Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.83 (2026)

Reimbursement for expenses; form.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE PRISONER REIMBURSEMENT TO THE COUNTY ACT

Act 118 of 1984

801.83 Reimbursement for expenses; form.

Sec. 3.

(1) The county may seek reimbursement for any expenses incurred by the county in relation to a charge for which a person was sentenced to a county jail as follows:

(a) From each person who is or was a prisoner, not more than $60.00 per day for the expenses of maintaining that prisoner or the actual per diem cost of maintaining that prisoner, whichever is less, for the entire period of time the person was confined in the county jail, including any period of pretrial detention.

(b) To investigate the financial status of the person.

(2) Reimbursement under this act may be ordered as a probation condition entered pursuant to section 3 of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.3.

(3) Before seeking any reimbursement under this act, the county shall develop a form to be used for determining the financial status of prisoners. The form shall provide for obtaining the age and marital status of a prisoner, number and ages of children of a prisoner, number and ages of other dependents, type and value of real estate, type and value of personal property, cash and bank accounts, type and value of investments, pensions and annuities, and any other personalty of significant cash value. The county shall use the form when investigating the financial status of prisoners.

History: 1984, Act 118, Imd. Eff. June 1, 1984 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 212, Imd. Eff. June 23, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 544, Eff. Mar. 31, 1997 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 450, Eff. Aug. 1, 1999

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1995–1998 · leading case: Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “MCL 801.83; MSA 28.1770(3). We disagree with the concurrence’s statement, post, p 112, n 3, that the prca is not an exclusive remedy provision.”

Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “MCL 801.83(l)(a), 801.87(1); MSA 28.1770(3)(l)(a), 28.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.83(l)(a) — 1 case

Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 801.83(l)(a), 801.87(1); MSA 28.1770(3)(l)(a), 28.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.83(l)(b) — 1 case

Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 801.83(l)(a), 801.87(1); MSA 28.1770(3)(l)(a), 28.”

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.