In re Lampart, 306 Mich. App. 226

Background

Juvenile Robby Lampart pleaded to arson in 2007; restitution of $28,210 was ordered and the mother, Diana Alexandroni, was ordered to pay $250/month (wage withholding ordered).
Alexandroni later suffered a heart attack (2009), became unemployed, and reported sole income of SSDI (approx. $730/month); wage withholding ceased and unpaid restitution remained (~$22,960).
Trial court (2011) treated Alexandroni’s SSDI as "income" for setting a reduced monthly payment ($150/month) and indicated contempt enforcement could be used after funds were in her possession.
Alexandroni moved (2012) to modify or cancel restitution, arguing 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (Social Security anti‑attachment) bars using SSDI to satisfy restitution; trial court denied the motion and the denial is appealed.
Court of Appeals held that (1) a contempt order that would effectively require payment from SSDI/its proceeds would constitute “other legal process” under § 407(a) and thus be prohibited, but (2) the restitution judgment remains valid and may be enforced from non‑SSDI assets or future non‑SSDI income; remanded for further factual inquiry into assets/income.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) bars enforcing restitution against Alexandroni’s SSDI benefits	Alexandroni: § 407(a) prohibits any legal process (including contempt) that reaches SSDI or its proceeds	State/trial court: § 407(a) should be read narrowly; court may treat SSDI as income and use contempt to enforce once funds are in possession	Held: § 407(a) bars use of "other legal process" to compel payment from SSDI or its proceeds; contempt that would force satisfaction from SSDI violates § 407(a)
Whether court may consider SSDI as “income” when setting payment obligations	Alexandroni: consideration OK, but orders must not be enforceable against SSDI itself	State: treating SSDI as income is proper and fairness warrants enforcement against SSDI recipients	Held: Court may consider SSDI in assessing ability to pay, but may not issue an order that can only be satisfied from SSDI (must avoid compelling invasion of protected benefits)
Whether restitution order should be vacated or canceled because SSDI is sole income	Alexandroni: cancel restitution because only source is exempt SSDI	State: restitution judgment remains valid; future non‑SSDI assets/income may satisfy it	Held: Restitution judgment remains; cancellation denied because other assets or future income might exist; enforcement limited by § 407(a)
Whether mere threat/specter of contempt alone constitutes “other legal process” under § 407(a)	Alexandroni: even threat of contempt effectively coerces and should be barred	State: specter of contempt can be legitimate to discover assets; not automatically prohibited	Held: Mere prospect of contempt is not per se § 407(a) "other legal process"; but using contempt to reach SSDI/its proceeds is prohibited; remand for asset/income inquiry recommended

Key Cases Cited

Washington State Dep’t of Social & Health Servs v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003) (interprets “other legal process” in § 407(a) narrowly as processes like garnishment that transfer control over funds via judicial/quasi‑judicial means)
Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (Social Security benefits remain protected from legal process even after payment and deposit unless converted to another asset)
Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988) (state law conflicting with federal protection for Social Security benefits cannot stand)
Whitwood, Inc. v. South Blvd. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 265 Mich. App. 651 (2005) (Michigan appellate recognition that Social Security proceeds remain protected after deposit)
In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich. 367 (2013) (substance over labels: courts cannot evade statutory limits by relabeling a process)
In re McEvoy, 267 Mich. App. 55 (2005) (juvenile‑code restitution framework and parental reimbursement authority)