THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MICHIGAN. Collections Policy & Procedures Manual

Transcription

1 THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MICHIGAN Collections Policy & Procedures Manual

2 SECTION I CRIMINAL DIVISION I. Introduction 3 II. Overview 4 III. Assessments and Payments.. 4 A. Costs & Fees. 4 B. Payment Due At Assessment. 5 C. Cashiering. 6 D. Information to Court. 7 E. Court Ordered Installments 8 F. State Prison Accounts. 8 G. Determination of Ability to Pay... 9 IV. Enforcement 9 V. Court Administration. 10 A. Administrative Responsibilities.. 10 B. Duties of Stakeholders...11 VI. Inactive Debts.. 16 A. Inactive Debts Policy 16 B. Cancellation of Debts 17 VII. Community Service in Lieu of Financial Obligation A. Courtroom and Cashier Responsibilities. 17 B. Probation Agent Responsibilities 18 VIII. Standards For Collection Agency Vendor.. 18 IX. Appendix 1. Sample Signage Posting Language (MCR 1.110) Attorney Payments by Event Crime Victim & State Fee Charts and Memo Government Payment Services Notice - Bonds Government Payment Services Notice Fines & Fees Payment Distribution Hierarchy (MCL ). 29 Example Payment Distribution Hierarchy Crime Victim Act Allocation of Payments (MCL a MC Wage Withholding Order MC 288 Order to Remit Prisoner Funds Prisoner Sweep Clarification Memo Draft Financial Statement of Account Notice of Delinquency Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney Sample Payment Slip Bond Notice MC241 Bond Order Irrevocable Assignment of Bond Form Motion and Order to Modify or Cancel Discretionary Court Ordered Costs and Fees Third Circuit Collections Legal Opinion 45 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 2

3 THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MICHIGAN COLLECTIONS POLICY & PROCEDURES PLAN CRIMINAL DIVISION I. INTRODUCTION The Third Circuit Court (Third Circuit) has identified the need to establish a written collections policy to ensure that all participants have a clear understanding of their respective roles in the collections process and that collections activities are conducted consistently. These guidelines are intended to promote integrity and effectiveness in the collections process. Realizing that the lack of collecting court attorney fees, costs and fines calls into question the authority and efficacy of the Court and its right to assess costs as sanctions in administering justice and denies revenues to a jurisdiction, Third Circuit uniformly expects payment at the time of assessment, except when the Court allows otherwise, for good cause shown, pursuant to MCR A commitment to improve court collections will improve the credibility and integrity of the court and, at the same time, increase revenue for the recipients of these funds. Third Circuit further requests that anyone who has contact with defendants, including staff, judges, Department of Corrections (MDOC) personnel, attorneys, etc., will inform defendants that payment is due on the day of assessment. Third Circuit affirms that collecting court attorney fees, costs and fines is an integral part of the judicial system. Consistent enforcement of all court ordered costs, sends a clear message that the court intends to and will enforce its orders. Third Circuit expects that this initiative will result in a gradual increase in future voluntary compliance with fee payments Public Acts 70-79, , and 138 clearly defines the court s obligation to consistently assess and enforce all provisions defined in its orders. Experience demonstrates that a prompt and graduated response to noncompliance is the most effective approach. Third Circuit has therefore established an enforcement initiative that in conjunction with a private collections agency will ensure that regular progressive action will be taken for failure of a defendant to pay various types of court ordered assessments. Third Circuit has adopted the following guidelines and procedures to ensure the implementation of an effective and efficiently administered collection program. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 3

4 II. OVERVIEW A defendant in a criminal proceeding; a respondent in a delinquency proceeding; or a parent/legally responsible adult (LRA) in a child protective proceeding will not be denied counsel because of inability to pay. Third Circuit Court judges may determine the ability of a defendant, respondent, parent/lra to pay part or all of the ordered court costs and attorney fees. It is within the discretion of the Third Circuit Court judge to make a finding of indigence on behalf of a defendant, respondent, parent/lra on the Affidavit of Indigence. The result could mean a waiver of the obligation to reimburse the Court for these fees or costs, except where fees are mandated by the state. III. ASSESSMENTS AND PAYMENTS Judges should provide a consistent message regarding the assessment, payment, and enforcement of court ordered financial obligations. At the initial hearing defendants will be informed from the bench that payment is expected at the time of assessment. Payment informational materials will be available to defendants upon request in the courtroom and in room 901. Additionally, signage 1 will be posted in the courtroom regarding payment expectations. The legal community is also encouraged to support the court s enforcement effort regarding MCR 1.110, by informing their clients that payment of costs and fees is required at assessment. A. Costs and Fees 1. Defendants are assessed a flat rate for attorney fees 2, court costs, fines, and other assessments, as follows: a. Attorney Fees Event based total b. Court Costs $ c. Crime Victims (Felony) 3 $ d. Crime Victims ( Serious or Specified Misdemeanor) $75.00 e. State Minimum (Felony) $68.00/ per convicted count 1 See Appendix 1 Sample signage language 2 See Appendix 2 Attorney Payments by event 3 See Appendix 3 Crime Victim & State Fee Charts & Fee Increase Memo 01/26/2012 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 4

5 f. State Minimum (Misdemeanor) $50.00/convicted count 2. Assessments are entered into the court s case management system on the same day as ordered by the Judge. 3. Notice/Order For Payment a. An interim order for attorney fees shall be generated at specified hearings, beginning with the AOI and up to the last hearing prior to sentencing date. The interim order attorney fee amount shall be an event based calculation by hearing type. b. A final order for attorney fee reimbursement shall be generated at the sentencing hearing. All fees and costs shall be outlined on the sentencing order and stated on the record (see III A. for list of applicable fees/costs). The defendant shall receive a copy of the order and directed to the Cashier s Window to make a payment. c. If the court determines after a hearing, trial or appeal that the defendant is not guilty, any remaining balance on an interim assessment and late fees is dismissed (See MCL 769.1k). B. Payment Due at Time of Assessment 1. Pursuant to MCR 1.110, the court expects payment at the time of assessment, except when the court allows otherwise. This expectation shall be communicated to defendants by attorneys, court staff, judges, etc., as soon as possible throughout the adjudication process. 2. Each defendant will be required to make a payment on the day of assessment. 3. Clients are directed to make payments to the Wayne County Clerk Cashiers Window, 1441 St. Antoine, Room-102, Detroit, Michigan, Failure to pay attorney fees, costs, or fines in full within 56 days of due date is subject to a 20% late penalty on the balance owed (MCL ) The account may be referred to a collection agency to enforce full payment or initiate payment arrangements (See Sec. IV. D.). Defendant cannot solely pay attorney fees, costs, or fines within 56 days to avoid 20% late penalty, because payments are allocated equally between victim payments (Crime Victim Fees and Restitution) and attorney fees, costs, and fines % late fee is not assessed on restitution (See Appendix 5 Example) Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 5

6 5. If the defendant indicates their inability to pay in full at assessment, the assigned judge may allow the defendant the opportunity to enter into an installment plan. 6. Requests for additional time to pay should be initiated by the defendant, not by the Court. 7. Failure to fulfill payment obligations could result in one or more of the following actions: C. Cashiering a. A 20% late penalty on attorney fees, court costs, or fine balance that is over 56 days old; b. Referral to a collection agency; c. The debt reported to a credit bureau; d. Seizure and sale of real or personal property; e. Tax refund interception; f. Show cause hearings; g. Garnishment of wages. 1. All payments will be processed and receipted by the Wayne County Clerk Cashiers Window, 1441 St. Antoine, Rm.102, Detroit, MI Records shall be updated on the same day that the payment is made. 3. The following forms of payment will be accepted: a. Cash b. Money Order c. Certified Check d. Credit Card (Using Government Payment Services, GPS) 5 e. Income Withholding 4. In the event that an order has not been entered into the case management system, a defendant will be asked to provide a copy of the court order to facilitate processing of payment or referred back to the courtroom clerk for follow-up. 5. Unless otherwise directed, partial payments will be applied to the debt that is the most past due. If an individual owes multiple debts to the court, 5 See Appendix 4 Government Payments Services information Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 6

7 payments should be applied as required by statute (MCL a, a, a). 6. Distributions of all funds collected shall be applied to the defendant s account(s) based on MCL hierarchy of distribution. There is an exception, when a defendant makes a payment and indicates that the payment is to be applied to victim payments, or when the payment results from wage assignment or is received from the Department of Corrections or the sheriff, the payment shall first be applied to victim payments 7. MCL a(2); MCL a(2); MCL a(2). 7. If an account has been forwarded to the Court s collection agency vendor, defendants shall be instructed by the collection agency vendor to forward all payments to the Clerk s Office. In the event that a payment is sent to the collection agency vendor, the collection agency vendor shall forward the payment to the Clerk s Office for processing within 3 business days with the identifying related case information. D. Information provided to and collected by the Court 1. Third Circuit shall obtain and maintain the following information, where possible. Sensitive information maintained in the case management system, i.e., social security numbers will only be available to specified users. a. current address b. current telephone and cell numbers c. social security number (when possible) d. driver s license number e. employer name, address and telephone number 2. Courtroom staff is required to confirm and update personal information at various points of contact with the defendant. A history will be entered into the case management system to track all defendant related contact. 6 See Appendix 5 Distribution hierarchy and example payment distribution 7 See Appendix 6 MCL a Allocation of payments Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 7

8 E. Court Order Installment Payments (Not Encouraged) 1. If a defendant indicates an inability to pay in full at the time of the assessment, the Judge may order payment installments, and instruct that an initial payment is due immediately. The defendant will then be required to make minimum monthly payments, due on the 15 th of each month until paid in full. Payment terms should not exceed the term of probation. The installment plan must consider the defendant s overall account balance (multiple cases) in determining the monthly payment amount. a. The installment payment plan will be documented on the sentencing order or amended court order. b. It is encouraged that installment payment plans shall not exceed the term of probation. Monthly installment payments should consider the defendants ability to pay and attempt to not extend past the length of probation or be equal to payment in full by the close of probation. c. In the courtroom at the sentencing hearing, if a defendant requests payment by installment, they must agree to a voluntary wage withholding order. 8 Defendant s personal Information must be confirmed to ensure proper processing of the wage withholding order. (See III.D.1) d. If installment terms are not met, the account will be subject to the court s collection procedure. e. Defendant accounts are closely monitored for compliance, and action is taken promptly for non-compliance. F. State Prison Accounts If a defendant is incarcerated in a state prison facility, an Order to Remit Prisoner Funds (MC288) 9 shall be completed along with the Sentencing Order. Each order should follow the defendant throughout incarceration until discharged or account is paid in full. 1. Accounts for those sentenced to a state prison facility will not be subject to a 20% late fee until 56 days from the date of release. The account will be referred to the collection agency for further enforcement on the remaining balance, 56 days after release. 2. Accounts will be monitored for payments and coded as a State of Michigan Remittance. 8 See Appendix 7 Wage Withholding Order (MC289) 9 See Appendix 8 MC288 Order to Remit Prisoner Funds Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 8

9 3. When an account is determined paid in full, an Order for Satisfaction of Financial Obligation (MC290) will be entered and forwarded to the MDOC regional facility 10 by the Cashier s Office. 4. Any overpayments will be returned to the MDOC s regional office, accompanied by an Order for Satisfaction of Financial Obligation (MC290) to be re-credited to the prisoner s account. G. Determination of Ability to Pay A uniform policy and practice will aid to eliminate bias, real or perceived, in the determination of who is indigent. The following description outlines the court s practice when determining a party s ability to pay, contribute or reimburse toward a specified cost or fee. 1. The Court defines an Indigent as a person who comes before the court who lacks sufficient income or other resources to employ a qualified lawyer to defend without undue hardship. A party may be determined indigent or having a substantial financial hardship if any combination of the following factors or conditions is present: a. Food stamps b. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) c. Medicaid d. Disability Insurance e. Housed in a Mental Health Facility f. Resides in Public Housing 2. A determination of indigence however does not prevent a person from partially or fully reimbursing the court attorney fees, costs and fines in the future. IV. ENFORCEMENT A. All defendants should receive a Financial Statement of Account 11 at sentencing. The statement will include the amounts assessed for each financial category, the total balance due, where to direct payments and notice of the 20% late fee penalty as applicable for failure to comply. B. All defendants will be instructed to pay their account in full immediately following their sentencing hearing. Further the Bench may request proof of payment in full prior to closing the case. C. Failure to comply with court ordered payment terms will result in collections enforcement after 56 days. 10 See Appendix 9 Memo Orders to Remit Prisoner Funds 11 See Appendix 10 Financial Statement of Account Form Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 9

10 D. Restitution is not subject to a late fee penalty and therefore these accounts are not referred to a collection agency. The court will manage delinquent restitution accounts as follows: 1. A delinquency notice 12 will be sent to the defendant at the last known address providing documentation of all attorney fees, costs, and fines, and related late fee assessments. 2. If the court has entered a wage assignment order, the employer information will be confirmed and the wage withholding executed, with copy of order to the defendant. 3. Initiate locate activities to determine ability to pay using indigency software. 4. Delinquent account notices will be sent in intervals with progressive severity as appropriate. V. COURT ADMINISTRATION A. Administrative Responsibilities 1. Include all relevant collections information to all related court forms. 2. Ensure that courtroom personnel notify defendant at each court appearance that payment is due at assessment. 3. Post collections signage in all courtrooms and public areas. 4. Contract with Collections Agency for enforcement assistance. 5. Implement a pilot project to enforce collection of restitution and other special needs. 6. Automate the production of relevant court orders. 7. Develop a Collections Module for CAP Attorney Training program. 8. Make collections policy and training materials available online. 9. Educate the legal community and the public regarding the court s collections policy through press releases to the local media. 12 See Appendix 11 Delinquency Notice Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 10

11 10. Continue to develop and update the collection s page on the court s website at Ensure that the collections information is easily accessed by public users. a. Track visitors to Court Collection web page(s). b. Link court collection s web page to related websites, (i.e. SCAO, National Center for State Courts, etc.) 11. Work with County Clerk s Office to create an e-payment method and link to the court s website. 12. Develop clear policies regarding the data collection and timely entry of pertinent information into the court s case management system. 13. Ensure consistent updates of required data at every appropriate level. 14. Create reports for monitoring payments on wage assignments, and on prison account payments. 15. Investigate the use of Income Tax garnishments and other similar tools. 16. Investigate a means to refer accounts for Tax Intercept. 17. Establish a consistently applied business process for dealing with probation cases to ensure that court ordered financial obligations are completed prior to closing. 18. Continue to manage the prisoner escapee reimbursement program. 19. Provide to the Bench regular monthly collection reports related to the Judge s own docket. B. Duties of Stakeholders The coordination of collection activities requires that staff clearly understand the responsibilities and the relationship of their respective work duties to the collections process as a whole. The following are some of the responsibilities that should be addressed by specified staff: Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 11

12 1. Assigned Counsel Services a. Shall distribute and collect the required court form (SCAO MC222) 13, Petition and Order For Court Appointed Attorney, that includes the following information: i. defendant s name and current address ii. iii. iv. current telephone number(s) driver s license number or State ID employer name, address and telephone number v. authorization to obtain a consumer credit report b. Add information collected at the time of attorney assignment to the case management system as appropriate. c. Notify District Courts and supporting agencies required to fully complete and provide all defendant information requested on the Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney form. 2. Pre-Trial Services a. Review, update, and maintain the following information, where possible: current address, current telephone and cell numbers, social security number, driver s license number, employer name, address and telephone number in the case management system. (Sensitive information maintained in the case management system, i.e., social security numbers will only be available to specified users) b. Inform defendants of credit card payment option through Government Payment Services (GPS). The GPS phone # is , Pay location #5443 and accepts Master Card, VISA, American Express, and Discover. (See link on a. Inform defendants that defendant posted bond refunds will be applied to any outstanding court ordered financial obligations and encourage defendants to request that third party posters pay any outstanding attorney fees, costs, and fines prior to obtaining any bond refund. 3. Judges a. Set payment assessments in accordance with established guidelines. Payment terms should be uniformly applied. 13 See Appendix 12 Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney Form Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 12

13 b. Payment plans should be as short term as possible, keeping the number of installments to a minimum. c. Notify defendants of the court s collections policy at every hearing. d. Review PSIR and other financial reports to determine the ability to pay. State findings on the record. e. Include cost and fee assessments and reimbursement terms on the record. f. Assure that courtroom staff makes available any written collection s materials to the defendant at court appearances. g. Hear late fee waiver motions upon the request of the person subject to the late penalty. MCL Criminal Bar a. Inform defendants of their obligation to make payments towards attorney fees, court costs, and fines ordered by the court. b. Develop plea agreements, considering payment of attorney fees, court costs and fines when establishing terms of probation; varying the length of probation to encourage immediate payment rather than over the full term of the probation. c. Actively support the court s collection efforts by informing the defendant at all hearings of their obligation to pay attorney fees, court costs and fines. Advising defendants to make their payments to the Wayne County Clerk Cashiers Office, Frank Murphy Hall of Justice, Rm 102 immediately upon entry of order to avoid the addition of a 20% late fee penalty in 56 days and future enforcement for collection. 5. Prosecutors a. Inform criminal defense counsel of their defendant s obligation to make payments towards attorney fees, court costs and fines ordered by the court. b. Develop plea agreements, considering payment of attorney fees, court costs and fines when establishing terms of probation; varying the length of probation to encourage immediate payment rather than over the full term of the probation. c. Provide County Clerk Cashier with complete victim related information for timely distribution of restitution related payments. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 13

14 6. MDOC (Probation and Parole) a. Perform financial screening and make payment recommendations as part of the presentence investigation report. (PSIR) b. Inform the defendant at the probation screening of the date payment is expected and the approximate amount of the expected payment. c. Monitor accounts for payment of court ordered costs and fees. d. Recommend violation of probation for non-compliance of payment expectations to the sentencing judge. e. Recommend early discharge from probation if all financial obligations are paid in full, as appropriate. f. Recommend that the term of probation be extended (or continued) until the court s attorney fees, costs, and fines are paid in full. g. Report completion of Community Service, when applicable (See VII B.) 7. Court Room Clerk a. Enter orders and financial information immediately in the case management system at time of order. b. Ensure the accuracy of entries. c. Timely correct all inaccurate entries. d. Confirm and update defendant s personal information at various points of contact with the defendant. e. Review, update, and maintain the following information, where possible: current address, current telephone and cell numbers, social security number, driver s license number, employer name, address and telephone number, Sensitive information maintained in the case management system, i.e., social security numbers will only be available to specified users. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 14

15 8. Cashiers Office a. Process all payments timely and accurately. 14 b. Apply payments according to statutorily mandated hierarchy. (Unless otherwise directed by the defendant) c. Verify defendant s personal information and request SSN. Timely update case management system accordingly. (See III.D.1.) d. Inform defendants of credit card payment option through Government Payment Services (GPS). The GPS phone # is , Pay location #5443 and accepts Master Card, VISA, American Express, and Discover. (See link on e. Manage returned payments. Review payments that are held in escrow to assure timely distribution. f. Offer third party posters the option of placing bonds in the defendant s name to avoid further financial responsibility if forfeited. 15 g. SCAO bond form (MC241) to be modified to include an opportunity for the Third Party Poster 16 to place the bond in the name of the defendant only. h. Irrevocable Assignment of Bond Form will be available upon request. 17 i. Apply all defendant posted bond refunds to financial obligations within the first 56 days following sentencing date. j. Encourage third party posters to pay attorney fees, costs, and fines prior to refund of bond. 9. Court s Collections Unit a. Coordinate with the contracted vendor for enforcement action. b. Monitor accounts, and ensure that electronic transfers are conducted on regularly approved schedule to the collection agency vendor. c. Review and process vendor invoices within 30 days of receipt. 14 See Appendix 13 Sample Payment Slip 15 See Appendix 14 Bond Notice 16 See Appendix 15 MC 241 Bond Order 17 See Appendix 16 Irrevocable Assignment of Bond Form Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 15

16 d. Provide training to staff involved in the collections process and coordinate collections efforts with other courts and agencies. e. Develop and maintain a Court Policy and Procedures Manual. f. Revise policies as needed to reflect any relevant changes to the policy. g. Prepare training materials for CAP module as needed. h. Review requests for indigence referred to the court by the collections vendor utilizing financial confirmation software. i. Continue to inform staff of collection s policy. j. Maintain statistics, prepare reports, and evaluate the Collections Program. i. Document all relevant reports relating to collections, including use and frequency. aa. bb. Monitor and conduct regular evaluation of collection vendor s progress and effectiveness, and report to the administration. Report trends based on statistical documentation. ii. Prepare SCAO Annual Reports and remit each July, as required. aa. bb. Statistical report will be generated by Collection s Coordinator Any inconsistencies will be remitted to SCAO promptly. VI. INACTIVE DEBTS A. Inactive Debts Policy 1. Inactivation Inactivation is an administrative procedure to remove a debt from the list of accounts that the court cannot reasonably collect. Inactivation of an uncollectible debt from the court s accounts receivable ledger does not forgive or discharge the debt; an inactive debt is still payable by the debtor. Inactivation can be temporary or indefinite. If circumstances allow collection efforts to resume, an inactive debt shall be reinstated to active status. 2. Incarceration, Deferral of Obligation, Release Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 16

17 If a defendant is incarcerated, the assigned judge shall issue an Order to Remit Prisoner Funds (MC288) to be forwarded to MDOC so that funds can be collected from the defendant s prisoner account. No additional collection efforts will occur on incarcerated defendants until their release from prison. B. Cancellation of Debt 1. A defendant s discretionary debt may be cancelled by filing a Motion and Order to Modify or Cancel Discretionary Attorney Fees, Court Costs and Fines18, that is, the court shall forego collection activity, in the following instances: a. The defendant/debtor is deemed indigent, as determined by the court; b. The defendant/debtor is deceased and the estate is closed; c. The defendant/debt is discharged by order of bankruptcy court; d. The defendant/debtor has satisfactorily completed community service on the applicable categories; e. Determination by the judge to waive an unpaid balance or; f. The debt is deemed uncollectible by operation of law. 2. A defendant can be deemed indigent by a Judge s Order: a. Based on testimony, PSIR or any other evidence b. Recommendation by Collection s committee or vendor of the court 3. Bankruptcy Proceedings-Stay of Obligation When the court receives proof of Bankruptcy or Stay of Obligation, the account will be placed on enforcement hold, inactive status, pending settlement of Bankruptcy or Stay of Obligation. VII. COMMUNITY SERVICE IN LIEU OF FINANCIAL OBLIGATION When the assigned judge allows for the performance of community service hours in lieu of paying the assessed amount of court costs or attorney fees, the following procedures shall serve as a guide for satisfying the financial obligation through community service. A. Courtroom and Cashier Responsibilities 1. The court clerk will record the assessed amount on the signed judgment of sentence and indicate the hours or days of community service ordered. A 18 See Appendix 17 JC52a Motion and Order to Modify or Cancel Discretionary Court Costs and Fees Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 17

18 copy of the sentencing order will be provided to the defendant and cashier. These terms will be promptly entered into the case management system. 2. A hold will be placed on each applicable fee category assessed for community service until completion of service or further order of the court. Doing so will allow payments to be directed to other fee categories, (i.e. restitution, crime victims fees, and state minimum costs) while the community service is being performed. 3. Written confirmation will be provided by the MDOC, once community service has been completed. Any remaining unpaid balance for designated discretionary category, (court costs or attorney fees), and any associated late fees is zeroed out. Any funds being held will be reallocated to other outstanding balances. 4. If funds are collected while the defendant is performing community service and later found to be distributed inappropriately, the cashier will be responsible to reallocate payments to the appropriate fund category, or process for refund as appropriate. B. Probation Agent Responsibilities 1. Monitor the defendant s compliance with court order permitting community service. 2. Report in writing completion of community service and submit documentation to the cashier s office to remove any Community Service holds. 3. If community service is not satisfied, the applicable fee category, (attorney fees, costs, and fines) will be reinstated, and the account will begin the enforcement process on that fee category. VIII. STANDARDS FOR COLLECTION AGENCY VENDOR Where payment of reimbursable attorney fees, court costs and other financial obligations have not been paid in full in accordance with MCR 1.110, an account containing the party s identifying information may be referred to a private collection agency for further enforcement action within the approved policy of the Court. The collection agency vendor shall perform regular and ongoing collections enforcement activities on files transmitted by the Court. Such activities include, but are not limited to, notice mailings, telephone contacts, and other acceptable methods that are reasonable to increase payment on accounts that have not been paid in full. Any party that is subject to the court s collection s activity shall be treated with dignity and respect. A. Electronic Account Transfers to the Collection Agency Vendor Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 18

19 1. A process will be developed to transmit predetermined account data to the collection agency vendor for collection purposes on a daily basis. 2. Account data will include the following elements when available: a. Account number b. Defendant name (Last, First, Middle) c. Address 1 (City, State and Zip) d. Address 2 (City, State and Zip) e. Phone number f. Date of birth g. Gender h. Driver s License Number i. Employment information j. Business phone number k. Social security number l. Amount due m. Payment information, amount, date, and payment status n. Account adjustments/changes due to court order, etc. B. Initially accounts being referred to the collection agency vendor will be limited to accounts meeting all of the following: 1) delinquency exceeds 56 days, 2) defendant is not incarcerated, 3) attorney fees, court costs and fines have been assessed and 4) costs assessed do not include restitution. C. Electronic account transfers to the collection agency vendor will begin upon contract approval. All system related modifications needed to ensure proper electronic transfer of the data to the collection agency vendor will be implemented and submitted as determined. D. The collection agency vendor will execute collection proceedings as outlined in the contract to the fullest extent of the law. This will include but not be limited to: 1. Initial delinquency notices generated by the collection agency vendor will be on Court letterhead, however progressive enforcement notices may advise the defendant that the account has been referred to the collection agency vendor for further enforcement. All forms used by the collection agency vendor will be Court approved forms. 2. Notices will be progressive if delinquency fails to decrease. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 19

20 3. Defendants will be instructed to direct all payments to the Wayne County Clerk, Frank Murphy Hall of Justice, Room 102, Detroit, MI All payments will be certified check or money order and made to the attention of the Wayne County Clerk or Third Circuit Court. 5. The collection agency vendor will confirm all required defendant information and direct the defendant to include his name, address and court case number on all payments made to the attention of the Wayne County Clerk. 6. Defendants will be directed to make all cash payments on site at the Cashier s Office at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice. 7. All payments will be posted by the County Clerk s Office to the case management system within 24 hours of receipt. 8. The collection agency vendor will not receipt or collect payments. Any payments received in error will be forwarded to the Wayne County Clerk s Office within three business days. 9. The collection agency vendor will track partial payment plans and account review process based on pre-approved court time frames for monitoring of accounts. 10. The collection agency vendor shall advise a defendant of credit card payment option through Government Payment Services (GPS). GPS accepts, Master Card, VISA, American Express, and Discover, the phone # is , Pay location # The collection agency vendor will develop an acceptable method for collecting payments through the Clerk s credit card program (Government Payment Services (GPS). E. At the end of each monthly cycle, Third Circuit will prepare a report advising of payments applied to late fees and court costs. Based on distribution, a requisition will be prepared requesting payment to the collection agency vendor. F. Third Circuit shall pay the collection agency vendor a monthly commission within 30 days of receiving an invoice from the collection s vendor. G. The obligation to pay the collection agency vendor shall not begin until full payment is received for all amounts designated in the order in a particular file for the crime victim s assessments and minimum state costs, and a commission is not owed to the collection s vendor for any money applied by the Court to crime victim assessments and minimum state costs. H. Required Vendor Reports Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 20

21 1. Acknowledgement report of all electronic transfers 2. Number of mailings generated/week 3. Case Status Report, collections activity report, number of cases with reduced balances 4. History Analysis provides number of new cases, adjustments, cancellations, payment in full and average case age. 5. Locate report, address updates and modifications to status 6. Number of Calls handled 7. Number of touch points on an account by vendor/month 8. Returned cases referred back for inactivation due to agreed upon specifications 9. Vendor invoice remitted on a monthly basis Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 21

22 Appendix Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Sample Signage Posting Language Attorney Payments by Event Crime Victim & State Fee Charts and Fee Increase Memo Government Payment Services Notice Bonds Government Payment Services Attorney fees, Costs, and Fines Appendix 5 Payment Distribution Hierarchy (MCL ) Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Appendix 12 Appendix 13 Appendix 14 Appendix 15 Appendix 16 Appendix 17 Appendix 18 Crime Victims Right Act Allocation of Payments MCL a) MC Wage Withholding Order MC Order to Remit Prisoner Funds Memo Orders to Remit Prisoner Funds Draft - Financial Statement of Account Notice of Delinquency Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney Sample Payment Slip Bond Notice MC 241 Bond Order Irrevocable Assignment of Bond Form JC52A - Motion and Order to Modify or Cancel Discretionary Court Costs and Fees Third Circuit Legal Opinion Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 22

23 Sample Signage Posting Language Appendix 1 Fines, Costs and other financial obligations imposed by the court must be paid at the time of assessment, except when the court allows otherwise for good cause shown. Michigan Court Rule Failure to pay fines, fees, or costs in full within 56 days after that amount is due and owing is subject to a late penalty equal to 20% of the amount owed. Michigan Compiled Law All funds collected are automatically distributed on a 50%/50% basis to victim and non-victim assessments based on statutory hierarchy. Michigan Compiled Law Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 23

24 Appendix 2 Attorney Payments by Events List below are the billable amounts attorney can voucher by event: Capital $500 Life $ months $ months $ months $350 Disposition Conference Dismissal $130 Held $240 Pled Guilty $350 Proceedings Results Final Conference $40 Sentencing $60 Motion Hearing $60 Calendar Conference $50 Waiver Trial ½ day $90 Jury Trial ½ day $90 Evidentiary Hearing $80 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 24

25 Appendix 3 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 25

26 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 26

27 Appendix 4 Government Payment Services Information Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 27

28 Appendix 4 (Continued) Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 28

29 Payment Distribution Hierarchy Appendix 5 The numbers rank the priority under each of the two main groups-- Victim Payments and Non Victim Payments. Fee categories within the same number indicate equal priority within that position, unless a different percentage is indicated. Victim Payments 1. Crime Victim's Fee 2. Restitution Non Victim Payments 1. State Minimum Cost 2. Attorney Fees (80%) and Late Attorney Fee (20%) -- prorated 3. Court Costs (80%) and Late Court Costs Fee (20%)--prorated 4. Fines (80%) and Late Fines Fee (20%)--prorated 5. Criminal Motion Fee, Appellate Court, Appeal Fee, District Court Appeal Fee, Forensic Fee (pre 10/03 assessment only) and DNA Test (Pre 10/03 assessment only)-- All prorated. All funds collected are automatically distributed to the account based on SCAO approved guidelines and statutory hierarchy (MCL ) in the order listed below: Effective Oct 1, 2001 Divide All Payments Received into two halves 50% / 50% 50% to Victims Payments 50% to Non Victim Payments 1 st Crime Victims Fee 1 st State Minimum Cost 2 nd Attorney Fees/ 2 nd Restitution Late Fees (83.33%-16.67%) 3 rd Court Costs/ Late Fees (83.33%-16.67%) 4 th Fines/Late Fees (83.33% %) 5 th Any Other Assessment Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 29

30 Example of Distribution Hierarchy Application Probation Order: Crime Victims Fee, $ Restitution $ State Minimum Fee $ Attorney Fees $ Court Costs $ Total $2, Payment $1, (see distribution breakdown below) Balance $1, Effective Oct 1, 2001 Divide All Payments Received into two halves 50% / 50% Appendix 5 (continued) 50% to Victim Payments $ $ % Non-Victim Payments Applied to CV Fee Applied to State Min Balance Due 0.00 Balance Due Applied to Restitution Balance Due Applied to Attorney Fee Balance Due 0.00 Applied to Court Costs Balance Due Total Balance Due $1, After 56 days a 20% penalty will be added to outstanding attorney fee and court cost balances as follows: Total Balance Due After 56 Days $ Attorney Fee Late Fee Attorney Fee Balance Court Cost % Late Fee Court Cost Balance Failure to pay fines, fees, or costs in full within 56 days after that amount is due and owing, is subject to a late penalty equal to 20% of the amount owed. Michigan Complied Law Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 30

31 WILLIAM VAN REGENMORTER CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT (EXCERPT) Act 87 of a Allocation of payments. Sec. 76a. Appendix 6 (1) If a person is subject to any combination of fines, costs, restitution, assessments, probation or parole supervision fees, or other payments arising out of the same criminal proceeding, money collected from that person for the payment of fines, costs, restitution, assessments, probation or parole supervision fees, or other payments ordered to be paid in that proceeding shall be allocated as provided in this section. If a person is subject to fines, costs, restitution, assessments, probation or parole supervision fees, or other payments in more than 1 proceeding in a court and if a person making a payment on the fines, costs, restitution, assessments, probation or parole supervision fees, or other payments does not indicate the proceeding for which the payment is made, the court shall first apply the money paid to a proceeding in which there is unpaid restitution to be allocated as provided in this section. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a person is subject to payment of victim payments and any combination of other fines, costs, assessments, probation or parole supervision fees, or other payments, 50% of each payment collected by the court from that person shall be applied to payment of victim payments, and the balance shall be applied to payment of fines, costs, supervision fees, and other assessments or payments. If a person making a payment indicates that the payment is to be applied to victim payments, or if the payment is received as a result of a wage assignment under section 76 or from the sheriff under section 80a, the payment shall first be applied to victim payments. If any fines, costs, supervision fees, or other assessments or payments remain unpaid after all of the victim payments have been paid, any additional money collected shall be applied to payment of those fines, costs, supervision fees, or other assessments or payments. If any victim payments remain unpaid after all of the fines, costs, supervision fees, or other assessments or payments have been paid, any additional money collected shall be applied to payment of those victim payments. (3) In cases involving prosecutions for violations of state law, money allocated under subsection (2) for payment of fines, costs, probation and parole supervision fees, and assessments or payments other than victim payments shall be applied in the following order of priority: (a) Payment of the minimum state cost prescribed by section 1j of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1j. (b) Payment of other costs. (c) Payment of fines. (d) Payment of probation or parole supervision fees. (e) Payment of assessments and other payments, including reimbursement to third parties who reimbursed a victim for his or her loss. (4) In cases involving prosecutions for violations of local ordinances, money allocated under subsection (2) for payment of fines, costs, and assessments or payments other than victim payments shall be applied in the following order of priority: Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 31

32 (a) Payment of the minimum state cost prescribed by section 1j of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.1j. (b) Payment of fines and other costs. (c) Payment of assessments and other payments. (5) As used in this section, "victim payment" means restitution ordered to be paid to the victim or the victim's estate, but not to a person who reimbursed the victim for his or her loss; or an assessment ordered under section 5 of 1989 PA 196, MCL History: Add. 2000, Act 503, Eff. June 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 98, Eff. Oct. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 184, Eff. Jan. 1, 2006 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 461, Eff. Jan. 1, 2007 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 32

33 Wage Withholding Order Appendix 7 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 33

34 ORDER TO REMIT PRISONER FUNDS Appendix 8 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 34

35 PRISONER SWEEP CLARIFICATION MEMO Appendix 9 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 35

36 Appendix 10 DRAFT - Financial Statement of Account Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 36

37 NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY Appendix 11 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 37

38 Appendix 12 PETITION AND ORDER FOR COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FORM Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 38

39 Appendix 13 ATTENTION! COURT ORDERED COSTS, FINES AND FEES ARE DUE IMMEDIATELY UPON ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS (EXCEPT SUPERVISION FEES) MUST BE DIRECTED IN PERSON OR BY MAIL TO THE WAYNE COUNTY CLERK CASHIER 1441 ST ANTOINE, ROOM 102 DETROIT, MICHIGAN DEFENDENT CTN NUMBER REQUIRED ADDRESS/CITY/ZIP PHONE # AMOUNT OF PAYMENT rev. 04/14/06 CERTIFIED CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. (NO PERSONAL CHECKS ACCEPTED) CASH MAY BE PAID AT THE CASHIER S WINDOW ONLY COMPLETE THIS PORTION AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 39

40 RELEASE BOND NOTICE OFFICE OF THE WAYNE COUNTY CLERK NOTICE PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING THE BOND Appendix Each bond you post is for that case only. 2. Once you are done posting the bond here, you will go over to the Wayne County Jail to see if the defendant has any other holds. All holds must be satisfied before the jail will release the defendant. 3. If you decide not to satisfy those other holds, you will not be able to come back and get the money on the case until this case is completed. FORFEIT 4. The bond that you are posting is to assure the defendant s appearance in court for all present and future court dates. 5. If the defendant is late or fails to appear, the Judge may forfeit the bond. Further, both you and the defendant could be held responsible for the full amount of the bond. For this reason, it is recommended that the bond be placed in the defendant s name to avoid any future responsibility for payment on a forfeited bond due to the defendant s failure to appear at his/her court dates. REFUND 6. The bond you are posting is a ten percent bond. If you choose to post the bond in your name, once the case is completely over, you will receive 90% of your money back, less the Clerk s 10% fee. If the bond is posted in the defendant s name, as recommended, the bond money will be returned to the defendant less the Clerk s 10% fee, and any other fines and fees assessed on his/her court case(s). 7. If you choose, you can post the full amount of the bond. If you choose this option, you will get the full amount posted back once the case is completed. REFUNDS CAN ONLY BE ISSUED TO THE DEFENDANT OR THE POSTING PARTY SIGNING THE SLIP. BONDS LISTED IN DEFENDANT S NAME ARE SUBJECT TO SAME PERMISSION AS IF POSTED BY DEFENDANT DIRECTLY. A VALID DRIVER S LICENSE OR STATE ID IS REQUIRED WHEN PROCESSING A BOND RELEASE. BOND REFUNDS WILL BE MAILED TO YOU WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 40

41 BOND ORDER Appendix 15 Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 41

42 BOND ORDER (PAGE 2) Appendix 15 (Continued) Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 42

43 IRREVOCABLE BOND FORM Appendix 16 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff, V STATE OF MICHIGAN / Case Number STATE OF MICHIGAN} COUNTY OF WAYNE} } IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT OF BOND*, being duly sworn, deposes and states, that I am the person who posted the bond for the above-captioned defendant, in the above-captioned matter. That I do hereby IRREVOCABLY ASSIGN to right, and title, in the amount of $ ** from said bond posted on case number, for defendant, and I do hereby, irrevocably direct the Clerks and other employees of this Court to release the money that is to be refunded from said bond to: (Last Name) (Address) (Phone Number). This is a voluntary arrangement between the posting party and the attorney. (First Name) (City, State, Zip,, **If assignee is the defendant on the case, the refund will be processed after Court Costs, Fines, and Fees ordered have been withheld. Refund continues to remain subject to 10% Clerk Processing Fee. Posting Party/Assignee Attorney Witness Witness Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of, 20 Notary Public County of Michigan My commission expires. SEAL THIRD CIRCUIT COURT IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT OR ANY DEVIATION FROM THE AGREEMENT. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 43

44 Appendix 17 MOTION AND ORDER TO MODIFY OR CANCEL DISCRETIONARY COURT COSTS AND FEES Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 44

45 Appendix 18 THIRD CIRCUIT COLLECTIONS LEGAL OPINION 1. Introduction You have asked for guidance on what record a sentencing court should make in order to comply with the holding of People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240, ; 690 NW2d 476 (2004), lv den, 473 Mich 881; 699 NW2d 700 (2005), as it relates to the imposition of attorney fee reimbursement as a part of the sentence imposed on a criminal defendant. My recommendations are found in part 6 of this memorandum. To better understand the basis for those recommendations, it is useful to examine the holding of Dunbar, supra, and how it has been applied by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court The Dunbar Decision n Dunbar, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in requiring him to financially contribute to the cost of his court-appointed attorney without first assessing his ability to pay. Initially, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier holding in People v Nowicki, 213 Mich App 383, 388; 539 NW2d 590 (1995), that a defendant may be required to reimburse the county for the cost of his court-appointed attorney. Dunbar, supra, 251. However, the Court found that Nowicki, supra, did not pertain to the issue before the Court since Nowicki, supra, did not address the effect of a defendant's inability to pay on an order to reimburse the county for costs of legal representation. Dunbar, supra, 252, framed the issue as whether the trial court's failure to assess defendant's ability to pay before ordering reimbursement for attorney fees violates defendant's right to due process because of the principles espoused in several United States Supreme Court decisions. 19 Attached is a Table of Dunbar-related appellate opinions. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 45

46 After reviewing several United States Supreme Court decisions, the Court in Dunbar, supra, , quoting from Alexander v Johnson, 742 F2d 117, 124 (CA 4, 1984), summarized what it considered to be the five basic features of a constitutionally acceptable attorney s fees reimbursement program as follows: First, the program under all circumstances must guarantee the indigent defendant's fundamental right to counsel without cumbersome procedural obstacles designed to determine whether he is entitled to court-appointed representation. Second, the state's decision to impose the burden of repayment must not be made without providing him notice of the contemplated action and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Third, the entity deciding whether to require repayment must take cognizance of the individual's resources, the other demands on his own and family's finances, and the hardships he or his family will endure if repayment is required. The purpose of this inquiry is to assure repayment is not required as long as he remains indigent. Fourth, the defendant accepting court-appointed counsel cannot be exposed to more severe collection practices than the ordinary civil debtor. Fifth, the indigent defendant ordered to repay his attorney's fees as a condition of work-release, parole, or probation cannot be imprisoned for failing to extinguish his debt as long as his default is attributable to his poverty, not his contumacy. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 04/01/2012 Page 46

47 The Court in Dunbar, supra, 254, explained that defendant s challenge addressed the second and third elements, and quickly rejected the argument by the defendant that the trial court s decision to impose attorney fees was made without notice. The Court of Appeals noted that in the petition and order for a court appointed attorney, which the defendant had signed, it stated, I understand that I may be ordered to repay the court for all or part of my attorney and defense costs. Further, the Court explained that in regard to defendant's opportunity to be heard, defendant was not prevented from objecting at sentencing and asserting his indigence. Id. The Court then proceeded on to the main argument. First, the Court rejected defendant s contention that the trial court should have made a specific finding on the record regarding his ability to pay. The Court found, We do not believe that requiring a court to consider a defendant's financial situation necessitates such a formality, unless the defendant specifically objects to the reimbursement amount at the time it is ordered, although such a finding would provide a definitive record of the court's consideration. Id. However, the Court of Appeals then proceeded to set forth the following controlling principle: However, the court does need to provide some indication of consideration, such as noting that it reviewed the financial and employment sections of the defendant's presentence investigation report or, even more generally, a statement that it considered the defendant's ability to pay... The amount ordered to be reimbursed for court-appointed attorney fees should bear a relation to the defendant's foreseeable ability to pay. A defendant's apparent inability to pay at the time of sentencing is not necessarily indicative of the propriety of requiring reimbursement because a defendant's capacity for future earnings may also be considered. Id, (Emphasis in original, authorities and footnote omitted). Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 47

48 In applying these principles to the facts of the case before it, the Court found that the trial court s comments were insufficient to conclude that the court considered defendant s financial circumstances, and explained: After pronouncing sentence, the sentencing judge simply stated, Fines and costs, $60 to the DNA test, $60 to the crime victim rights fund. It's a bench trial so the PD fund will make it only $450 and $150 to the forensic lab for the testing fee here. Although the court had the presentence report before it, the record is devoid of any indication that the court recognized that defendant's ability to pay needed to be considered when imposing a reimbursement requirement, unlike fines and costs. Therefore, we remand this case for the court to reconsider its reimbursement order in light of defendant's current and future financial circumstances.fn14 FN14. Just as an evidentiary hearing is not required at the trial level, one is not required on remand. The court may obtain updated financial information from the probation department. Additionally, we vacate that portion of defendant's judgment of sentence requiring defendant to pay $450 for his court-appointed attorney. If, in its discretion, the trial court determines that reimbursement is appropriate, it should establish the terms pursuant to which repayment is required in a separate order. FN 15 FN 15. Because Michigan currently lacks a statutory scheme which authorizes repayment of court-appointed attorney fees, repayment may not be imposed as part of the sentence. [D]efendant's obligation to reimburse the county for legal fees and costs is completely independent of his sentence. Nowicki, supra at 386, 539 NW2d In Nowicki, supra, 386 the Court rejected a defendant s contention that he could not be required to pay costs as part of his sentence because there was no statutory authorization for this, and explained, However, in this case, defendant's obligation to reimburse the county for legal fees and costs is completely independent of his sentence. Unlike his sentence, this obligation does not arise as a consequence of his conviction. Instead, it arises from the defendant's obligation to defray the public cost of representation. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 48

49 It is important to recognize that the purpose of the court considering a defendant's financial situation is to ensure that repayment is not required as long as he remains indigent.... We note that, in most cases, challenges to the reimbursement order will be premature if the defendant has not been required to commence repayment... [I]f payment is impossible or would constitute an undue hardship, the court has the ability to modify the amount or conditions of repayment or withdraw the order upon a proper motion by the defendant. (Emphasis added, authorities and footnote omitted). Id., Dunbar in the Supreme Court In Dunbar, supra, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Subsequently, in 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney and the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General to address the issue whether Dunbar was correctly decided. People v Arnone, 728 NW2d 866 (Mich, 2007). In a subsequent order, the Court noted that it had received the requested answer, vacated that portion of the sentence of the Monroe Circuit Court that ordered the defendant to pay attorney fees, and, citing Dunbar, supra, , remanded to the trial court for a decision on attorney fees that considers the defendant's ability to pay now and in the future. People v Arnone, 478 Mich 908; 732 NW2d 537 (2007). Also see, People v DeJesus, 477 Mich 996, ; 725 NW2d 669 (2007) (remanding to the trial court for a decision on the defendant s ability to pay attorney fee reimbursement in light of Dunbar). More recently, in People v Carter, 480 Mich 938; 741 NW2d 23 (2007), the Supreme Court again directed the parties to address the issue of whether Dunbar s holding relative to the imposition of attorney fees as a part of a sentence was correctly decided. However, in Carter, supra, 480 Mich 1063; 743 NW2d 918 (2008), the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, notwithstanding a vigorous dissent from Justice Corrigan Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 49

50 who argued that Dunbar, supra, was incorrectly decided. 21 Continuing this treatment in People v Willey, Mich ; 748 N.W.2d 569 (May 23, 2008), the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated that part of the trial court s judgment of sentence that ordered the defendant to pay attorney fees and remanded for further consideration in light of Dunbar. However, the Supreme Court noted, If the court decides to order the defendant to pay attorney fees, it shall do so in a separate order. In Justice Corrigan s separate opinion, she concurred in that part of the Court s opinion that held that the trial court erred in ordering reimbursement in the judgment of sentence. She agreed that, When a court decides to order a defendant to repay the cost of his court-appointed attorney, it must do so in a separate order, and not the judgment of sentence. Id at 256; People v Arnone, 478 Mich 908; 732 NW2d 537 (2007). However, in People v Trapp, Mich ; NW2d ; 2008 Mich LEXIS 1171 (2008), the Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide the issue of whether the trial court, before ordering reimbursement of attorney fees of courtappointed counsel pursuant to MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) (effective January 1, 2006), was required to comply with the procedural safeguards set forth in Dunbar, [supra], and in particular the requirement that it consider the defendant's current and future financial circumstances and ability to repay the fees. We DIRECT the Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the appeal by October 11, Justice Corrigan argued that Dunbar s conclusion, that absent any objection to the order requiring the repayment of attorney fees, the federal constitution compels a state court to consider a defendant's ability to pay without any claim of indigence by the defendant, was inconsistent with a prior decision, People v Music, 428 Mich 356, 357; 408 NW2d 795 (1987), and that she would hold that while a trial court is compelled to inquire into ability to pay only before sanctioning a defendant by revoking probation, it need not conduct such an inquiry sua sponte, before imposing costs, insofar as in her view the imposition of costs is distinct from a sanction for nonpayment. No other justice, however, concurred with her assessment. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 50

51 Nonetheless, it would appear, given the results in Arnone, DeJesus, Carter, and Willey, at least for now, that part of Dunbar which held that a trial court is required to consider the financial circumstances of the defendant relative to an ability to pay now or in the future should be regarded as settled law. See, People v Norton, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 18, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 556 p 2 (noting that because of the denial of the prosecutor's application for leave in Carter, supra, Dunbar remains controlling law ). However, that conclusion may change depending on how the Court of Appeals responds to the Order of Remand issued by the Supreme Court in the Trapp case. 4. Application of Dunbar in the Court of Appeals Approximately forty-seven Court of Appeals opinions, almost all of which have been in unpublished form, have applied Dunbar. 22 Of these opinions, forty-three resulted in reversals. A sampling of these is briefly considered followed by an examination of the handful of cases in which the trial court s imposition of attorney fee reimbursement was sustained. A. Cases Reversing the Imposition of Attorney Fee Reimbursement Generally, the Court of Appeals reversed that portion of the judgment requiring the defendant to reimburse the funding unit for appointed counsel costs where the transcript failed to show that the trial court gave any indication or any discussion that it considered the defendant s ability to pay prior to ordering reimbursement, but instead simply stated on the record the amount due. See for example, People v Pieske, unpublished opinion 22 The Court of Appeals has also recently begun to issue unpublished orders peremptorily reversing a trial court s reimbursement order in light of Dunbar. See for example, People v Wheeler, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued February 22, 2008 (Docket No ). The exact number of these orders is uncertain. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 51

52 per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 31, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 WL , p 2; People v Green, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 15, 2008, (Docket No ); 2008 WL , p 4; People v Goldman, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 28, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 5; People v McClammy, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 26, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich App Lexis ; p 2. For example, in People v Smith, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 24, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 WL , p 11, the Court found that the trial court did not consider the defendant s ability to pay because, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to mention the employment and financial sections of defendant's presentence investigation report and made no mention of defendant's potential future ability to pay. In another case, People v Hart, October 9, 2007, (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 2, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court to impose attorney fee reimbursement. In that case, the record shows that the trial court ignored substantial evidence of an inability to pay, and without considering repeated pleas by the defendant concerning inability to pay, ordered attorney fee reimbursement. 23 Finally, a court should not rely on purely speculative and highly unlikely possibilities to conclude that the defendant may in the future have the ability to pay. In 23 Indeed, in one case, People v Bellissimo, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 11, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , not only did the trial court not make an inquiry into the defendant s present or future ability to pay, the record indicated that it was even doubtful that the county had actually incurred any costs for defendant s legal representation. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 52

53 People v Daniels, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 29, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 852, p 10, the case had been remanded to the trial court to consider the defendant s ability to pay under Dunbar, supra. The defendant was serving a mandatory life sentence and presented evidence that he earned only a minimal income in prison and had no assets. The trial court refused to reduce or eliminate its previous assessment of attorney fees based on the trial court s observation that the defendant might one day win a million dollars in the lottery. The Court of Appeals vacated the reimbursement order and explained, [T]he trial court's reliance on the purely speculative and highly unlikely possibility that defendant might someday win the lottery conflicts with the holding in Dunbar that "[t]he amount ordered to be reimbursed for court-appointed attorney fees should bear a relation to the defendants foreseeable ability to pay." Id. at 255 (emphasis in original). The evidence presented at the hearing conducted on remand reveals that defendant has no present ability to repay the attorney fees and likely will remain incarcerated for the rest of his life. Because we detect no reasonably foreseeable circumstance that could enable defendant to pay court-ordered attorney fees, we vacate the trial court's attorney fee reimbursement order. B. Cases Affirming the Imposition of Attorney Fee Reimbursement Where the trial court has specifically addressed, without objection, the defendant s ability to pay these and other costs, the Court of Appeals has rejected challenges to the reimbursement order. People v Davis, Mich App ; NW2d ; 2008 WL (2008). In People v Bell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 18, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 5, the order of the trial court requiring the defendant to make installment payments toward attorney fees was Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 53

54 affirmed. The Court of Appeals considered the following an adequate consideration of the defendant s present and future ability to pay: In so holding, the trial court reviewed defendant's certificate of prisoner account activity and noted that there was an average monthly account deposit of $ The trial court held that defendant had the ability to pay his court costs, fines, and attorney fees in installment payments of $10 per month. The trial court reviewed defendant's account and his foreseeable ability to pay in the future. Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion. In People v Johnson, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 15, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 2, the trial court s imposition of attorney fee reimbursement was upheld where the court asked defendant if he would have any problems gaining employment and defendant replied, no. The Court of Appeals explained that, The court's inquiry into defendant's ability to gain full-time employment sufficiently showed that the court considered defendant's financial circumstances. Finally, a general reference to the record which itself contains information about the employment capacity of the defendant was sufficient for the Court in People v Cotton, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 28, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 5, to affirm the trial court s imposition of attorney fee reimbursement on the defendant. In Cotton, the Court of Appeals summarized the trial court record as follows: [B]efore sentencing, the trial court indicated that it had read the presentence report, which stated that defendant, who was 26 years old at the time of sentencing, had told a different court that he was young, strong, and could obtain and maintain employment. The trial court noted that defendant had discussed obtaining employment, but instead chose to live a self-centered life of dependency on others. The trial court concluded that it expected defendant to complete his Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 54

55 education and obtain vocational training while in prison and that upon release, defendant would obtain employment, support his children, and be a productive citizen. Although the court made only general references, the record sufficiently reflects the trial court's consideration of defendant's ability to pay in the future. C. The Requirement that the Reimbursement Order Be Separate Impact of MCL 769.1k(1). Subsequent to Dunbar, the Legislature enacted MCL 769.1k(1), which took effect January 1, 2006 and which states, in pertinent part, (1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or if the court determines after a hearing or trial that the defendant is guilty, both of the following apply at the time of the sentencing or at the time entry of judgment of guilt is deferred pursuant to statute or sentencing is delayed pursuant to statute: (a) The court shall impose the minimum state costs as set forth in section 1j of this chapter. (b) The court may impose any or all of the following: (iii) The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant. (Emphasis added). In People v Pieske, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 31, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich App LEXIS 273, p 2, n 1; although the Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider defendant's ability to pay and, if appropriate, enter a separate order directing defendant to reimburse the county, the Court explained the significance of the enactment of MCL 769.1k(1).: In People v Arnone the trial court ordered the defendant to reimburse the county for appointed counsel costs. The defendant sought delayed leave to appeal and in an order entered on August 7, 2006, this Court denied the delayed application. The defendant sought leave to appeal to our Supreme Court. In an order entered on March 30, 2007, our Supreme Court ordered the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the question and to address, inter alia, whether Dunbar, supra, and People v Nowicki, 213 Mich App Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 55

56 383, ; 539 NW2d 590 (1995) (in which this Court held that a defendant's obligation to reimburse the county for appointed counsel expenses is independent of the sentence imposed in a criminal case) were correctly decided. In an order entered on June 20, 2007, our Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated that portion of the judgment of sentence that ordered the defendant to reimburse the county for attorney fees, and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision on the issue that considered the defendant's ability to pay. Our Supreme Court noted that if the trial court concluded that the defendant had the ability to make payment; reimbursement was to be mandated in a separate order, and not in the judgment of sentence. People v Arnone, 478 Mich 908; 732 NW2d 537 (2007). Our Supreme Court issued its order in Arnone, supra, after MCL 769.1k was enacted; however, the defendant in Arnone, supra, was sentenced prior to the enactment of the statute. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the enactment of MCL 769.1k now enables a trial court to include an order for reimbursement in the judgment of sentence, Arnone, supra, indicates that in a case in which sentencing occurred prior to the enactment of MCL 769.1k, any order of reimbursement should be entered separately from the judgment of sentence. (Emphasis added). Also see, People v Nabors, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 6, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 1. ( The reimbursement order may be included as part of an amended judgment of sentence. MCL 769.1k(b)(iii) ); People v Bell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 17, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 791, p 10, n 2 ( MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) authorizes an order to pay attorney fees as part of a sentence, but this became effective January 1, 2006, so it was not in effect at the time of defendant's sentencing ); but see, People v Reitmeyer, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 24, 2008 (Docket No ); 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 834, pp 9-10, wherein the Court of Appeals, after citing to the rule of Dunbar, supra at 256 and n 15, stated, The trial court's separate order in the matter satisfies that procedural Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 56

57 requirement. See Id. at 256. However, we hereby vacate that aspect of the judgment of sentence, and remand this case to the trial court for the ministerial task of preparing a judgment of sentence amended to make no reference to attorney fees. It should be noted that the above line of Michigan Court of Appeals cases consists of unpublished opinions which are not binding under the rule of stare decisis. MCR 7.215(a)(1). Nonetheless, it should be recalled that the reason given in both the Dunbar and Nowicki cases for their conclusions that an attorney reimbursement order could not be part of the sentence was that Michigan then lacked a statutory scheme which authorizes repayment of court appointed attorney fees. However, now such a statutory scheme does exist through the enactment of MCL 769.1k(1). Therefore, the enactment of MCL 769.1k(1) removes the reason for requiring an order for attorney fee reimbursement to be in a separate document. Hence, although Pieske, supra; Nabors, supra; and Bell, supra, are unpublished decisions, the reasoning used in those cases is persuasive and may be followed. Notably, although the Supreme Court most recently in Willey, supra, stated that attorney fee reimbursement orders should be separate from the order of sentence, Willey, supra, did not consider the impact of MCL 769.1k(1), and thus does not control the issue of whether, in light of MCL 769.1k(1), an attorney fee reimbursement order needs to be on a document that is separate from the sentence. See, 20 Am Jur 2d Courts 132 ( A court may deviate from a precedent on grounds of a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule [or] changes in conditions resulting in the disappearance of the rule the precedent established ). Accordingly, although the issue is still not settled by a published appellate decision, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that sentences imposed after the effective date of the enactment of MCL 769.1k(1), that is, after January 1, 2006, may include a provision Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 57

58 requiring the defendant to reimburse all or part of the costs of his or her attorney fees. Nonetheless, as noted above, this conclusion could change depending on how the Court of Appeals responds to the Order of Remand by the Supreme Court in the Trapp case. Hence, the safest course would be to follow requirement of Dunbar and Willey that the order for attorney fee reimbursement be separate from the sentence at least until the Court of Appeals issues its opinion on remand from the Supreme Court in Trapp, supra. 5. Developing a Record That Will Comply with Dunbar Preliminarily, it should be noted that where the defendant makes an objection at sentencing to the imposition of a provision for attorney fee reimbursement, the court should address that objection, Hart, supra, and make specific findings regarding an ability to pay. Dunbar, supra, 254. Nonetheless, even if there is an objection, the trial court need not hold an evidentiary hearing. Id., 255, n14. In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, the trial court need not make a specific finding and instead only needs to indicate on the record that consideration was given to a present or foreseeable future ability to pay. Dunbar, supra, Yet Dunbar, supra, 255, suggests that, at a minimum, a general statement that the court has considered an ability to pay will suffice, and the result reached in Cotton, reviewed above, appears to bear this out, especially where the trial court has referenced a document, such as a presentence report, that does specifically address the issue of defendant s employability. A specific finding, however, would provide a definitive record of the court s consideration. Id., 254. Notably, in both Dunbar, supra, 255, and Feliciano, supra, p 6, the Court of Appeals observed that the trial court could have but did not utilize the presentence investigation report as a basis for indicating its consideration of defendant s present or future ability to pay. Alternatively, the trial court can consider other indicia of Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 58

59 an ability to pay, such as activity in the defendant s prisoner s account, Bell, supra, or the receipt of social security payments. People v Romaniuk, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 27, 2007 (Docket No ); 2007 WL , p 1. A direct inquiry to the defendant about future prospects of employability can also be sufficient. Johnson, supra. 6. Recommendations Based on the foregoing, it would appear that to insulate from possible appellate reversal an order that requires the defendant to pay attorney fee reimbursement, the trial court should, to be safe, issue the order separate from the judgment of sentence, 24 and undertake, at the time of sentencing, the following: State on the record that it has reviewed the presentence investigation report, as it pertains to defendant s financial circumstances and the defendant s employability. Make an inquiry of the defendant as to, and a finding about, the defendant s future employability. 25 State on the record that, in requiring the defendant to pay towards attorney fee reimbursement, it has considered the defendant s present or foreseeable future ability to pay. 24 As explained above, this area of the law is unsettled in light of the passage of MCL 769.1k(1), and may well be clarified upon the issuance of the Court of Appeals opinion in response to the order of remand by the Supreme Court in Trapp, supra. 25 It should be noted that the Cotton decision reflects that merely because the defendant has not worked or is not working is not determinative of the issue, since in Cotton, supra, the Court of Appeals affirmed an order requiring attorney fee reimbursement where the trial court generally found that the defendant s unemployment status was his own choice and that he could work. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 59

60 Make a finding that the defendant has the present or future ability to pay depending on the terms of the trial court s order for repayment. If the defendant does assert an inability to pay (either now or in the future), the court must give some indication that it has considered this contention. However, the court should avoid using speculative and highly unlikely circumstances to justify ordering the repayment of attorney fees. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 60

61 Table of Dunbar Related Cases. 26 People v Lewis, Docket No , June 26, 2008, 2008 Mich App Lexis 1330 (R). 27 People v McClammy, Docket No , June 26, 2008, 2008 Mich App Lexis Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Trapp, Mich ; NW2d (2008) (R). People v Moses, Docket No , June 3, 2008 No , 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1158 (R). People v. Miller, Docket No , June 3, 2008, 2008 Mich App.LEXIS 1144 (R). People v. Reed, Docket No , June 3, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1166 (R). People v Wiley, Mich, 748 NW2d 569 (2008) (R). People v. Leche, Docket No , May 15, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1018 (R). People v. Elie, Docket No , May 6, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 914, Third Circuit Court No (R). People v. Daniels, Docket No , April 29, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 852 (R). People v. Reitmeyer, Docket No , April 24, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 834 (R). People v. Bell, Docket No , April 17, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 791 (R). 26 Almost all of the Court of Appeals decisions applying People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240, ; 690 NW2d 476 (2006), are unpublished decisions. In lieu of the style of citation of these cases found in the Michigan Uniform System of Citations, See AO (A)(4)(s), unpublished Court of Appeals decisions in this Table are cited by case name followed by docket number, date of decision and either the West law citation or the Lexis citation. To find a case that only has the Westlaw citation in Lexis, type in the docket number in the search field using the Michigan cases data base. Additionally, where a Court of Appeals decision arose from a Third Circuit Court case, the lower court docket number has been provided. 27 (R) appearing at the end of a citation signifies that the trial court s reimbursement order was reversed in light of Dunbar. (A) appearing at the end of a citation signifies that the trial court s reimbursement order was affirmed notwithstanding a challenged under Dunbar. Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 61

62 People v. Stuckey, Docket No , April 10, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 733 (R). People v. Lustig, Docket No , April 10, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 738 (R). People v. Quatrine, Docket No , April 8, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 717 (R). People v. Selemogo, Docket No , April 3, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 688 (R). People v. Hubbell, Docket No , April 1, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 673 (R). People v. Frazier, Docket Nos , , March 25, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 629, Third Circuit Court Nos , (R). People v. Rogers, Docket Nos , , March 18, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 581, Third Circuit Nos , (R). People v. Norton, Docket No , March 18, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 556 (R) Third Circuit Court Nos , (R). People v. Simmons, Docket No , February 21, 2008, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 369, Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Carter, 480 Mich 1063; 743 NW2d 918 (2008) (R). People v Pieske, Docket No , January 31, 2008, 2008 WL (R). People v Davis, Mich App ; NW2d ; 2008 WL (2008) (A). People v Smith, Docket No , January 24, 2008, 2008 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Green, Docket No , January 15, 2008, 2008 WL (R). People v. Adams, Docket No , January 10, 2008, 2008 WL (R). People v Bell, Docket No , December 18, 2007, 2007 WL (A). People v Williams, Docket No , December 18, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Simmons, Docket No , December 11, 2007, 2007 WL Third Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 62

63 Circuit Court No (R). People v Feliciano, Docket No , November 20, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Pearson, Docket No , November 1, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Hanible, Docket No , November 1, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Heilig, Docket No , November 1, 2007, 2007 WL (R). People v Smith, Docket No , October 18, 2007, 2007 WL (R). People v McCaa, Docket No , October 16, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Bellissimo, Docket No , October 11, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Hart, Docket No , October 9, 2007, 2007 WL (R). People v Fluellen, Docket No , October 4, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Nabors, Docket No , September 6, 2007, 2007 WL (R). People v Goldman, Docket No , August 28, 2007, 2007 WL (R). People v Cotton, Docket No , June 28, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (A). People v Arnone, 478 Mich 908; 732 NW2d 537 (2007) (R). People v Blake, Docket No , March 27, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Romaniuk, Docket No , March 27, 2007, 2007 WL (R). Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 63

64 People v Hicks, Docket No , March 15, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Pittman, Docket No , March 15, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (R). People v Johnson, Docket No , February 15, 2007, 2007 WL Third Circuit Court No (A). People v DeJesus, 477 Mich 996, 997; 725 NW2d 669 (2007) (R). People v Hall, Docket No , November 28, 2006, 2006 WL People v Rhodus, Docket No , October 12, 2006, 2006 WL (R). People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240, ; 690 NW2d 476 (2004). Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Collections Policy & Guidelines 02/26/09 Page 64