildlife conservation
programs, the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund to help adults recover from
brain injuries, and the Restitution Fund for support of crime victim
programs. Because this initiative requires that all monies collected
from a defendant first be applied to pay restitution orders directly to
the victim, it is possible that the payments of fine and penalty revenues
to various funds, including the Restitution Fund, could decline.
"However, any loss of Restitution Fund revenues may be offset to the
extent that certain provisions of this initiative increase the amount of
restitution received directly by victims, thereby reducing their reliance
on assistance from the Restitution Fund. Similarly, this initiative may
also generate some savings for state and local agencies to the extent
that increases in payments of restitution to crime victims cause them to
need less assistance from other state and local government programs,
such as health and social services programs." (Pamphlet, supra,
analysis, p. 61, italics added.)
B. Analysis
By its express terms, the restitution priority provision of Marsy's Law grants priority
to a victim's claim when money is "collected from any person who has been ordered to
make restitution . . . ." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(C), italics added.) This
phrase is ambiguous—although it makes clear whose funds must be collected, it does not
make clear what it means to collect. Based on the overall statutory scheme regarding
restitution orders, the information before the voters, and consideration of the consequences
of the parties' proffered interpretations, we conclude that, for purposes of Marsy's Law, the
marshalling of a decedent's assets by a court-appointed administrator operating under the
Independent Administration of Estates Act does not constitute collection of money from a
person who has been ordered to pay victim restitution.
Within the overall statutory scheme of restitution orders, several statutes directly
address affirmative, active measures government entities may (or, in some instances, must)
14
take to collect money from an offender who has been ordered to pay victim restitution or a
restitution fine. For example, section 2085.5, subdivision (c) requires the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to deduct funds from a prisoner's wages and trust account
deposits and to transfer those funds to the California Victim Compensation Board (Board)
"for direct payment to the victim."13 Similarly, for an offender serving a prison term in
local custody, subdivision (d) of section 2085.5 authorizes the designated local agency to
deduct funds from the prisoner's wages and trust account deposits and to transfer them to the
Board "for direct payment to the victim." Similar deduction provisions apply for collection
of funds to satisfy restitution fines owed to the state. (See § 2085.5, subds. (a) & (c).)
Similar provisions apply when a prisoner released from custody has not yet fully paid
a restitution order or fine. The obligation to pay the unpaid balance survives the prisoner's
release, and the designated local agency is authorized to "collect" the unpaid balance. (See
§§ 2085.6, subds. (a) & (b), 2085.7, subds. (a) & (b).)
The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is also authorized to "collect[]" delinquent
restitution orders and fines. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19280, subd. (a).) Upon referral by a
government entity (id., § 19280, subd. (a)(2)(B)), the FTB is authorized to collect restitution
13 Section 2085.5, subdivision (c) states in part: "If a prisoner owes a restitution order
imposed pursuant to . . . Section 1202.4 . . . , the secretary shall deduct a minimum of 20
percent or the balance owing on the order amount, whichever is less, up to a maximum of 50
percent from the wages and trust account deposits of a prisoner, unless prohibited by federal
law. The secretary shall transfer that amount to the California Victim Compensation Board
for direct payment to the victim, or payment shall be made to the Restitution Fund to the
extent that the victim has received assistance pursuant to that program. . . ."
15
orders "in any manner authorized under the law for the collection of a delinquent personal
income tax liability . . . ." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19280, subd. (c).)
The statutory scheme regarding restitution also addresses collection activities by
courts. For example, section 1202.42 directs courts, "[u]pon entry of a restitution order," to
"enter a separate order for income deduction" that will be stayed until the "agency . . .
responsible for collection of restitution" informs the court "that the defendant has failed to
meet his or her obligation under the restitution order" without good cause. (§ 1202.42,
subds. (a)-(b).) "The income deduction order shall direct a payer to deduct from all income
due and payable to the defendant the amount required by the court to meet the defendant's
obligation." (§ 1202.42, subd. (c).)
Courts are also authorized to grant prosecuting attorneys authority to use lien
procedures, including writs of attachment of property, "[i]f the defendant has failed to meet
his or her obligation under the restitution order and the defendant has not provided good
cause for the failure . . . ." (§ 1202.42, subd. (g).)
Finally, when a criminal defendant has deposited cash bail with the court, upon
exoneration of the bail the court is authorized to "apply the money in satisfaction" of any
amounts owing for restitution orders or fines before "refund[ing] the surplus, if any, to the
defendant." (§ 1297.)
From these examples, we observe that statutory references to the collection of money
to satisfy restitution orders (or fines) contemplate active, affirmative steps to secure the
funds—deducting them from an inmate's wages, levying them as if they were a delinquent
income tax liability, deducting them from an offender's income, or depositing them in a
16
court account as security for a defendant's liberty pending trial. The probate court's
involvement in Decedent's estate does not rise to this level of affirmative activity.
The court granted Administrator "full authority . . . to administer the estate without
court supervision under the Independent Administration of Estates Act." As noted (see fns.
1 and 2, ante), this included the obligation to marshal Decedent's assets, and included the
authority to sell property and approve or reject claims without court approval. Under such a
broad delegation of authority, the court's attenuated connection to Decedent's estate property
is unlike the degree of direct, affirmative conduct exercised by government entities under
the statutory framework set out above. The cases Joya cites regarding a probate court's
constructive possession of estate property held by an administrator are inapplicable to the
circumstance before us.14
In addition, the Legislative Analyst's assessment of the fiscal impact of the restitution
priority provision—a possible "decline" in "fine and penalty revenues"—supports our
interpretation of the phrase "collected from." Were Joya's construction correct, the fiscal
impact to the state could be dramatic—a victim entitled to restitution could theoretically
assert priority over a state or county tax lien. The fact the Legislative Analyst did not
address this potentially drastic impact indicates voters did not give the measure the meaning
14 For example, Blythe Co. v. Bankers' Inv. Co. (1905) 147 Cal. 82 is inapposite
because the cited passage is from the lengthy discussion of the case's procedural history and
describes a federal court's ruling in a related proceeding. (Id. at p. 88.) In re Durel (9th Cir.
1926) 10 F.2d 448 is similarly inapposite because this federal court merely stated the
general proposition that "prior to a decree of distribution [an] estate is in the custody of the
law, not subject to attachment which would delay and embarrass official proceedings in the
administration of the estate." (Id. at p. 449.) This does not relate to Joya's specific claim of
priority here.
17
Joya attributes to it. (See, e.g., Valencia, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 365.) Moreover, the
Legislative Analyst's fiscal analysis regarding the loss of fine and penalty revenues is
consistent with the statutory restitution scheme, which now prioritizes victim restitution
orders above restitution fines. (See, e.g., § 2085.5, subd. (j) ["If a prisoner has both a
restitution fine and a restitution order from the sentencing court, the department shall collect
the restitution order first . . . ."]; § 2085.5, subds. (k), (l) [designated local agencies collect
restitution orders before fines]; § 1203.1d, subd. (b) [restitution victims have first priority
for disbursement of restitution funds collected by the FTB at the request of a designated
local agency].)
Finally, Joya's interpretation of the measure would, as Administrator contends, lead
to "strange consequences." (See Valencia, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 358 [" 'Where uncertainty
exists consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular
interpretation.' "]; Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 12, 27 ["we may
reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or
that would lead to absurd results"].) For example, in addition to our tax lien example above,
a victim with a restitution order presumably could assert priority in a foreclosure proceeding
over an earlier-recorded first deed of trust or mechanic's lien, upsetting the economic
expectations of lenders and tradesmen. Joya's reading would also give restitution orders
priority over child support orders, which are the subject of strong public policy. (Fam.
Code, § 4053, subd. (e) [child support guideline "seeks to place the interests of children as
the state's top priority"].) We doubt the voters intended such consequences.
18
Our construction of Marsy's Law does not leave a crime victim without a judicial
remedy to enforce a restitution order. To the contrary, an order to pay restitution is "fully
enforceable by a victim as if the restitution order were a civil judgment, and enforceable in
the same manner as is provided for the enforcement of any other money judgment."
(§ 1214, subd. (b); see § 1202.4, subd. (a)(3)(B) ["Restitution to the victim . . . shall be
enforceable as if the order were a civil judgment."]; § 1202.4, subd. (i) ["A restitution order
imposed pursuant to subdivision (f) shall be enforceable as if the order were a civil
judgment."].) The civil judgment-enforcement mechanisms available during a restitution
debtor's lifetime are akin to the direct, affirmative governmental collection activity
contemplated in the overall restitution statutory scheme.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed. Appellant to pay respondent's costs on appeal.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
19