Walker

Walker v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 5th 651·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 720·222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524·2017 WL 3599762
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 22, 2017No. B280100California4,365 words

Opinion

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

Baker, J.

Business and Professions Code section 7028 provides that a victim who uses the services of a person *660 convicted of operating as an unlicensed contractor "is eligible, pursuant to *532 subdivision (f) of Section 1202.4 of the Penal Code, for restitution for economic losses , regardless of whether he or she had knowledge that the person was unlicensed." ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (h), emphasis added.) Another provision of the Business and Professions Code, section 7031, states that "a person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract." ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b), emphasis added.) Defendant Michael Walker (defendant) sustained a conviction for acting in the capacity of a contractor without a license, and the People attempted to recover the full amount his victim, Sharon Curto (Curto), paid him as restitution under Business and Professions Code section 7028 -Curto did not then bring a separate civil action as authorized by Business and Professions Code section 7031. For reasons I…

lead Opinion

Kriegler, J.

*653 Petitioner Michael Kerr Walker entered a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor count of contracting without a license. ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (a).) 1 As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered Walker to pay restitution for the actual economic loss suffered by the victim, but denied the People's request to require Walker to make full restitution of all payments he received for his construction services and attorney fees incurred by the victim. On appeal by the People, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County reversed in a published opinion, holding that the victim was entitled to restitution for the full amount she paid to Walker, plus interest, as well as her attorney fees. In his petition for writ of mandate, Walker contends the Appellate Division erred in requiring criminal restitution in a manner intended to apply to civil actions, and by ordering restitution of attorney fees in an amount not proven by substantial evidence. We conclude that the civil disgorgement statute relied on by the Appellate Division does not control the *527 amount of restitution in a criminal action. We further conclude that the Appellate Division did…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.