MI Comp L § 800.404 (2021)
2021 Michigan Compiled Laws|Chapter 800 - Prisons|Act 253 of 1935 - The State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act (800.401 - 800.407)|Section 800.404 - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Circuit Court; Complaint; Order to Show Cause; Hearing; Order Requiring Reimbursement; Amount; Obligation of Defendant to Support Dependents; Neglect or Refusal to Comply With Order; Contempt; Liability of Assets; Time Limitations.

800.404 Exclusive jurisdiction of circuit court; complaint; order to show cause; hearing; order requiring reimbursement; amount; obligation of defendant to support dependents; neglect or refusal to comply with order; contempt; liability of assets; time limitations. Sec. 4.  (1) The circuit court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings under this act. The attorney general may file a complaint in the circuit court for the county from which a prisoner was sentenced, stating that the person is or has been a prisoner in a state correctional facility, that there is good cause to believe that the prisoner has assets, and praying that the assets be used to reimburse the state for the expenses incurred or to be incurred, or both, by the state for the cost of care of the person as a prisoner.  (2) Upon the filing of the complaint under subsection (1), the court shall issue an order to show cause why the prayer of the complainant should not be granted. The complaint and order shall be served upon the prisoner personally or, if the prisoner is confined in a state correctional facility, by registered mail addressed to the prisoner in care of the chief administrator of the state correctional facility where the prisoner is housed, at least 30 days before the date of hearing on the complaint and order.  (3) At the time of the hearing on the complaint and order, if it appears that the prisoner has any assets which ought to be subjected to the claim of the state under this act, the court shall issue an order requiring any person, corporation, or other legal entity possessed or having custody of those assets to appropriate and apply the assets or a portion thereof toward reimbursing the state as provided for under this act.  (4) The amount of reimbursement under this act shall not be in excess of the per capita cost of care for maintaining prisoners in the state correctional facility in which the prisoner is housed.  (5) At the hearing on the complaint and order and before entering any order on behalf of the state 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.  (6) If the person, corporation, or other legal entity shall neglect or refuse to comply with an order under subsection (3), the court shall order the person, corporation, or other legal entity to appear before the court at such time as the court may direct and to show cause why the person, corporation, or other legal entity should not be considered in contempt of court.  (7) If, in the opinion of the court, the assets of the prisoner are sufficient to pay the cost of the proceedings under this act, the assets shall be liable for those costs upon order of the court.  (8) The state may recover the expenses incurred or to be incurred, or both, by the state for the cost of care of the prisoner during the entire period or periods the person is a prisoner in a state correctional facility. The state may commence proceedings under this act until the prisoner has been finally discharged on the sentence and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the department. History: 1935, Act 253, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1935 ;-- CL 1948, 800.404 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 282, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1984 Constitutionality: The Prison Reimbursement Act was intended to apply to all inmates of the state penal system and was not limited to the inmates of the three penal institutions named in the act and in existence at the time of its passage; nor is the act violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138; 347 NW2d 770 (1985).