Thomas Haiduk appeals a judgment and order requiring him to pay $31,984.50 in restitution. He contends the circuit court erred when calculating restitution because it improperly considered Linda Hanke’s cost of completion, inaccurately calculated his offset for design and profits, and improperly considered Hanke’s general damages. He asserts he only owes Hanke $1,632.79 in restitution.
The State concedes that the court improperly considered Hanke’s cost of completion in its restitution calculation. However, the State argues that the court correctly calculated Haiduk’s offset for materials, labor, and design, and thus Haiduk owes $35,877.29 in restitution.
We conclude the circuit court never explained how it calculated Haiduk’s design offset. We also determine the court never made a finding of whether Haiduk is, or is not, entitled to receive a profit based on the work he performed. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an explanation of how the court calculated Haiduk’s design offset and a determination of whether Haiduk is entitled to a profit offset, and if so, the amount. This opinion will not be published.
2011AP551-CR State v. Haiduk
Dist III, Vilas County, Nielsen, J., Brunner, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Cirilli, Gary S., Rhinelander; For Respondent: Weber, Gregory M., Madison; Moustakis, Albert D., Eagle River