TROWBRIDGE v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In November of 2022, Jason Trowbridge pled guilty to Level 5 felony theft after he admitted to having stolen money from his elderly grandparents. As part of his sentence, Trowbridge was ordered to pay $72,019.95 in restitution. Trowbridge appealed the restitution order, and we reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing. Following a second restitution hearing, the trial court ordered Trowbridge to pay $78,439.42. Trowbridge contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the amounts owed in certain portions of the second restitution order. Because the evidence is sufficient to support some, but not all, of the findings in the restitution order, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The relevant facts, as set forth in Trowbridge's first appeal in this case, are as follows:

Trowbridge began stealing from his grandparents almost immediately after his grandmother gave him access to their checking account. Using that account information, Trowbridge added his name to his grandparents’ credit card account and arranged to have the bills sent only to him electronically. He then used that credit card for thousands of dollars in personal expenses and cash payments to himself.

Trowbridge also accessed a $50,000 credit line that his grandparents had obtained for emergency use after his grandfather's dementia diagnosis. Although his grandparents never accessed that credit line, Trowbridge nearly depleted it.

As part of his effort to prolong his scheme and avoid detection, Trowbridge used funds from his grandparents’ accounts to pay the monthly bills for the debt he fraudulently accrued in their names. Trowbridge also secured a $10,000 loan in his grandfather's name from his grandfather's life insurance policy [(“the Loan”)]. Meanwhile, his grandparents continued to live modestly on their Social Security benefits.

Trowbridge's grandmother first discovered his theft when she tried to pay income tax bills of nearly $10,000 from the credit line in August 2021. The bank informed Trowbridge's grandmother that the account lacked sufficient funds to pay the taxes. By that time, Trowbridge's theft had left his grandparents heavily in debt, with damaged credit, and facing foreclosure of their long-time home. Trowbridge's grandmother reported the theft to police.

In December 2021, the State charged Trowbridge with Level 5 felony theft and alleged him to be a habitual offender. Seven months later, Trowbridge's grandfather died. To stave off the home foreclosure, Trowbridge's grandmother obtained a personal loan to repay the credit line that Trowbridge had fraudulently used.

Trowbridge pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that called for an eight-year prison sentence. He also agreed to pay restitution. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and entered a judgment of conviction on the Level 5 felony. At the restitution hearing, the lead detective in Trowbridge's case testified that he could not determine the exact amount of Trowbridge's theft. He noted that Trowbridge had moved funds routinely between the accounts and used funds from one account to pay the bills of another. Although the detective lacked the grandparents’ credit card information, he testified the amount stolen by Trowbridge from his grandparents’ accounts totaled around $130,000.

Trowbridge claimed at the restitution hearing that he was responsible for losses of only $59,726.29 from his grandparents’ accounts—specifically, $49,726.29 from the credit line account, $10,000 from the life insurance policy, and $516.04 in interest. He argued that he had already reimbursed his grandparents $7,401.29, although he did not fully document that amount. Trowbridge thus claimed the correct restitution figure was $55,556.96.

Trowbridge v. State, 2023 WL 5771555 *1–2 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2023).

[3] The trial court in the first hearing rejected both parties’ calculations and instead provided its own, which totaled to $72,019.95: (1) $54,449.95 (reflected on the final credit line statement available to the court); plus (2) $10,000.00 (the Loan); plus (3) $4950.00 (checks written by Trowbridge from his grandparents’ checking account); plus (4) $7780.00 (balance on the credit card); minus (5) $5160.00 (Trowbridge's payments). Id. at *2.

[4] On appeal, we noted that the parties and trial court had all reached different figures, none of which had completely conformed to the evidence. Id. at *1–2. Neither the State nor Trowbridge had presented evidence specifically tracking the monies that Trowbridge had moved between accounts, and the record had lacked any detailed accounting of the legitimate charges or deposits that had been made on behalf of Trowbridge's grandparents. Id. at *2–3. We found these deficiencies essential to the parties’ respective claims and therefore reversed and remanded for a new restitution hearing. Id.

[5] The trial court conducted a second restitution hearing on March 6, 2024, at which the trial court considered evidence, including Trowbridge's bank records, Trowbridge's grandparents’ bank records and loan records, copies of checks written to Trowbridge from his grandparents’ accounts, and testimony from both Trowbridge and the lead detective in Trowbridge's case. Trowbridge acknowledged that the highest balance on the Star Financial line of credit was $54,449.95, but he maintained that $9429.00 of that balance was attributable to state and federal taxes paid by his grandparents. Trowbridge also admitted responsibility for $12,484.00 in “unauthorized transfers” from his grandparents’ Fort Financial account, which he referred to as “the credit card payments,” Tr. Vol. II p. 76, and he testified that the $10,000.00 proceeds of the Loan had been “placed directly into the Fort Financial account.” Tr. Vol. II p. 77.

[6] On March 7, 2024, the trial court determined that Trowbridge owed $78,439.42 in restitution, an amount reached by the following calculation: (1) $54,449.95 from the Star Bank line of credit; plus (2) $10,088.37 from the Loan; plus (3) $1426.34 from the Fort Financial checking account payments; plus (4) $4650.00 from checks that Trowbridge cashed; plus (5) $12,484.76 from unauthorized transfers; minus (6) $4660.00 for amounts repaid.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Trowbridge contends that the trial court's order is unsupported by sufficient evidence. We review a trial court's order of restitution for an abuse of discretion. Baker v. State, 70 N.E.3d 388, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. A trial court ordering restitution abuses its discretion “only if no evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support the trial court's decision.” Archer v. State, 81 N.E.3d 212, 216 (Ind. 2017) (citation omitted). Evidence supporting a restitution order is sufficient if it contains a reasonable basis for estimating loss without subjecting the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture. S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

[8] Trowbridge asserts that the $54,449.95, reflecting the highest balance on the Star Financial statement, should be reduced by $9429.00 for the taxes allegedly paid by his grandparents from this account. Trowbridge testified to this fact during the restitution hearing. The trial court, however, was “free to disbelieve” Trowbridge's self-serving testimony, which it apparently did. Randolph v. State, 755 N.E.2d 572, 576 (Ind. 2001). The trial court considered both witness testimony and the parties’ exhibits and determined that there was no evidence beyond Trowbridge's self-serving testimony that any such tax payments had been made. The trial court instead relied on the agreed highest amount owed in the Star Bank line of credit, $54,449.95, because Trowbridge had been the only person to access the account. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.

[9] Next, Trowbridge disputes the $1426.34 charge reflecting credit-card payments made in his name from the Fort Financial account. Trowbridge asserts that the $12,484.76 charge for “unauthorized transfers” included his credit-card payments from the Fort Financial account. This amount, however, appears to account for payments to Trowbridge's grandparents’ credit cards, distinct from the credit-card payments made in Trowbridge's own name. Furthermore, Trowbridge admitted to owing $14,346.40 for credit card payments which “came out of the Fort Financial account.” Tr. Vol. II p. 85. This supports a reasonable inference that, even assuming the $12,484.76 amount included credit card payments, it did not include them all. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the $12,484.76 did not include the $1426.36 in additional credit-card debt.

[10] Finally, Trowbridge disputes that the $10,088.37 for the Loan reflected any actual loss suffered by his grandparents because, despite the trial court's finding, the Loan amount was reflected in the Fort Financial statement. The restitution order, it seems mistakenly, stated that the disbursements claimed by Trowbridge were “not reflected in corresponding deposits into the Fort Financial Credit Union account” and that there was “no evidence that the amounts disbursed from the [Loan] policy were placed into an account of the victims.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 129. For its part, the State concedes that the Loan was, in fact, reflected in the Fort Financial account but maintains that there was no evidence that the amount covered losses that Trowbridge's grandparents had suffered. We agree with the State that the record supports the inference that “Trowbridge spent his grandparents’ money and then attempted to repay them with more of their money.” Appellee's Br. p. 10. Still, however, requiring Trowbridge to pay $10,000.00 if the Loan amount is fully reflected in the Fort Financial account would represent double recovery.

[11] While Trowbridge admitted that the Loan had been deposited into the Fort Financial account to “cover the money that [he] had taken out of that account,” Tr. Vol. II. p. 77, it is unclear from the record whether the debt that the Loan was repaying covered the Fort Financial charges already accounted for in the trial court's order, or whether the Loan was intended to cover a distinct, additional $10,000.00 debt he incurred on the account. Because of this uncertainty, and the fact that the Loan had been deposited into the Fort Financial account, we cannot say that the trial court's findings support the order for Trowbridge to repay the $10,000.00 Loan.

[12] Consequently, we reverse the trial court's restitution order and remand for reconsideration of the effect of the Loan. On remand, the trial court should determine whether ordering the $10,000.00 Loan to be repaid would represent double recovery, or whether there is sufficient evidence to support an additional $10,000.00 recovery. The remainder of the order, $68,439.42, is affirmed.¹

[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The amount affirmed includes the $88.37 interest accrued on the Loan.

Bradford, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Foley, J., concur.