Robers v. United States (12-9012)

argument 12-9012

Robers v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal issue at the heart of Robers v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument this morning in Case 129012, Robers v. United States. Mr. Green. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, with respect to property crimes, Section 3663A of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires an offset against a restitution order when any part of the property is returned to the victim. This case concerns secured loans for the purchase of real estate. Pursuant to those loans, the lenders took a property interest in the subject real estate, namely the right to foreclose and take title in the event of default. When the lenders foreclosed and took title, that represented a fully realized return of their preexisting property right. Section 3663A further requires that that property be valued as of the date of its return and not at some later date when the lender sells to a third party.

Unknown 1:09

JUSTICE GINSBERG. When you said fully returned, it wouldn't be fully returned if the debt was greater than the value of the property?

John G. Roberts 1:20

MR. The property would be fully returned, and the property right that is the the right to foreclose is returned upon the default, Your Honor.

Unknown 1:29

JUSTICE BREYER- Well, let me just make it clear. If the loan is for $300,000, fraudulent loan, fraudulent entertainment loan, and the property is foreclosed upon and is worth at the time $200,000, is it your position that the property has been fully returned and that there is no liability for the difference?

John G. Roberts 1:49

No, no, Justice Kennedy, that's not our position. Our position is only that the property has to be valued at the time that the foreclosure or sheriff's auction takes

Unknown 2:00

place. And one more question. Under Wisconsin law, when there is a foreclosure, is there some automatic valuation ordered by the court, or is there an appraiser that automatically is appointed, or do we just decide value based on the bids at the ultimate sheriff's sale? No.

John G. Roberts 2:18

There is not any required appraisal, Your Honor, but frequently our understanding is that lenders who credit bid for those properties will, in fact, conduct an appraisal because they want to know how much they should credit bid for the property.

Elena Kagan 2:32

Counsel, I have two related questions. The first is, what your client got was money, and I don't know why it's impossible, impractical, or inadequate to to measure the loss by the amount he got and order him or her to pay it. He can pay it on a payment schedule, in any way that the court wants him to pay it. So I don't know why we're in B1 or B2 at all, because I don't see where the impracticality comes in. Answer that, but then secondly, It's not clear to me that we're thinking about this right. There seems to be no dispute that a loss to the victim is the amount that the victim is spending to sell the property and recoup the money. And you don't seem to be taking issue with that. And 3663 says, Two, appears to be the return of the property at sentencing or sometime thereafter.

Elena Kagan 3:55

That's right. So it doesn't seem to be controlling earlier return of property. And yet we're sort of stuck in that model that somehow it has to be an either-or. The earlier date of return or on the date of sentencing is But shouldn't be, and this follows up on Justice Kennedy's question, shouldn't it be at the time the investor can reasonably secure something from the return of that property, the date of sale? If we're letting them recoup the expenses of sale, why don't we just simply recognize the value on that date? And if a investor who takes property inadequately decides to hold onto it or with no reasonableness holds onto it or gives it away to their mother or sells it to somebody for a nominal fee, then it should be the date at which they got rid of it or the day or the value of the date on the date of return or something like that or the date that they should have done something with the property.

Elena Kagan 5:11

Why are we stuck on these isn't the whole idea is to make the victim whole? Don't you make the victim whole on the day a reasonable investor would have gotten rid of the

John G. Roberts 5:22

property? The whole idea is to make the victim whole. And as reflected in my answer to Justice Kennedy's question, that restitution order would be for the difference between the amount of the loan and the value of the property as of the date the property was returned.