Malicious destruction of trees, shrubs, grass, or turf in the amount of $200 or more but less than $1,000; Restitution; MCL 712A.30(3)(b) & 712A.31(1); Fair market value (FMV) versus repair costs; The components of the victims’ losses

Given that the victims “simply requested their actual, out-of-pocket losses,” the trial court did not err by “awarding those losses as restitution, irrespective of the [FMV] of the damaged golf course.” Further, except for a discrepancy in the arithmetic for “the components of the restitution amount,” the court concluded “the trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed any clear error in arriving at its restitution figure for” the golf club’s insurer (Westfield). Thus, the court vacated the $33,320 restitution award to Westfield and remanded “to allow the trial court to check its arithmetic and, if necessary, to amend the” restitution amount. It affirmed the trial court’s findings and restitution awards in every other respect. Respondent-juvenile (RM) argued “the trial court was obligated under MCL 712A.30(3)(b) to consider the [FMV] of the damaged property in establishing the amount of restitution.” But the court noted that “the victims of RM’s juvenile offense were not dispossessed of their property. Instead, they were forced to pay the costs necessary to return the property to the condition it was in before RM’s offense. In this circumstance, determining the [FMV] of the property makes less sense than determining how much it cost the victims to return the property to its original condition.” In this case, “the trial court did not err in awarding those losses as restitution, irrespective of the” damaged golf course’s FMV. As to the calculation of the restitution award, the award “must be confined to the amount of money actually required to repair the golf course. Additionally, any restitution in excess of the $2,500 deductible cannot be paid to the golf club” – all restitution exceeding the “deductible must be paid to Westfield in its capacity as the club’s insurer.” The trial court awarded it “the aggregate amount actually expended for repairs to the greens, as established by a preponderance of the evidence.” It made a “finding on each component of restitution and assigned a dollar value to each” one. But the court’s addition of the various figures added up to a different amount than the trial court reached.