The Supreme Court of Kansas holds that a man who financially mistreated a dependent older adult does not have to pay an outstanding nursing home bill because the will was not a result of his crime. However, his plea of no contest establishes that he owes at least half of the withdrawals and purchases he made using the older adult’s funds. In State v. Union (Kan. No. 121,643, August 9, 2024).
Alonzo Union challenged a restitution order after he pleaded no contest to one count of mistreatment of a dependent adult. Mr. Union was the agent under a financial power of attorney for his elderly roommate, Jean Miller, who later moved to long-term care. The court found he misused her money and failed to keep adequate records. When he was acting as agent, he did not pay a nursing home bill, claiming he disputed a charge.
The lower court sentenced him to the following restitution: paying the nursing home’s outstanding balance and certain payments and withdrawals, including one-half of Walmart purchases and ATM withdrawals.
On appeal, Mr. Union argued that the restitution order should be vacated because his criminal conduct did not harm the nursing home. The Kansas Supreme Court agrees, finding that the crime of conviction was not the cause the outstanding nursing home bill, as it did not result from his misuse of Ms. Miller’s funds.
Mr. Union also pointed to insufficient evidence of his responsibility for half of the Walmart purchases and ATM withdrawals. He asserted that the order making him pay half, as opposed to another amount, was speculative. He advanced that the lower court erroneously shifted the burden on him to prove proper use of the funds.
The evidence from the restitution hearing supports the finding that Mr. Union misused at least some of Ms. Miller’s funds. This included purchasing alcohol and shoes for himself and registering Ms. Miller’s car in another state for his personal benefit. The evidence also bolsters the district court’s finding that he had inadequate accounting.
The state bears the burden of identifying the specific restitution amount. The evidence at the restitution hearing on its own was insufficient to find Mr. Union was responsible for one-half of the withdrawals and purchases rather than another amount. The record did not show how the ATM withdrawals were spent or what Mr. Union bought at Walmart.
However, when Mr. Union entered a plea of no contest for mistreatment of a dependent adult, he did not contest the element of the crime that he took between $25,000 and $100,000. As a no contest plea constitutes an admission of the well pleaded facts of the case, it provides enough reliable evidence supporting the one-half restitution award. The plea established that the value of the taken property was at least $25,000, and the district court required him to pay just under $24,000.
The highest court of Kansas vacates the restitution order directing Mr. Union to pay the nursing home but affirms the remainder of the restitution order.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
