North Dakota courts collected about $6.9 million in fees; $31.5 million remains outstanding, court official says

Don Wolf, finance director for the North Dakota Court System, told the Interim Judiciary Committee in August 2025 the courts collected about $6,900,000 in court fees during the 2023–25 biennium and are carrying an outstanding accounts‑receivable balance of roughly $31,550,000. “Most of this is made up of the criminal fees,” Wolf said, adding the majority of that balance is more than two years old. The discrepancy stems from statutory court administration and related fees that courts assess at sentencing and from long-running collection challenges, Wolf said. State law sets the criminal court administration fee at a dollar amount that ranges by offense class — Wolf recited the schedule as $125 for a class B misdemeanor or class B felony level, rising to $900 for class A or double‑A felonies — and other fees such as indigent defense and court‑facility fees are added in some cases. Sally Lovett, state court administrator, explained how the money is distributed on one common fee: the indigent defense and court facility fee. “The first $750,000 goes to the Indigent Defense Administration Fund. The next $460,000 goes to the Court Facility Fund. And then after that, it’s split fifty–fifty,” Lovett said. Wolf and Lovett told the committee that collection rates fall sharply with the age of the debt. Wolf said the court collects about 79% of assessed amounts during the first year but collections fall to about 9% for debts one to two years old and to under 1% for items more than four years old. Much of the $31.55 million balance dates back many years; Wolf said some entries are up to 25 years old. Committee members pressed the court system on collection tools and costs. Wolf said unpaid criminal assessments can be converted to civil judgments in many cases, which allows enforcement tools such as garnishment and liens; civil judgments generally run for 20 years. He described limited additional tools: delinquency notices, tax intercepts, lottery intercepts, and, rarely, court‑ordered show‑cause hearings, which judges seldom use for small amounts. Sarah Barron, staff attorney for the State Court Administrator’s Office, told the committee the courts must determine whether a defendant had the ability to pay before taking enforcement action. “A fundamental thing with fines and fees is that, before you can take any action on that, you actually have to show that the person had the ability to pay and chose not to,” Barron said. She also said converting fees into community service or revoking probation for nonpayment requires a hearing. Committee members asked for more detailed, itemized data linking types of fees to collection performance and for an updated estimate of the state’s cost to collect fees. Wolf and Lovett said they can provide more detailed breakdowns, including the relative collection rates for individual fee types, in a later meeting. The committee did not take formal action; members discussed options for follow‑up, including an updated cost‑to‑collect analysis and further information about which fees yield the highest and lowest collection rates.