8.19Enforcement of Restitution Orders

“An order of restitution is a judgment and lien against all property of the [individual] for the amount specified in the order of restitution. The lien may be recorded as provided by law.” MCL 780.766(13); MCL 780.794(13); MCL 780.826(13). See also MCL 712A.30(13) and MCL 769.1a(13), the corresponding Juvenile Code and Code of Criminal Procedure provisions.

The prosecuting attorney, victim, victim’s estate, or any other person or entity named in the restitution order may enforce the restitution order “in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action or a lien.” MCL 712A.30(13); MCL 769.1a(13); MCL 780.766(13); MCL 780.794(13); MCL 780.826(13). “The court shall not impose a fee on a victim, victim’s estate, or prosecuting attorney for enforcing an order of restitution.” MCL 780.766(20); MCL 780.794(20); MCL 780.826(17).

Where the defendant fails to pay restitution in full, the court may enforce its restitution order. See People v Norman, 183 Mich App 203, 206 (1989) (finding “[w]hen a court issues an order and that order is violated, the case returns to the court for enforcement”), superseded by statute on other grounds; MCL 600.611 (providing circuit courts with the “jurisdiction and power to make any order proper to fully effectuate the circuit courts’ jurisdiction and judgments”); MCL 600.1701(e) (providing the court with contempt powers for the “nonpayment of any sum of money which the court has ordered to be paid”).¹ See also MCL 780.766(13), MCL 780.794(13), and MCL 780.826(13), which provide that “[a]n order of restitution entered under [MCL 780.766, MCL 780.794, or MCL 780.826] remains effective until it is satisfied in full[;]”² MCL 780.766(14), which provides, in relevant part, that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this section, a defendant shall not be imprisoned, jailed, or incarcerated for . . . failure to pay restitution as ordered under this section unless the court or parole board determines that the defendant has the resources to pay the ordered restitution and has not made a good faith effort to do so.”³ Accordingly, while a “‘defendant’s ability to pay is irrelevant’” when ordering restitution, it does “become[] an issue when enforcement of the restitution order has begun.” People v Odom, 327 Mich App 297, 317 (2019) (concluding that defendant’s ability to pay claim was not ripe where no enforcement action was taken on the restitution order).

Note: See generally In re Reiswitz, 236 Mich App 158, 168, 171 (1999) (finding the probate court in a juvenile delinquency proceeding had authority under MCL 712A.18(2) to enforce a preexisting reimbursement order against a juvenile’s parent after the juvenile reached the age of majority and thus no longer under the court’s jurisdiction). The Reiswitz Court noted that “the fact that [MCL 712A.18(2)] specifically indicate[d] that ‘[t]he court shall provide for the collection of all amounts ordered to be reimbursed,’ coupled with the fact that [MCL 712A.18(2)] address[ed] the collection of delinquent accounts, is a clear indication that the reimbursement section establish[ed] a legally enforceable continuing reimbursement obligation.”