960.29
Legislative findings and intent.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
960.29 Legislative findings and intent.—The Legislature finds that former approaches to the problem of compensating crime victims through restitution have proven inadequate or have been inconsistently applied in many cases. The Legislature also finds that there is an urgent need to alleviate the increasing financial burdens on the state and its local subdivisions caused by the expenses of incarcerating convicted offenders.
(1) To remedy these problems, consistent with the preservation of all citizens’ constitutional rights, the Legislature intends:
(a) To provide a legal mechanism, in the form of a civil restitution lien, that will enable crime victims, the state, and other aggrieved parties to recover damages and losses arising out of criminal acts, imposed against the real and personal property owned by the convicted offender who committed an offense that caused the damages and losses.
(b) To prevent convicted offenders from increasing their assets after conviction, while their crime victims and the state and local subdivisions remain uncompensated for their damages and losses. To further this legislative purpose, the civil restitution lien shall attach not only to the offender’s current assets but also, should these assets fail to satisfy the lien, to any future assets or “windfall” proceeds which may accrue to the defendant, up to the full amount of the lien.
(c) To ensure that the amount of each civil restitution lien equals the amount of the actual damages awarded in the civil action arising from the crime.
(d) To impose a long-term civil liability for the costs of incarceration, by means of the civil restitution lien, against a convicted offender, regardless of the offender’s financial status at the time of conviction.
(2) The Legislature also finds that crime victims, the state, and its local subdivisions are entitled to rough remedial justice and they may demand compensation for damage and losses.
(3) The Legislature declares that:
(a) The intent of the statute is rationally related to the goal of fully compensating crime victims, the state, and its local subdivisions for damages and losses incurred as a result of criminal conduct.
(b) This civil restitution lien act rests upon the principle of remediation and not punishment, which is meted out by criminal sanctions afforded by law.
(4) The Legislature recognizes that, in many individual cases, the liquidated damage amount awarded by the court in a civil action arising from the crime does not fully compensate crime victims for their actual damages and losses. It is the legislative intent that the civil restitution liens authorized in this act assist crime victims to collect the amounts awarded and authorized as actual and liquidated damages and losses a crime victim incurs as a result of a convicted offender’s conduct, and the state and its local subdivisions incur as a result of implementation of a convicted offender’s sentence.
History.—s. 2, ch. 94-342; s. 29, ch. 95-184.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Goad v. Florida Dept. of Corrections
Goad v. Florida Dept. of Corrections (2003)
“§ 960.29, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). The plain language of this statute clearly sets forth the Legislature's intent to afford a civil remedy to address the State's need to recover the incarceration costs of convicted offenders.”
Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections (2010)
“" In an effort to remedy that problem, the legislature expressed its intent to "impose a long-term civil liability for the costs of incarceration, by means of the civil restitution lien, against a convicted offender.”
Reyes v. State (1995)
“We encourage the trial bench, as a group, to search for workable solutions to streamline the sentencing process while fulfilling the many mandates and requirements of state law.”
Childers v. State (2006)
“" § 960.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). Most significantly, the legislature further provided, that "[n]otwithstanding this civil restitution lien act, the crime victim, the state and its local subdivisions, or other aggrieved parties are not precluded from collecting .”
STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Goad (2000)
“" Subsection (1)(a) then explains that the main purpose of the Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims' Remedy Act is to provide a legal mechanism "that will enable crime victims, the state, and other aggrieved parties to recover damages and losses arising out of criminal acts.”
Ilkanic v. City of Fort Lauderdale (1998)
“" § 960.29, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). We conclude that imposing a per diem charge on convicted offenders clearly relates to a permissive legislative objective *1373 of reimbursing public bodies for the costs expended in incarcerating these persons.”
Bunch v. State (1999)
“§§ 960.29, et. seq., Fla. Stat. (1997). This statute, similar to Florida's criminal statute, requires that "[u]pon motion by the.”
Rosero v. State (1996)
“Accordingly, as the imposition of a civil restitution lien under section 960.29 et seq. is a civil, not criminal, action, the protections provided by the double jeopardy clause are not available to Appellant.”
Doctor v. State (1996)
“The sentence also provided that a civil judgment for restitution, presumably under section 960.29 et seq. (Supp.1994), would be ordered.”
Allister A. Freeman v. State of Florida (2015)
“(quoting § 960.29(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013)) (alterations in original).”
Wilson v. State (2007)
“1998); see also § 960.29(3) & (4) (noting the Act rests on the principle of remediation, not punishment, and that the civil restitution liens are intended to assist the State and its subdivisions to recover the costs resulting from a convicted offender's sentence).”
Lusunariz v. State (2005)
“(codified as §§ 960.29-960.297, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994)) ("Civil Restitution Act").”
— 960.29(1)(a) — 3 cases
Childers v. State (2006)
“" § 960.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). Most significantly, the legislature further provided, that "[n]otwithstanding this civil restitution lien act, the crime victim, the state and its local subdivisions, or other aggrieved parties are not precluded from collecting .”
— 960.29(1)(c) — 1 case
Rosero v. State (1996)
“Accordingly, as the imposition of a civil restitution lien under section 960.29 et seq. is a civil, not criminal, action, the protections provided by the double jeopardy clause are not available to Appellant.”
— 960.29(1)(d) — 3 cases
Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections (2010)
“" In an effort to remedy that problem, the legislature expressed its intent to "impose a long-term civil liability for the costs of incarceration, by means of the civil restitution lien, against a convicted offender.”
— 960.29(2)(b) — 2 cases
Bunch v. State (1999)
“§§ 960.29, et. seq., Fla. Stat. (1997). This statute, similar to Florida's criminal statute, requires that "[u]pon motion by the.”
— 960.29(3) — 1 case
Wilson v. State (2007)
“1998); see also § 960.29(3) & (4) (noting the Act rests on the principle of remediation, not punishment, and that the civil restitution liens are intended to assist the State and its subdivisions to recover the costs resulting from a convicted offender's sentence).”
— 960.29(3)(a) — 1 case
Allister A. Freeman v. State of Florida (2015)
“(quoting § 960.29(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013)) (alterations in original).”
— 960.29(3)(b) — 2 cases
STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Goad (2000)
“" Subsection (1)(a) then explains that the main purpose of the Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims' Remedy Act is to provide a legal mechanism "that will enable crime victims, the state, and other aggrieved parties to recover damages and losses arising out of criminal acts.”
— 960.29(4) — 3 cases
Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections (2010)
“" In an effort to remedy that problem, the legislature expressed its intent to "impose a long-term civil liability for the costs of incarceration, by means of the civil restitution lien, against a convicted offender.”
— 960.29(l)(a) — 2 cases
Harris v. State (2015)
Childers v. State (2006)
— 960.29(l)(d) — 1 case
Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections (2010)
“" In an effort to remedy that problem, the legislature expressed its intent to "impose a long-term civil liability for the costs of incarceration, by means of the civil restitution lien, against a convicted offender.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.