California’s Dumbest Criminals Must Pay Restitution
After Frayba Tipton and William Tipton pled guilty to committing insurance fraud, after claiming the loss of the priceless “Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh, they were ordered to pay victim restitution to Nationwide Insurance Company of America (Nationwide). Nationwide obtained a civil judgment an award of over $1,200,000 in civil litigation against the Tipton’s only to have the judgment discharged in bankruptcy. Nationwide then petitioned the trial court to convert the criminal restitution orders to civil judgments against both defendants. The trial court granted Nationwide’s petition and entered civil judgments against the defendants.
In Nationwide Insurance Company Of America v. Frayba Tipton et al., C095606, California Court of Appeals (May 26, 2023) the court agreed that the restitution order could be made collectible as a civil judgment and not subject to discharge in bankruptcy.ing the loss of the priceless “Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh, they were ordered to pay victim restitution to Nationwide Insurance Company of America (Nationwide). Nationwide obtained a civil judgment an award of over $1,200,000 in civil litigation against the Tipton’s only to have the judgment discharged in bankruptcy. Nationwide then petitioned the trial court to convert the criminal restitution orders to civil judgments against both defendants. The trial court granted Nationwide’s petition and entered civil judgments against the defendants.
In Nationwide Insurance Company Of America v. Frayba Tipton et al., C095606, California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin (May 26, 2023) the court agreed that the restitution order could be made collectible as a civil judgment and not subject to discharge in bankruptcy.
BACKGROUND
After a fire destroyed the defendants’ home, they filed an insurance claim in which they overstated losses related to the contents of their home. (People v. Tipton, supra, 3C083065.) Nationwide alleged in court filings that among the overstated losses was the claimed loss of an original Vincent van Gogh “Starry Night” painting which is still safely in a museum. Defendants pled guilty to a felony insurance fraud allegation and no contest to a felony perjury allegation, and the trial court placed them on five years of formal probation. After informing defendants of their right to have a judicial determination of the amount of restitution that would be owed to Nationwide and holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount, the trial court ordered defendants to pay $792,597.22 in victim restitution to Nationwide in 2016.
Though defendants were later able to have the award against them discharged in federal bankruptcy proceedings, the order of discharge explained that “debts for most fines, penalties, . . . or criminal restitution obligations” were not discharged.
In 2020, the probation department informed the parties that it would cease its efforts to collect restitution because probation had expired although they should have moved to incarcerate the Tiptons for failure to pay restitution.
The trial court agreed with Nationwide after the hearing and the court entered civil judgments against each defendant in favor of Nationwide for over $1,000,000 (accounting for the outstanding unpaid restitution, plus 10 percent annual interest).
DISCUSSION
California law provides: “In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).) A trial court must order full restitution. A restitution order imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f) is enforceable “as if” it was a civil judgment and is enforceable in the same manner as is provided for the enforcement of any other money judgment.
As made clear on the criminal order of restitution used in criminal cases Penal Code section 1214 provides that once a dollar amount of restitution has been ordered, the order is then enforceable as if it were, and in the same manner as, a civil judgment.
The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, known as “Marsy’s Law,” amended article I, section 28 of the California Constitution by expanding and constitutionalizing the protection of victims’ rights, including the right to restitution. (See People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1317.)
A victim’s constitutional right to restitution cannot be bargained away or limited, nor can the prosecution waive it. Victims are first in line to receive any money collected from criminal defendants ordered to pay restitution. Because the California Constitution guarantees crime victims the right to restitution and that right is given a broad and liberal construction and statutes regarding the right should be construed in the context of the relevant statutory scheme.
ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err when it converted the restitution orders as it clearly had authority to deem them money judgments pursuant to section 1214, subdivision (b) and properly did so.
While enforceable as if it were a civil judgment, a restitution order “is not a civil judgment” and the victim restitution statutes demonstrate legislative recognition of the distinct and separate right of a victim to pursue a civil remedy irrespective of the restitution order
The plain language of section 1214 equates a restitution order to a civil judgment and articulates how such orders can be enforced within the criminal courts, but if a civil court is asked to convert such a restitution order into a civil judgment, as in the case here, it is not error for it to do so.
The judgments are affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
To claim that they lost the original Vincent van Gogh painting “Starry Night” was stupid enough since it is located in the Museum of Modern Art in New York and has been there for many years, should have made the fraud claim easy for Nationwide to prove and makes understandable the civil judgment and the restitution order. Even though they discharged the civil judgment in bankruptcy they could not discharge the restitution order. Nationwide can now collect over $1 million from any assets the Tipton’s have. They violated the terms of their probation by not paying restitution and should have been put in jail. The Tipton’s should consider their freedom from jail a lucky award.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc., Go to my blog & Videos at: Zalma on Insurance, at https://zalma.com/blog, Go to the Insurance Claims Library, Listen to the Podcast: Zalma on Insurance, Videos from Zalma on Insurance, Subscribe to Barry Zalma on Substack.com, Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01, Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! Read the last two issues of ZIFL here, Go to the Barry Zalma, Inc. web site here, Videos from “Barry Zalma on YouTube,” videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/zalma, @Zalma on Truth Social; Follow me on LinkedIn here.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/zalma
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
