 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Woodall12/28/1989
The only issue on appeal is whether a court may order an imprisoned defendant to make criminal restitution payments when the sole income from which those payments will be paid is a workers' compensation award.
FACTS
Clayton J. Woodall (Woodall) was convicted of several serious felonies in connection with a drunk driving accident. State v. Woodall, 155 Ariz. 1, 744 P.2d 732 (App.1987). He filed several petitions for post-conviction relief. One of these petitions was granted, and Woodall was resentenced.
At the restitution hearing held on August 12, 1988, Woodall was ordered to pay $11,440.09 in restitution. He testified that he received $360.00 per month from a workers' compensation award. One-half of this award went to his former wife for child support . The remaining amount was sent to the attorney who represented Woodall in the compensation action. That attorney, acting under power of attorney, took $92 out of the award for his fee and sent $90 to Woodall. Woodall testified that this portion of the award was his only income and that he had no other assets, and the court made a similar finding in the record. The court then ordered Woodall to pay $75 per month in restitution, beginning September 1, 1988, with the amount to be increased by $92.00 once his attorney's fees were completely paid.
Discussion
Woodall argues on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering restitution payments out of his workers' compensation award because A.R.S. § 23-1068 prohibits attachment, garnishment or execution of such awards. The state concedes error, and joins Woodall in asking this court to vacate the restitution order. We agree that the portion of the order establishing the manner in which the restitution is to be paid must be vacated.
It is well-settled that workers' compensation awards are protected from civil judgments. A.R.S. § 23-1068(B) provides in pertinent part that workers' compensation "shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment and execution, and shall not pass to another person by operation of law . . . ." The only exception provided by statute is for an employer who pays benefits before the injury is determined to be compensable. Our courts have also allowed claims relating to familial support obligations, reasoning that workers' compensation is intended to benefit injured workers and their families. See Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 8; Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 159 Ariz. 267, 766 P.2d 619 (App.1988); Industrial Comm'n v. Oden, 68 Ariz. 234, 204 P.2d 849 (1949). See also Bagalini v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Security, 135 Ariz. 326, 660 P.2d 1253 (App.1983) (rationale applied to unemployment benefits); and Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987) (child support against veterans benefits).
However, these are the only claims which have been recognized in Arizona against workers' compensation awards. For example, in Vukovich v. Ossic, 50 Ariz. 194, 70 P.2d 324 (1937), the plaintiff obtained a writ of garnishment against the defendant's bank account for the meals and money he had given the defendant while his workers' compensation claim was pending. The defendant moved to quash the writ on
the ground that the money in the account was from a compensation award and was therefore exempt from garnishment. The trial court agreed and quas
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|