THE PRISONER REIMBURSEMENT TO THE COUNTY ACT
Act 118 of 1984
801.88 Civil action for reimbursement; circuit court; venue; ex parte restraining order; hearing on order to show cause; appointment of receiver.
Sec. 8.
(1) Consistent with section 7, the county may file the civil action in the circuit court. If the defendant is still a prisoner in the county jail or is a prisoner in a state correctional facility, venue is proper in the county in which the jail or correctional facility is located.
(2) If necessary to protect the county's right to obtain reimbursement under this act against the disposition of known property, the county, in accordance with rules of the supreme court of this state, may seek issuance of an ex parte restraining order to restrain the defendant from disposing of the property pending a hearing on an order to show cause why the particular property should not be applied to reimbursement of the county for the maintenance and support of the defendant as a prisoner.
(3) To protect and maintain the property pending resolution of the matter, the court, upon request, may appoint a receiver.
History: 1984, Act 118, Imd. Eff. June 1, 1984 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 544, Eff. Mar. 31, 1997
Notes of Decisions
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 6× “MCL 801.88; MSA 28.1770(8). However, the ex parte orders issued against Mudge and Brown’s bond monies were not issued pending a show cause hearing, and there was no attempt to demonstrate that ex parte orders were necessary to protect the county’s right to reimbursement under…”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “MCL 801.88(1); *442 MSA 28.1770(8)(1). Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the filing of formal complaints and summonses, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these underlying matters brought pursuant to the prca.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.88(1) — 2 cases
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
“MCL 801.88; MSA 28.1770(8). However, the ex parte orders issued against Mudge and Brown’s bond monies were not issued pending a show cause hearing, and there was no attempt to demonstrate that ex parte orders were necessary to protect the county’s right to reimbursement under…”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 801.88(1); *442 MSA 28.1770(8)(1). Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the filing of formal complaints and summonses, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these underlying matters brought pursuant to the prca.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 801.88(2) — 2 cases
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
“MCL 801.88; MSA 28.1770(8). However, the ex parte orders issued against Mudge and Brown’s bond monies were not issued pending a show cause hearing, and there was no attempt to demonstrate that ex parte orders were necessary to protect the county’s right to reimbursement under…”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 801.88(1); *442 MSA 28.1770(8)(1). Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the filing of formal complaints and summonses, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these underlying matters brought pursuant to the prca.”
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.