ILNews

Social Security income shouldn't be considered in restitution orders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Dealing with an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Social Security income must be excluded when considering a defendant’s ability to pay restitution.

The appellate court has held that Social Security proceeds can’t be used to satisfy a civil judgment, but had yet to rule on the issue in a criminal matter. Rebecca Kays was ordered to pay nearly $1,500 to her neighbor following a misdemeanor battery conviction. The amount was based on the neighbor’s hospital bill and the court didn’t adequately consider Kays’ ability to pay. Kays’ counsel had argued that she only received $674 a month in Social Security benefits and was disabled and couldn’t work.

The judges reversed, finding the trial court didn’t do enough to inquire into Kays’ ability to pay. Sua sponte, the appellate court addressed whether 42 U.S.C.A. Section 470(a) precludes the trial court from considering SSI in determining her ability to pay restitution.

The judges looked to the Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System, which says that these benefits aren’t subject to certain situations, including “other legal process,” and turned to other jurisdictions that had ruled on the matter to decide the benefits can’t be considered when ordering restitution.

“This approach comports with the purpose of social security benefits, which is to ‘assure that the recipient’s income is maintained at a level viewed by Congress as the minimum necessary for the subsistence of that individual,’” wrote Judge Melissa May in Rebecca D. Kays v. State of Indiana, No. 42A05-1007-CR-504.

The appellate court ordered the trial court to ignore Kays’ SSI when determining her ability to pay, and also sua sponte asked the lower court to consider whether it needs to recalculate the neighbor’s damages. The neighbor submitted a hospital bill for nearly $1,500, but the court didn’t inquire as to how much the neighbor actually paid out of pocket and how much her insurance may have paid.

The judges believed the reasoning from Stanley v. Walker, 906 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. 2009), should be applied to criminal restitution orders to ensure that victims are compensated only for their actual loses. The lower court should determine whether the evidence submitted at trial included other documentation or testimony regarding the neighbor’s “actual cost” and if so, to recalculate her damages prior to assessing what amount Kays is able to pay, wrote Judge May.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT