State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0089

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Tanya Jo Eidhammer,
Appellant.

Filed May 20, 2019
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge*

Cottonwood County District Court
File No. 17-CR-17-338

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Nicholas A. Anderson, Cot tonwood County Attorney, Windom, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Tanya Jo Eidhammer challenges the district court’s restitution order
following her conviction of theft of a motor vehicle under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.
2(a)(17) (2016). She argues that th e district court erroneously dismis sed her restitution
challenge by concluding that she failed to meet the statutory burdens of pleading and
production. She also argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering
restitution in the amount of $1,706.42 to be paid to the victim of the car theft . Because
Eidhammer failed to meet the statutory requirements in challenging restitution, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the
same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , 727 N.W.2d
662, 666 (Minn. 2007). District courts have broad discretion to award restitution, and we
will not reverse a district court’s order absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Andersen,
871 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015). “But determining whether an item meets the statutory
requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by this court.” State
v. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d 343, 346-47 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Eidhammer argues that the district court erred by dismissing her restitution
challenge b ecause she failed to meet the statutory burdens of plead ing and production.
Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) (2018) , imposes two burdens on offenders who
challenge a restitution order: the burden of pleading and the burden of production. See
State v. Thole , 614 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2000). This requi res an offender to

3
submit a “detailed sworn affidavit” that sets forth “all challenges to the restitution or items
of restitution, and specif[ies] all reasons justifying the dollar amounts of restitution which
differ from the amounts requested by the victim.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a). The
legislature requires an offender to “fully plead,” in a detailed affidavit, her position. Thole,
614 N.W.2d at 235. When the offender raises “a proper challenge to the restitution order,”
the burden shifts to the state to prove the “propriety of the restitution by a preponderance
of the evidence.” Id.
In her affidavit, Eidhammer alleges three statements to support her request of a
hearing to challenge restitution following her conviction of theft of a motor vehicle: (1) she
was not charged with criminal damage to property; (2) she did not cause the alleged damage
to the stolen vehicle ; and (3) “the amount of restitution sought is unreasonable.” The
district court ruled that Eidhammer’s affidavit failed to m eet the statutory requirements
because it did not state which restitution items she challenged. We agree.
Eidhammer’s affidavit failed to challenge any specific part of the restitution order
and failed to specify any reasons for a dollar-amount difference in restitution as required
under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(a). “Under the plain language of the statute, a valid
dispute arises only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific
objection by affidavit.” Thole, 614 N.W.2d at 235. The only statement in her affidavit that
challenges restitution is the general allegation that the restitution amount is “unreasonable.”
The restitution statute ensures that when a defendant challenges restitution, the state has
notice of what restitution items are being challenged, as the burden then shifts to the state
to prove the “propriety of the restitution.” Id.; Minn. Stat. 611A.045, subd. 3 (a) (“The

4
burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense
and the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution is on the prosecution.”). The state
was therefore not on notice of what restitution items or amounts were challenged.
Because Eidhammer made no specific objection to the restitu tion granted, the
district court did not err by dismissing her restitution challenge and we find no reason to
disturb the district court’s award of restitution.
Affirmed.