of property and (2) the property value must exceed $10,000. Van Haaften is precluded from denying either of these allegations in this subrogation action. EMCC, however, is alleging Van Haaften misappropriated $57,759.21 from PCM. The specific amount by which her theft exceeds $10,000 is not an essential element of first-degree theft. Her plea is valid whether she misappropriated $10,000.01 or $57,759.21; therefore, she had no incentive in the criminal proceeding to contest the amount by which her theft exceeded $10,000. Our reasoning is consistent with the majority of courts considering the issue that have refused to preclude litigation of damages in excess of the threshold amount needed to establish the criminal offense. United States v. Wight, 839 F.2d 193, 196 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Appley v. West, 832 F.2d 1021, 1026-27 (7th
holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law holding that the amount necessary to repair a vehicle under an insurance contract refers to the amount the insurer must spend to repair the vehicle not the amount the insured decides to spend holding that because the amount of his remuneration was not a necessary part of the plea agreement to theft the district court should not have estopped wight from contesting the 70107 amount holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount