KENNIS L. SCHUMMER, 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.
Kennis Schummer appeals the denial of his motion to declare $22,759 in criminal restitution paid in full by offsetting a civil judgment he won against the crime victim. The appellate court affirms, holding that offsetting judgments between the parties do not satisfy restitution obligations unless amounts are actually paid to or collected by the victim.
Restitution obligations are not satisfied by offsetting judgments. Under section 775.089(8), only amounts actually paid to or collected by the victim Gulf Coast can offset the restitution obligation. Although Schummer may concurrently satisfy his civil and restitution obligations, the judgment assignments and offsets did not constitute payment or collection by Gulf Coast, leaving the $22,759 restitution obligation unsatisfied.
[1] Restitution ordered in a criminal case is not satisfied by a set-off of a civil judgment obtained by the defendant against the victim, unless the set-off constitutes an a…
[2] A civil judgment awarded to a defendant against a victim does not automatically offset a restitution obligation owed to that victim in a prior criminal case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Any amounts paid to or collected by Defendant Gulf Coast Audio Visual Producers, Inc. in satisfaction of its judgment shall concurrently satisfy the restitution obligation owed to said defendant by plaintiff”
The controlling language from the final civil judgment establishing that only actual payments or collections by the victim satisfy restitution obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchummer was convicted in 1993 of racketeering, grand theft, and unlawful financial transaction, and ordered to pay Gulf Coast Audio Visual Producers,…
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 Final Judgment Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Kennis Schummer, was convicted in 1993 of racketeering, grand theft, and unlawful financial transaction. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences in Schummer v. State, 654 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Appellant’s current appeal is from an order denying his motion to declare $22,759 in restitution paid in full after offsetting a money judgment he won against Gulf Coast Audio Visual Producers, Inc. (“Gulf Coast”), the victim of his crimes. We affirm the trial court’s order for we find none of the ordered restitution has been satisfied by set-off.
When Appellant was convicted, he was ordered to pay Gulf Coast $23,759 in restitution in addition to serving terms of incarceration and probation. The trial court subsequently reduced the restitution to $22,759 after vacating a single count of conviction for both grand theft and unlawful financial transaction. In 2002, Appellant obtained a civil judgment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $44,928, and against Robert Roy and Charles Edwards, the owners of Gulf Coast, for $14,975.82 and $14,674.82, respectively. Gulf Coast in turn was awarded treble damages and prejudgment interest totaling $85,355.93 on its civil theft counterclaim against Appellant. The Final Judgment provided this amount would be offset by the $44,928 in damages Appellant received against Gulf Coast, thereby resulting in a net judgment against Appellant of $40,427.93. The Final Judgment stated further:
Any amounts paid to or collected by Defendant Gulf Coast Audio Visual Producers, Inc. in satisfaction of its judgment shall concurrently satisfy the resti*1231tution obligation owed to said defendant by plaintiff established by restitution order entered in State of Florida v. Kenneth L. Schummer, Case No.1992-CF-005096A, Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida.
See § 775.089(8), Fla. Stat. (providing that restitution is to be set off against any subsequent civil recovery obtained by the person to whom restitution is owed).
In 2008, Gulf Coast assigned its judgment against Appellant to Charles Edwards, who thereafter assigned it to Robert Roy. As a result of the assignments, the $40,427.981 judgment against Appellant was offset and thus reduced by $32,182.91, the total amount Edwards and Roy owed in damages and interest to Appellant as of January 30, 2003. Because the setoffs were not “amounts paid to or collected by” Gulf Coast, they had no effect on the $22,759 in restitution Appellant must pay to Gulf Coast as a result of the criminal proceedings. But pursuant to section 775.089(8) and the final judgment in the civil proceedings, Appellant is entitled to concurrently satisfy his obligations under the civil judgment and the restitution order.
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES, C.J., and PADOVANO, J., Concur.