Background
R.G.C. pleaded guilty in 2007 to second-degree theft by unlawful taking and was ordered to pay $278,177.99 in restitution, which was entered as a civil judgment. After her release from prison in 2010, R.G.C. made no additional restitution payments beyond those garnished during incarceration. By 2023, over $266,000 remained unpaid.
In 2023, R.G.C. filed a second petition for “clean slate” expungement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3(c), which permits expungement of a conviction if ten years have passed since the most recent conviction and restitution is either fully paid or the petitioner demonstrates by preponderance of the evidence that failure to pay resulted from reasons other than willful noncompliance. R.G.C. claimed her non-payment was not willful, citing her 2017 deportation to Italy, subsequent relocation to Canada, limited resources as a non-citizen, and significant medical conditions including seizures, diabetes, and psychiatric disorders. She submitted no documentation supporting these assertions.
The trial court denied the petition without prejudice, finding R.G.C. failed to prove her non-payment was due to reasons other than willful noncompliance. The court emphasized that R.G.C. had “every opportunity to repay that restitution in full many years ago” and that her claimed disabilities were irrelevant.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that R.G.C.’s failure to pay restitution constituted willful noncompliance. The court held that “willful noncompliance” means deliberate or intentional conduct where the individual had the ability to comply with a court order but chose not to. Drawing on its precedent in family law and contempt matters, the court emphasized that the critical inquiry is whether the obligor was able to pay and did not, not whether the obligor lacked all financial resources.
The court held that absent competent and credible evidence demonstrating an inability to satisfy the restitution obligation, a petitioner’s bare assertions of hardship, medical issues, or indigency are insufficient to rebut a finding of willfulness. R.G.C. presented no evidence of her income, assets, or financial circumstances during the seven years following her release while remaining in the United States, or during her time in Italy and Canada. Unsupported assertions without documentation or affidavits cannot overcome the record showing she made no voluntary payments after prison release.
The court reasoned that R.G.C. bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that her failure to pay was not willful. Without such proof, her failure to satisfy the restitution obligation following release was a “deliberate act in conscious violation or disregard of the judgment.”
Key Takeaways
- This case represents the Appellate Division’s first interpretation of “willful noncompliance” in New Jersey’s 2019 clean slate expungement statute.
- Petitioners seeking expungement when restitution remains unpaid must present competent and credible evidence—such as documentation, affidavits, or records—establishing their inability to pay; unsupported assertions are insufficient.
- Willful noncompliance focuses on whether an obligor had the ability to comply but chose not to, not whether the obligor lacked all resources.
- The burden rests on the petitioner to prove by preponderance of the evidence that non-payment was due to inability, not willfulness.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the standard for evaluating whether an unmet restitution obligation bars expungement under New Jersey’s clean slate provision. By requiring documentary evidence of inability to pay—rather than accepting unsupported claims of hardship, medical issues, or financial hardship—the court has set a meaningful evidentiary threshold for petitioners. This protects restitution obligations as a core aspect of criminal sentences while still preserving the possibility of expungement for those who can genuinely demonstrate inability to pay through credible evidence.
The decision affects thousands of individuals convicted in New Jersey who may seek clean slate expungement relief. It establishes that restitution remains enforceable even years after release and that petitioners cannot overcome willful non-payment through vague assertions. However, the door remains open for those with genuine financial constraints who document them with evidence such as tax returns, income verification, benefit statements, or medical records establishing incapacity to work.