Utah Supreme Court

Can attorney fees be included in criminal restitution awards? State v. Sevastopoulos Explained

2021 UT 70
No. 20200157
December 23, 2021
Affirmed in part and Remanded

Summary

Kathleen Sevastopoulos pled guilty to theft after making unauthorized electronic transfers from her elderly parents’ bank account. The district court ordered restitution including attorney and accountant fees her parents incurred in third-party litigation against credit card companies. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed that such fees constitute recoverable pecuniary damages under the third-party tort rule.

Analysis

In State v. Sevastopoulos, 2021 UT 70, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether attorney and accountant fees incurred in third-party litigation can be included in criminal restitution awards under the Crime Victims Restitution Act.

Background and Facts

Kathleen Sevastopoulos made hundreds of unauthorized electronic transfers from her elderly parents’ bank account to pay her credit card bills. Her parents hired an attorney and accountant who identified the unauthorized transfers and pursued claims against the involved credit card companies. The professionals incurred $40,000 in fees but recovered $131,701.63 from the credit card companies. Sevastopoulos pled guilty to misdemeanor theft and theft by deception, and the district court ordered restitution that included the attorney and accountant fees as pecuniary damages.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether attorney and accountant fees incurred in third-party litigation qualify as recoverable “pecuniary damages” under Utah Code § 77-38a-102(6). Sevastopoulos argued such fees were consequential damages that should be excluded from restitution awards.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied the third-party tort rule from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914(2), which provides that one who is required to act in protection of his interests through litigation against a third person may recover reasonable attorney fees and other expenditures. The Court found the fees constituted “demonstrable economic injury” that the parents could recover in a civil action arising from Sevastopoulos’s criminal activities. The fees were incurred in litigation against credit card companies that was necessitated by the defendant’s criminal conduct, not as punitive damages.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that professional fees incurred in third-party litigation directly caused by criminal conduct are recoverable as restitution. Practitioners should ensure the record establishes a clear causal connection between the defendant’s criminal acts and the necessity for third-party litigation. The decision also reinforces that unpreserved arguments regarding restitution calculations will be forfeited on appeal.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Sevastopoulos

Citation

2021 UT 70

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20200157

Date Decided

December 23, 2021

Outcome

Affirmed in part and Remanded

Holding

Litigation expenses incurred in third-party litigation necessitated by a defendant’s criminal conduct qualify as recoverable pecuniary damages under the Crime Victims Restitution Act.

Standard of Review

Clear error for factual findings

Practice Tip

When seeking restitution for professional fees, ensure the record clearly establishes that such fees were incurred in third-party litigation directly caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct, not in litigation against the defendant.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Jennings

    February 20, 2025

    The State presented substantial evidence of first-degree murder at a bail hearing where defendant stabbed victim twice in the back, and substantial evidence that defendant did not act in self-defense.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Mens Rea and Criminal Intent
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Thomas

    August 28, 2025

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining an objection to a question calling for a legal conclusion about search-incident-to-arrest authority, and any plain error in informing the jury of offense classifications was not prejudicial.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Mens Rea and Criminal Intent
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.