THE STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT ACT
Act 253 of 1935
800.404a Remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure; receiver; execution against homestead prohibited.
Sec. 4a.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3), in seeking to secure reimbursement under this act, the attorney general may use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte restraining order to restrain the prisoner or any other person or legal entity in possession or having custody of the estate of the prisoner from disposing of certain property pending a hearing on an order to show cause why the particular property should not be applied to reimburse the state as provided for under this act.
(2) To protect and maintain assets pending resolution of an action under this act, the court, upon request, may appoint a receiver.
(3) The attorney general or a prosecuting attorney shall not enforce any judgment obtained under this act by means of execution against the homestead of the prisoner.
History: 1935, Act 253, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1935 ;-- CL 1948, 800.404a ;-- Am. 1984, Act 282, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1984
Constitutionality Notes:
The Prison Reimbursement Act was intended to apply to all inmates of the state penal system and was not limited to the inmates of the three penal institutions named in the act and in existence at the time of its passage; nor is the act violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138; 347 NW2d 770 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
State Treasurer v. Snyder (2011)
michctapp · cites it 5×
“Further, in seeking to secure reimbursement, the attorney general is empowered under MCL 800.404a(1) to “use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte restraining order to restrain the prisoner .”
Mudge v. MacOmb County (1998)
mich
“For example, MCL 800.404a; MSA 28.1705, authorizing recovery of costs incident to custody of state prisoners provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (3), in seeking to secure reimbursement under this act, the attorney general may use any remedy, interim…”
Roberts v. Baugh (1997)
mied · cites it 2×
“Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 800.401. The SCFRA also gives plaintiff the power to appoint a receiver “[t]o protect and maintain assets pending resolution of an action under this act.”
People v. Houston (2000)
michctapp
“Subsection 4a(l) of the scfra, MCL 800.404a(l); MSA 28.1705(1), provides, as pertinent: *720 [I]n seeking to secure reimbursement under this act, the attorney general may use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte…”
State Treasurer v. Wilson (1984)
michctapp
“Upon reading the act as a whole, we find that it clearly limits its effects to the three penal institutions it mentions, which were the only state penal institutions in operation at the time of the statute’s enactment.”
Gale v. General Motors (2008)
mied
“§ 800.404a(l) (1998) (authorizing attorney general, in seeking reimbursement under SCFRA, to use “any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure .”
State Treasurer v. Bradley Bences (2016)
michctapp
“[MCL 800.404a(1).] An ordinary creditor does not have, and is not entitled to, the unique statutory tools that are available to the state when it pursues a reimbursement claim under the SCFRA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.404a(1) — 2 cases
State Treasurer v. Snyder (2011)
michctapp
“Further, in seeking to secure reimbursement, the attorney general is empowered under MCL 800.404a(1) to “use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte restraining order to restrain the prisoner .”
State Treasurer v. Bradley Bences (2016)
michctapp
“[MCL 800.404a(1).] An ordinary creditor does not have, and is not entitled to, the unique statutory tools that are available to the state when it pursues a reimbursement claim under the SCFRA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.404a(2) — 2 cases
State Treasurer v. Snyder (2011)
michctapp
“Further, in seeking to secure reimbursement, the attorney general is empowered under MCL 800.404a(1) to “use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte restraining order to restrain the prisoner .”
Roberts v. Baugh (1997)
mied
“Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 800.401. The SCFRA also gives plaintiff the power to appoint a receiver “[t]o protect and maintain assets pending resolution of an action under this act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.404a(3) — 1 case
State Treasurer v. Snyder (2011)
michctapp
“Further, in seeking to secure reimbursement, the attorney general is empowered under MCL 800.404a(1) to “use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte restraining order to restrain the prisoner .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.404a(l) — 2 cases
People v. Houston (2000)
michctapp
“Subsection 4a(l) of the scfra, MCL 800.404a(l); MSA 28.1705(1), provides, as pertinent: *720 [I]n seeking to secure reimbursement under this act, the attorney general may use any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure allowed by law or court rule including an ex parte…”
Gale v. General Motors (2008)
mied
“§ 800.404a(l) (1998) (authorizing attorney general, in seeking reimbursement under SCFRA, to use “any remedy, interim order, or enforcement procedure .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.