THE PRISONER REIMBURSEMENT TO THE COUNTY ACT
Act 118 of 1984
801.87 Civil action for reimbursement; consideration by court; money judgment; order.
Sec. 7.
(1) Within 6 years after the release from a county jail of a sentenced prisoner or a pretrial detainee whose prosecution resulted in conviction for a felony, an attorney for that county may file a civil action to seek reimbursement from that person for maintenance and support of that person while he or she is or was confined in the jail, or for any other expense for which the county may be reimbursed under section 3, as provided in this section and sections 8 to 10.
(2) A civil action brought under this act shall be instituted in the name of the county in which the jail is located and shall state the following, as applicable:
(a) In the case of a prisoner sentenced to the jail, the date and place of sentence, the length of time set forth in the sentence, the length of time actually served, and the amount or amounts due to the county pursuant to section 3.
(b) In the case of a person imprisoned as a pretrial detainee on a charge or charges that resulted in conviction for a felony, the length of pretrial detention and the amount or amounts due to the county pursuant to section 3.
(3) Before entering any order on behalf of the county against the defendant, the court shall take into consideration any legal obligation of the defendant to support a spouse, minor children, or other dependents and any moral obligation to support dependents to whom the defendant is providing or has in fact provided support.
(4) The court may enter a money judgment against the defendant and may order that the defendant's property is liable for reimbursement for maintenance and support of the defendant as a prisoner and for other expenses reimbursable under section 3.
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. 2006, Act 127, Imd. Eff. May 2, 2006
Notes of Decisions
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 4× “However, the time limitation within which a county has to file a claim under the prca, MCL 801.87(1); MSA *108 28.1770(7)(1), is not found in chapter 58.”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “MCL 801.87(3); MSA 28.1770(7)(3). Once the court determines that reimbursement is appropriate, it may enter a "money judgment” against the defendant and may order that the defendant’s property is liable for reimbursement.”
People v. Gonyo, 434 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“See MCL 801.87; MSA 28.1770(7). The absence of express authority under MCL 771.”
People v. Krieger, 507 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“The trial court here lacked authority to require defendant to reimburse the county for medical expenses. The penal statute governing the crime of false pretenses does not provide for recoupment of medical expenses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.87(1) — 1 case
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
“However, the time limitation within which a county has to file a claim under the prca, MCL 801.87(1); MSA *108 28.1770(7)(1), is not found in chapter 58.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.87(3) — 2 cases
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
“However, the time limitation within which a county has to file a claim under the prca, MCL 801.87(1); MSA *108 28.1770(7)(1), is not found in chapter 58.”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 801.87(3); MSA 28.1770(7)(3). Once the court determines that reimbursement is appropriate, it may enter a "money judgment” against the defendant and may order that the defendant’s property is liable for reimbursement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.87(4) — 1 case
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 801.87(3); MSA 28.1770(7)(3). Once the court determines that reimbursement is appropriate, it may enter a "money judgment” against the defendant and may order that the defendant’s property is liable for reimbursement.”
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.