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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
