Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears proposal to raise writ-of-execution fee from $5 to $10
Summary
Clerks told the Senate Local Government Committee the $5 fee for issuing writs of execution has not kept pace with costs; sponsor Sen. Russ Temple and clerks backed a modest $5 increase to be retained by counties to cover supplies and staffing, with committee members probing whom the fee affects.
Senator Russ Temple opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 103, saying the bill would raise the fee for issuing a writ of execution from $5 to $10 to help cover courthouse costs. "Basically... we're moving a fee from $5 to $10," Temple said, asking the committee for a do-pass recommendation.
Elizabeth Ball, Clerk of District Court in Roosevelt County and president of the Montana Association of Clerks of District Court, testified that a writ of execution "is a document that's issued by the clerks to collect a debt." She told the committee that clerks are county employees who must deposit most fees "in the State General Fund as specified by the Supreme Court Administrator," and that the $5 writ fee dates back more than a century: "the fee for issuing a writ in 1895... and now, 130 years later, it's $5." Ball said the proposed additional $5 would be deposited with counties to pay for supplies and possibly staff to help with public requests after searches through the statewide public portal.
Committee members asked who generally seeks writs; Ball said they come from judgment holders, often credit-card companies or collection agencies, and sometimes from out-of-state creditors. Lawmakers also asked why the sponsor chose a modest increase rather than a larger adjustment; Ball and the sponsor said they sought a small, politically feasible step that keeps revenue with counties. Ball acknowledged she did not have precise percentages for out-of-state requests when pressed.
No formal vote was recorded in the hearing transcript. The chair subsequently closed the SB103 hearing and moved on to the next bill.
The committee will decide next steps in a later meeting; the hearing provided proponents' rationale (county revenue and modest fee increase) and allowed the committee to question clerks about usage and fiscal effects.
