IN RE BRANDON THOMAS HOFMANN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Brandon Hofmann, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234642
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-392390
BRANDON HOFMANN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Wilder and Cooper, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order of disposition requiring him to pay restitution in
the amount of $22,743.38, jointly and severally. We affirm in part and remand for further
proceedings.
Respondent and four other individuals broke into the Beechwoods Golf Course in
Southfield and caused $45,486.76 in damages to the facilities, the golf carts, a truck, and other
golf equipment. Respondent and a co-defendant were found guilty of malicious destruction of
property in excess of $20,000, MCL 750.377a(1)(a)(i).1 Respondent was ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $22,743.38, jointly and severally.
On appeal, defendant does not dispute that the total amount of damages suffered by the
golf course is $45,486.76. Rather, defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to
pay restitution in an amount that included both the insurance benefits paid by the insurance
carrier to the golf course and the deductible paid by the golf course. He contends that affirmance
of the trial court’s restitution order would overcompensate the golf course. This Court reviews
the amount of restitution ordered by the lower court for an abuse of discretion. People v Tyler,
188 Mich App 83, 87-89; 468 NW2d 537 (1991).
1
The remaining participants in the offense were convicted in separate proceedings and are not
parties to this appeal.
-1-
Both the Crime Victim’s Right Act (“CVRA”), specifically MCL 780.766, 780.767, and
the Probate Code, specifically MCL 712A.30, 712A.31, provide for restitution for crime
victims.2 In determining the amount of restitution to be paid, the court shall consider the loss
sustained by any victim as a result of the defendant’s conduct. MCL 780.767(1); MCL
712A.31(1) A victim is a party who suffers direct physical, emotional, or financial harm as the
result of the commission of a crime. MCL 780.766(1); MCL 712A.30(1)(b).
In People v Norman, 183 Mich App 203, 206; 454 NW2d 393 (1989), this Court
concluded that a trial court may properly order a person convicted of a crime to make restitution
to an insurance company that suffered a loss as a result of the crime. See also People v Orweller,
197 Mich App 136, 139; 494 NW2d 753 (1992). The Court concluded in these cases that MCL
780.766 specifically includes corporations as “victims” allowed to receive restitution. Similarly,
MCL 712A.30(1)(b) provides, with regard to MCL 712A.30(8), that “‘victim’ includes a sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity
that suffers direct physical or financial harm as a result of the commission of a juvenile offense.”
MCL 712A.30(8) states:
The court shall order restitution to the crime victim’s compensation board
or to any individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, governmental
entities, or any other legal entities that have compensated the victim or victim’s
estate for a loss incurred by the victim to the extent of the compensation paid for
that loss.
The insurance carrier paid benefits of $35,486.76 to its insured for a loss sustained as a
result of defendant’s conduct that formed the basis of defendant’s conviction. In addition, the
golf course sustained a loss of $10,000 for the insurance deductible that it was required to pay.
Because both the golf course and the insurance carrier are victims, the trial court should have
named the insurance carrier in the order of disposition as an entity entitled to receive restitution
after the golf course was fully compensated for its loss.
We affirm the trial court’s determination regarding the amount of restitution and remand
for the trial court to include the insurance carrier by name on the order of restitution. Jurisdiction
is not retained.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
2
The relevant provisions of the CVRA and the Probate Code are substantially similar.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
