State Treasurer v. Bradley Bences
327657
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- In 2013 Bradley Bences was convicted (including felonious assault) and ordered to pay $108,589 in restitution to victim John Burtle as part of his sentence.
- The State Treasurer filed a SCFRA (State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act) action in 2014 seeking reimbursement from Bences for incarceration costs and seeking to reach his assets.
- Burtle moved to intervene in the SCFRA action claiming his restitution award gave him an interest in the assets the State sought; the trial court denied intervention.
- Burtle appealed the denial, arguing his restitution claim should take priority over the State’s SCFRA reimbursement claim and that he therefore had a right to intervene.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and considered statutory scheme differences between restitution enforcement and SCFRA remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burtle could intervene under MCR 2.209(A)(3) | Burtle: restitution order created an interest in Bences’s assets that could be impaired by the SCFRA action, so he may intervene as of right | State Treasurer: Burtle had not perfected or enforced the restitution judgment and thus lacked the required interest; intervention would inappropriately confer SCFRA tools on a private creditor | Denied — Burtle lacked a sufficiently perfected interest and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing intervention |
| Whether a restitution judgment confers priority over SCFRA reimbursement | Burtle: restitution should take priority so his claim must be protected in the SCFRA proceeding | State Treasurer: SCFRA creates a distinct statutory lien and remedies that do not generally yield to restitution claims; restitution does not automatically have priority | Held the SCFRA claim is not subordinated generally to restitution; restitution does not automatically take priority over SCFRA reimbursement |
| Whether SCFRA is the proper forum for a victim to enforce restitution | Burtle: intervention in SCFRA would allow enforcement of his restitution award against Bences’s assets | State Treasurer: SCFRA is a state reimbursement mechanism with statutory tools not meant to be used by private creditors; victims should enforce restitution by civil judgment/lien procedures | Held SCFRA proceedings are not the vehicle to grant private creditors the State’s unique statutory enforcement tools; intervention would be improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State Treasurer v. Schuster, 456 Mich 408 (statutory reimbursement under SCFRA creates a lien on a prisoner’s estate distinct from ordinary creditor claims)
- State Treasurer v. Sheko, 218 Mich App 185 (SCFRA preempts common-law creditor preferences; state reimbursement not a typical personal judgment)
- State Treasurer v. Snyder, 294 Mich App 641 (legislative intent to shift incarceration costs to prisoners under SCFRA)
- Hill v. L F Transp., Inc., 277 Mich App 500 (standard of review for intervention motions)
- In re Lampart, 306 Mich App 226 (restitution obligation and its enforcement in criminal sentencing)
- Precision Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Meram Constr., Inc., 195 Mich App 153 (intervention may be improper if it causes delay or multiplicity of parties)