I'd probably be in jail for attempted murder if I found the asswipes that did this to my home.



www.frontiersman.com/articles/2005/08/17/news/news8.txt

Vandals leave homeowners without a fix

August 16, 2005

TRACY KALYTIAK/Frontiersman assistant editor

A former high school football player and other teens who unleashed a torrent of vandalism on a Valley home in 2002 will be held "jointly and severally" responsible for the entire $50,000-plus cost of the damage, according to a memorandum opinion and judgment issued recently by the Alaska Court of Appeals.

"Making it joint and several means that if someone doesn't pay, the others have to pick up the unpaid portion," said Palmer Assistant District Attorney Bob Collins, who wrote the state's appeal in the case, in a phone interview last week. "Everybody's liable for the entire amount. The point is, the victims are going to be made whole - you guys argue among yourselves about who's going to pay how much."

In the summer of 2002, William and Virginia Hoyt were preparing to sell their secluded home on Foxtrot Avenue, in the Shaw Tri-Lakes subdivision off Bogard Road, to help pay for a home they were building off Knik-Goose Bay Road near Fish Creek. The family was living in a motor home at the site of the under-construction home, but their clothes, furniture, even food in the refrigerator and freezer, remained inside the Foxtrot residence.

It was close to 9 p.m. on June 27, 2002, when a neighbor noticed a teenage boy sitting in a car on the street, talking on a cell phone. Between then and 4 a.m. the next day, someone shoved their way through the front door of the Hoyts' home and kicked off an alcohol-soaked party that eventually lured at least 22 kids.

The get-together then mutated into what the appeals filing referred to as "a frenzy of destruction."

A group of about a half-dozen boys, some of them high school football players, broke almost every window in the home, tore out a front railing, littered the interior with beer bottles, knocked a door off its hinges, and broke other doors, punched holes in the drywall and smeared honey, catsup, juice and pickles all over the walls, fixtures and carpets. Spray-painted graffiti streaked the walls, as well, and the home received water damage because someone broke the water filter.

"Every room in the house was damaged," the court filing stated.

Neighbors heard glass breaking and called Alaska State Troopers at about 4:40 a.m. They then saw several teens fleeing on foot and in their vehicles.

Trooper Dug Cook found a home with no one inside when he arrived.

"The neighbors indicated which vehicle was there, others knew who owned it," he said in a Thursday phone interview. "The Hoyts in this matter were very helpful in this investigation. They gave me a list of possible suspects."

Cook said he took that list of leads and checked them out, finding a 16-year-old boy later identified in the appeals court filing as W.C. and others who had attended the destructive soirée.

"One person's actions started the criminal mischief and everyone just followed suit," Cook said of the events leading up to the spree of vandalism in the Hoyts' home. Cook said he did not remember whether W.C. was that instigator or whether he had been among the most destructive of the vandals.

The state filed a petition to declare W.C. a delinquent, saying his conduct would support criminal charges of second-degree criminal mischief - a felony - and first-degree criminal trespass. At the time, troopers estimated the vandals inflicted about $30,000 in damage on the residence.

Ultimately, the state and W.C. reached an agreement. The state reduced second-degree criminal mischief to third-degree criminal mischief. W.C.'s attorney told the court that as a result of his forthcoming admission, W.C. would face a restitution order and "[W.C.] will be responsible for his share of the damage even if it amounts to more than $500." The amount of restitution would be determined later.

At an April 25, 2003, disposition hearing, Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith placed W.C. on probation, with restitution to be determined later. A contractor then examined the Hoyt's home and found it would cost the Hoyts $51,826.68 to repair it.

Initially, the state asked that the court order W.C. to pay a fourth of the repair cost. Smith granted the request and entered a restitution order for $12,956.67, holding W.C. and other youths responsible for more than the damage they had each personally caused. The state moved to amend the restitution order, arguing that if the court were going to impose this "joint and several" liability for the damages, the court should impose a restitution order in W.C.'s case for the entire amount of damages.

W.C. opposed the state's request, so Smith conducted two later hearings, in December 2003 and February 2004. At the first hearing, W.C.'s attorney indicated he thought a restitution order of $1,500 was fair "considering his finances," but argued that W.C. should not be responsible for more than the damage he admitted doing himself.

Smith ultimately imposed a restitution order that held W.C. could be liable for all the damage to the home.

The boy appealed, saying the restitution order was unlawful and that the record did not support a finding that he intended to break into or damage the home.

The appeals filing responded, saying this claim was undercut by W.C.'s admission to the delinquency petition.

"His admission conclusively established that he had intended to damage some of the Hoyts' property and that he had illegally entered the Hoyts' house," it said.

W.C. also argued that Smith failed to assess his ability to pay restitution before ordering him to pay restitution for all the damages, citing a case involving a state law that allows a defendant sentenced to pay more than $5,000 in restitution and spend more than 90 days in prison to ask the court to reduce the restitution obligation. That law provides that the court presume a defendant has the ability to pay restitution unless he proves with clear and convincing evidence that he does not possess the present or future ability to pay.

The appeals court filing stated that law did not apply to W.C.

"W.C. was not institutionalized but was placed on probation. Furthermore, although W.C. in one pleading indicated that he wanted to present evidence regarding restitution, he did not call any witnesses to present evidence on his present or future ability to pay restitution," the filing stated.

J. Randall Luffberry, one of the attorneys listed as W.C.'s representatives, did not return a message left at his home and efforts to leave a message at his office Thursday were unsuccessful, and there was no telephone listing for W.C. in Alaska's area code.

As the legal case wound its way through the trial and appeals stages, William Hoyt and his wife tried to mend the shards of their home and their life.

Insurance wouldn't pay for the damage the vandals caused because no one was living in the Foxtrot home at the time, even though most of the family's possessions were still inside. Hoyt said the damage to the home exceeded the amount noted in the court filing, totaling nearly $77,600, not including damage to their personal property.

"We couldn't sell it and couldn't fix it," Hoyt said during an interview at his Wasilla business on Thursday. "We couldn't do anything with it, just make payments on it."

Eventually the Hoyts found someone who would assume payments on the home; they lost the equity, however.

All 50 states have civil responsibility laws that say parents are automatically responsible for property damage done by their children, but Hoyt says he doesn't plan to go after the parents of the kids involved in vandalizing his home.

"It was not the parents who did this," he said. "They cannot be accountable for what these kids chose to do. The moms and dads did not destroy this house."

Hoyt says he has received somewhere around $8,000-$10,000 restitution from the youths involved - total - and that none of the teens has offered his family a sincere apology.

"I'm not just going to write this off and forget about it," Hoyt said. "Unless I get paid, unless I'm happy with the final outcome on it, I'm not done."

Hoyt took out a stack of photos that documented the damage. One picture showed a slashed oil painting of a lion. In another shot is a caribou mount someone tore down before breaking off its antlers. A third photo shows a child's red wagon resting in broken glass, framed in a broken window.

But that wasn't the worst damage.

"They destroyed family pictures and the hope chest my wife had since she was a kid," Hoyt said.

The Hoyts never brought their children back to that house.

"It was the only place they lived in their lives, their sanctuary, it was not a good thing for them mentally to have to deal with this," Hoyt said. "Society has to find a better way to deal with this than a slap on the wrist and go home to mother."

It is things\people like this that have shaped my attitude\intentions towards burglars and robbers

I would see what kind of home the perp had and it it was better, have them move out and live in the damaged home until it is 100% BACK the way it was originally.


SHould the perps home be worse than the destroyed home, I would STILL make them leave so the victims had a place to stay until their home was fixed up. Where the perp and his family lived in the meantime was NONE of my concern


See? I would make a GREAT Judge.

"It was not the parents who did this," he said. "They cannot be accountable for what these kids chose to do. The moms and dads did not destroy this house." Hoyt says he has received somewhere around $8,000-$10,000 restitution from the youths involved - total - and that none of the teens has offered his family a sincere apology. "I'm not just going to write this off and forget about it," Hoyt said. "Unless I get paid, unless I'm happy with the final outcome on it, I'm not done."

At least the man has some sense.

Though I would go after the parents so they would lose their house and be on the street.

Add that to the fact not one kid has apologized.  Where did that shovel go?....

Gimme a couple hours in their houses with a baseball bat, chainsaw, and skunk urine. Then make them pay to repair the damages to my property. Then I MIGHT start calling us even.

Quoted: Gimme a couple hours in their houses with a baseball bat, chainsaw, and skunk urine. Then make them pay to repair the damages to my property. Then I MIGHT start calling us even.

Yup, and be sure to leave the one of a kind family photos in plain view for my convenience
(and at least one broken bone needs to be a part of this deal)

Sounds like a perfect situation for some public canings.

Quoted: Sounds like a perfect situation for some public canings.

NOW, were're getting somewhere
public caning
broken bone
restitution
destroy THEIR home

Quoted: "It was not the parents who did this," he said. "They cannot be accountable for what these kids chose to do. The moms and dads did not destroy this house." Hoyt says he has received somewhere around $8,000-$10,000 restitution from the youths involved - total - and that none of the teens has offered his family a sincere apology. "I'm not just going to write this off and forget about it," Hoyt said. "Unless I get paid, unless I'm happy with the final outcome on it, I'm not done." At least the man has some sense. Though I would go after the parents so they would lose their house and be on the street. Add that to the fact not one kid has apologized.  Where did that shovel go?....

Yeah, I gotta agree.

Summary...the kids have paid 8-10k in restitution and they're fighting the rest? What's the skinny? Long post....

AR15.com classic...

Quoted: All 50 states have civil responsibility laws that say parents are automatically responsible for property damage done by their children, but Hoyt says he doesn't plan to go after the parents of the kids involved in vandalizing his home.

Bad move for Hoyt.  
All guilty teens should have been identified.  
Once that was determined, Hoyt should have been granted a lien for total damages+ on each of their parents homes.  

JC himself would be proud of the habitat crew that showed up to fix that house within 3 days.

Parent's could then work out cost reperations from their own devilspawn.

He's not going after the parent's homeowner's insurance?

This is Alaska, right?  Are we talking about Raven's house here??

none of the teens has offered his family a sincere apology.

Disgusting.  Why is it when someone does wrong, especially these boys who know right from wrong, the try to blame the victim.  Why can't they just admit they did wrong and try to make amends?

If it were my kid his ass would be down at their house every day doing chores.  And he would pay his share of the bill.  And he would not associate with those other boys ever again.

Yet some lawyer will try to get these punks off scott free...

Quoted: Yet some lawyer will try to get these punks off scott free...

They plea bargained of course.

The irony of it is they've probably shelled out in legal fees more than it would have cost to fix the damage from their little monsters.

We need to bring back indentured servitude.

Quoted: Quoted: Yet some lawyer will try to get these punks off scott free... Wow did you get mauled on the stand this week or what?

Not at all. In fact i still have perfect record of never losing a supression hearing or jury trial.  I'm just sick of people getting paid big bucks to let others be unaccountable for their actions.

Although the last public defener to cross examine me did accuse me of assualting a homless woman.  She was homeless by choice as she had over $15,000.00 on her, and i never laid a hand on her. But the defense is allowed to lie that way at trial...

Garnish the little bastards' wages until the man gets paid for his home!

I think a public severe beating is in order. Followed by bringing back the debtor's prison. IF the kids are minors, hell yes, go after the parents to get compensated. But make sure the demonseeds get prison time and a real criminal record.

Damn good thing someone didn't catch them in the act. 22 drunk and pissed off teens? Some of them might have gotten shot during their apprehension, whilst they assaulted the person(s) apprehending them.

Quoted: pcmedics.net/shooters/images/gun%20in%20hand%203.gif www.geo-tools.com/Images/Products/New%20Folder/Bars/shovel-1-big.jpg AR15.com classic...

Ya got yer pictures backwards there.

Quoted: Quoted: pcmedics.net/shooters/images/gun%20in%20hand%203.gif www.geo-tools.com/Images/Products/New%20Folder/Bars/shovel-1-big.jpg AR15.com classic... Ya got yer pictures backwards there.

Make them shovel.

I am sure that this rampage of destruction was not the first time our stars were pulling something like this. Odds are they got away with it in the past. If they are allowed to get away with it AGAIN, then they will end up killing somebody someday, or trashing the wrong house and ending up dead for it.