In Michigan, courts are permitted to impose financial penalties. They are not permitted to do so casually, retroactively, or without notice.
Yet in Barry County, Michigan, troubling patterns are emerging that mirror long-standing concerns about Offense Variable scoring. The issue is not discretion. It is arithmetic, procedure, and notice. And when courts fail to do the math or explain it, defendants are left paying for errors they did not create.
The Legal Requirement Courts Cannot Skip
Under Michigan law, a court may impose a 20 percent late penalty on unpaid fines, fees, or restitution. But only if one condition is met: the defendant must be explicitly informed at sentencing that the late penalty will apply if payment is not made within the statutory period.
This notice requirement is not a formality. It is a condition precedent. Without it, the penalty does not lawfully attach.
If the record does not show that notice was given, the late fee is not enforceable.
The Problem: Penalties Without Notice
In at least three Barry County cases overseen by Judge Michael Schipper, a late penalty was added despite no record of notice at sentencing.
In one of those cases, at the same time, the underlying restitution amount was never corrected, despite known issues with its accuracy.
That combination matters.
A court cannot penalize lateness on an obligation it never properly finalized, explained, or even corrected.
This Mirrors a Bigger Pattern: Offense Variable Scoring
This issue is disturbingly familiar to anyone who has followed OV scoring errors in Judge Schipper’s court. The pattern looks like this:
- The math is wrong or incomplete
- The explanation is missing or unclear
- The burden shifts to the defendant to catch the error
- The consequence lands anyway
In OV scoring, that failure inflates sentences. In financial penalties, it inflates debt. In both cases, the defendant bears the harm of the court’s mistake.
Why Restitution Accuracy Comes First
Late penalties attach only to lawfully imposed, accurate, final amounts. If restitution figures are incorrect, disputed, or unresolved:
- The obligation is not settled
- The due date is not meaningful
- The concept of “lateness” collapses
Courts do not get to delay correction and then punish defendants for nonpayment of an amount the court itself failed to define.
That is not enforcement; that is error compounding.
Incarceration Does Not Excuse the Court’s Duty
The defendant’s incarceration does not cure these defects.
Courts retain a duty to:
- Provide notice
- State amounts clearly
- Correct errors when identified
Incarceration heightens the need for communication and clarity. It does not lower the bar or eliminate responsibility.
What To Do If This Happened to You
If a late fee or penalty was added to your case and you were not notified at sentencing, or if the restitution amount was wrong or never corrected, there are concrete steps you can take.
1. Get the sentencing record
Request:
- the sentencing transcript
- the judgment of sentence
- any written notice of financial penalties
You are looking for explicit notice of the 20 percent late penalty. Silence matters.
2. Compare the restitution math
Check whether:
- the restitution amount matches the evidence
- corrections were ordered but never entered
- numbers changed without explanation
Late penalties cannot attach to unresolved or incorrect figures.
3. File a motion to correct the judgment
In Michigan, courts can correct clerical and legal errors. Your motion should focus on:
- lack of statutory notice
- unresolved or incorrect restitution
- improper late-fee assessment
This is not asking for mercy. It is asking for compliance with the law.
4. Do not assume the court is right
Financial penalties are often treated as “administrative,” but they are still governed by statute and court rule.
If the math is missing, the penalty may be unlawful.
5. Document everything
Keep copies of:
- account statements
- collection notices
- correspondence with the court
These records matter if the issue escalates to appeal, oversight, or enforcement challenges.
Why This Case Matters
This is not about one late fee. It is about whether courts are:
- doing their math
- explaining it to defendants
- correcting errors when identified
When courts fail to do those things, financial harm becomes invisible and normalized, much like OV scoring errors that quietly reshape sentences.
The fix is not complicated.
It starts with accurate calculations and clear notice. It depends on courts being held to the same standards they impose on everyone else.
Sources
