Can a Mississippi municipal court enroll unpaid criminal fines on the circuit court judgment roll, garnish wages, and proceed against an indigent defendant?
Plain-English summary
The City of Poplarville's attorney asked the AG three questions about municipal court collection of unpaid criminal fines:
-
Can the municipal court enroll unpaid fines on the circuit clerk's judgment roll? Yes. Section 99-37-13 says default in payment of fines, costs, or restitution may be collected by any means authorized by law for enforcing a judgment. Past AG opinions (Arnold 2009, Fortenberry 1995, Nash 1992) confirm enrollment is one of those means. The enrollment creates a lien on the defendant's assets and may take place at any time after a default in payment. The opinion notes the court should not enroll the judgment until there has been a default.
-
Can the municipal judge order wage garnishment for unpaid fines? Yes. The same line of opinions (Arnold 2009, Dunn 1992, Fondren 1989) confirms judges have authority to garnish wages for nonpayment of fines.
-
Does indigency change the analysis? Not for enrollment. A defendant's indigency does not prohibit enrollment of the judgment. What indigency does is prevent automatic incarceration for nonpayment under § 99-19-20.1. That statute requires the court to hold a hearing, examine the reasons for nonpayment, and find on the record that the defendant was not indigent or could have paid but refused. If nonpayment is not willful, the court must take alternative steps (additional time, reduced installments, partial revocation, community service) before incarcerating. Enrollment, garnishment, and other civil collection tools remain available even against an indigent defendant; what is constrained is the criminal-contempt or jail-for-nonpayment path.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Background and statutory framework
Section 99-37-13 is the broad authorization for fine collection:
A default in the payment of a fine or costs or failure to make restitution or any installment thereof may be collected by any means authorized by law for the enforcement of a judgment. The levy of execution for the collection of a fine or restitution shall not discharge a defendant committed to imprisonment for contempt until the amount of the fine or restitution has actually been collected.
That language ("any means authorized by law for the enforcement of a judgment") opens the door to all the standard civil judgment-collection tools. Enrollment on the circuit court's judgment roll is a Mississippi judgment-collection mechanism that creates a lien on the debtor's real and personal property.
The AG opinion does not specify the exact procedure for enrollment but the practice is generally: the municipal court issues a judgment for the fine, costs, or restitution; if the defendant defaults, the municipal court (or its clerk) transmits the judgment to the circuit clerk, who enters it on the judgment roll; the lien attaches to property in the county. The judgment roll is searchable, so the lien shows up on title work and can interfere with the defendant's ability to sell property without satisfying the fine.
Wage garnishment is a separate civil collection tool. The judge issues a writ of garnishment to the defendant's employer, who is then obligated to withhold a portion of wages and pay it to the court.
Section 99-19-20.1 is the indigency safeguard:
(1) Incarceration shall not automatically follow the nonpayment of a fine, restitution or court costs. Incarceration may be employed only after the court has conducted a hearing and examined the reasons for nonpayment and finds, on the record, that the defendant was not indigent or could have made payment but refused to do so. . . . If the judge determines that a defendant who claims indigence is not indigent and the defendant could have made payment but refused to do so, the case file shall include a written explanation of the basis for the determination of the judge. In justice and municipal court, such finding shall be included in the court's order.
(2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that nonpayment is not willful, the court shall enter an order that allows the defendant additional time for payment, reduces the amount of each installment, revokes the fine, in whole or in part, or allows the defendant to perform community service at the state minimum wage per hour rate. If the court finds nonpayment is willful after consideration of the defendant's situation, means, and conduct with regard to the nonpayment, the court shall determine the period of incarceration, if any, subject to the limitations set by law and subsection (3) of this section.
The structure is clear: incarceration requires findings; non-incarceration tools (enrollment, garnishment) do not have the same indigency-related constraints. They simply collect from whatever assets exist.
Common questions
Q: When is the right time to enroll a judgment for unpaid fines?
A: After the defendant has actually defaulted. The opinion says: "the court should not enroll the judgment until there has been a default in the payment of fines, costs, or restitution payments." Premature enrollment (before any payment is missed) would not be authorized by § 99-37-13.
Q: Does the defendant get notice before enrollment?
A: The opinion does not specify. Mississippi judgment enrollment generally does not require pre-enrollment notice (the defendant already had notice of the underlying judgment); but court rules and due process may require notice of consequences, especially with credit-reporting implications.
Q: How much can a court garnish from wages?
A: The opinion does not address the limits. Federal law (Consumer Credit Protection Act) and Mississippi law set caps on the percentage of disposable earnings subject to garnishment. Judges should confirm the applicable limits.
Q: Can the court garnish wages of an indigent defendant?
A: The opinion suggests yes, since indigency only constrains incarceration. As a practical matter, an indigent defendant may have minimal or no garnishable wages, but the legal authority exists.
Q: What does the court need to do if the defendant is found to be indigent?
A: Section 99-19-20.1(2) gives a list of alternatives: additional time for payment, reduced installments, fine revocation in whole or in part, or community service at state minimum wage. The court has to choose one of these rather than jail.
Q: Can community service satisfy a fine entirely?
A: Yes. Section 99-19-20.1(2) authorizes community service "at the state minimum wage per hour rate." That sets the conversion rate.
What this means for you
For municipal court judges: Build your collection workflow around three tracks:
1. Enrollment on the judgment roll once a default occurs (creates lien)
2. Wage garnishment (collects from earnings)
3. Indigency review under § 99-19-20.1 before any incarceration consideration
The first two tracks operate independently of indigency. The third track requires written findings.
For municipal court clerks: Develop standard forms for transmitting judgments to the circuit clerk for enrollment. Track defaults so that enrollment can happen promptly when triggered.
For municipal attorneys: Audit your city's collection practices against this opinion. If your court has been declining enrollment because defendants are indigent, that is unnecessarily restrictive. The collection tools and the incarceration safeguards are separate analyses.
For defendants and their counsel: Indigency protects you from automatic jail for nonpayment, but not from enrollment, garnishment, or other civil collection. If you cannot pay, ask the court for the alternative remedies in § 99-19-20.1(2). If the court tries to incarcerate without making the required findings, that is reversible error.
For court-watching organizations: The Section 99-19-20.1 procedure (hearing, examination of reasons, written findings, alternatives before incarceration) is the part of the system most often skipped. Courts that incarcerate without findings are violating both the statute and constitutional principles.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 99-37-13 (collection of unpaid fines, costs, or restitution by any means authorized by law)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-20.1 (no automatic incarceration; hearing and findings required)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/M.Bryan_June-26-2020-Enrollment-of-Unpaid-Fines.pdf
Original opinion text
June 26, 2020
Manya Creel Bryan, Esq.
Attorney for the City of Poplarville
Post Office Box 622
Picayune, Mississippi 39466
Re: Enrollment of Unpaid Fines
Dear Ms. Bryan:
The Office of the Attorney General is in receipt of your request for the issuance of an official opinion.
Questions Presented
Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 99-37-13, may a municipal judge order the enrollment of unpaid fines and costs in the circuit clerk's judgment roll? If yes, when should enrollment occur?
May the municipal judge order the garnishment of wages or other income for the nonpayment of fines and cost?
If the defendant is declared indigent prior to his/her misdemeanor criminal conviction, does that in any way alter the court's authority to enroll the judgment?
Brief Response
The municipal court has the authority to enroll a judgment on the circuit clerk's judgment roll to establish a lien on a defendant's property. The enrollment may take place at any time after failure of a defendant to pay the fine, costs, or restitution. The municipal judge also has the authority to garnish a defendant's wages. The fact that a defendant is determined to be indigent would not prohibit the enrollment of the judgment. Any determination that the defendant is indigent would only affect the ability of the court to incarcerate the defendant for failure to pay a fine.
Applicable Law and Analysis
Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-37-13 allows courts to collect fines and costs that are not paid timely by any means authorized by law. Specifically, Section 99-37-13 states:
A default in the payment of a fine or costs or failure to make restitution or any installment thereof may be collected by any means authorized by law for the enforcement of a judgment. The levy of execution for the collection of a fine or restitution shall not discharge a defendant committed to imprisonment for contempt until the amount of the fine or restitution has actually been collected.
This office has previously opined that unpaid fines may be enrolled on the circuit court's judgment roll to create a lien on the assets of a defendant. See MS AG Op., Arnold (November 1, 2009); MS AG Op., Fortenberry (July 19, 1995); MS AG Op., Nash (September 23, 1992). It remains the opinion of this office that the municipal court has the authority to enroll its judgment on the circuit court's judgment roll book to establish a lien on the assets of a defendant.
The statute does not contemplate the timing for an enrollment, but states only that a court has the authority to collect unpaid fines by any means as authorized by law. It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that the court should not enroll the judgment until there has been a default in the payment of fines, costs, or restitution payments.
This office has consistently opined that judges have the authority to garnish wages for the nonpayment of fines. See MS AG Op., Arnold (November 1, 2009); MS AG Op., Dunn (February 26, 1992); MS AG Op., Fondren (March 23, 1989).
The fact that a defendant is determined to be indigent would not prohibit the enrollment of the judgment. Any determination that the defendant is indigent would only affect the ability of the court to incarcerate the defendant for failure to pay a fine.
(Footnote: Section 99-19-20.1 prohibits automatically incarcerating a defendant who is determined to be indigent. Section 99-19-20.1 states, in relevant part:
(1) Incarceration shall not automatically follow the nonpayment of a fine, restitution or court costs. Incarceration may be employed only after the court has conducted a hearing and examined the reasons for nonpayment and finds, on the record, that the defendant was not indigent or could have made payment but refused to do so. . . . If the judge determines that a defendant who claims indigence is not indigent and the defendant could have made payment but refused to do so, the case file shall include a written explanation of the basis for the determination of the judge. In justice and municipal court, such finding shall be included in the court's order.
(2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that nonpayment is not willful, the court shall enter an order that allows the defendant additional time for payment, reduces the amount of each installment, revokes the fine, in whole or in part, or allows the defendant to perform community service at the state minimum wage per hour rate. If the court finds nonpayment is willful after consideration of the defendant's situation, means, and conduct with regard to the nonpayment, the court shall determine the period of incarceration, if any, subject to the limitations set by law and subsection (3) of this section.)
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Kim P. Turner
Kim P. Turner
Assistant Attorney General