What is the average court cost

View prior years' court costs and waiver lists. Most but not all of the statutes that set court costs and fees are found in the N. General Statutes Chapter 7A, Article The courts in North Carolina do not decide the amounts of court costs. The courts are required by law to collect the costs enacted by the General Assembly, though in some cases, the law gives court officials limited discretion to waive or reduce those costs or to allow a party to delay their payment. Just like the General Assembly sets the amount of court costs in North Carolina, it also decides where the money goes.

The remainder is distributed to various government agencies at the State and local levels, like to county governments to fund courthouse facilities or to State and local law enforcement agencies to fund some of their operations. Note that if you hired an attorney to represent you, you still will be responsible for any payment agreement you made with the attorney, but that is an obligation to the attorney, not to the court.

Other costs in that chart also might apply, like an additional fee if you previously failed to appear during the course of the case, daily fees to reimburse the county for any days spent in jail before your case was disposed, and additional fees for conviction of certain kinds of offenses like impaired driving or having improper equipment on a motor vehicle. In addition to court costs, the court might impose other monetary obligations in its judgment, like a fine as punishment, restitution to any victim s of the offense, attorney fees to pay back the State for a court-appointed lawyer, and other costs or fees associated with certain conditions of probation like a fee for the community service program.

The current lists of waivable offenses and the fines to be imposed. If you were placed on supervised probation, you can make a partial payment of the total due. If you are pleading guilty via waiver or are making a payment for a judgment that imposed unsupervised probation or no probation at all , then the payment must be for the full amount due; partial payments against those cases are not accepted. The name on the card and the name of the defendant may be different.

The secure payment vendor, NIC, Inc. For online payment problems, contact NIC, Inc. These are just a few examples; there are many more ways in which criminal justice agency efforts to coerce payment translates into less time spent on more valuable criminal justice work. Put concretely and in dollar terms, almost every cent spent on fee and fine collection is wasted as compared to collecting tax revenue.

State tax authorities in some cases spend more or less than the IRS cost, but the argument still holds that much of the fee and fine cost represents waste or funds that could be put to better use. This is a fundamentally inefficient way to collect revenue to support courts and other criminal justice agencies, and it does not make fiscal or economic sense. One reason that fees and fines are so inefficient as a revenue raiser is that each year millions of people are given sentences that include fines and fees they are simply unable to pay.

From watching more than 1, court proceedings in seven jurisdictions, the authors found that judges rarely hold ability-to-pay hearings. While there are plainly up-front costs associated with such hearings, in the long run, jurisdictions would spend less money by holding them rather than trying to chase down debts that cannot be paid. Still, states and localities continue to jail large numbers of indigent defendants as a sanction for unpaid criminal justice debt.

Jailing people for nonpayment is by far the most expensive method of enforcing collections and generates little to no revenue making it highly uneconomical.

In counties where courts incarcerate for failure to pay, the authors found that the cost of incarceration dwarfs other collections costs. For example, in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, jail costs represent as much as 98 percent of the collection costs documented by the authors. Cost data calculated through a combination of court watching, surveys, and analysis of credits see Appendix B: Methodology.

Often when someone is unable or unwilling to pay a fee or fine, the court issues a warrant. Frequently, indigent people do not appear on their court date, due to a transportation issue they may have had their license suspended , or because they have to work, or because they fear arrest for nonpayment.

In these instances, courts often issue a warrant for failure to appear, resulting in additional debt for the defendant and, in some jurisdictions, jail time. Some defendents receive credit toward their debt at a state-determined per diem rate for the time they spend in custody; others incur additional debt in the form of jail fees; and some are released still owing the amount they owed before the warrant was issued.

XLVI; Tex. Penal Code. A substantial portion of fees and fines is never collected and is likely uncollectable, meaning that these assessments are an unreliable source of government revenue that will always come up short. No one knows how much is owed in total because few states and courts track this information — which is itself a problem requiring attention. And in each of the jurisdictions studied here, the amount of unpaid debt grew significantly over the period examined.

Much of this debt is unlikely to ever be collected, as those with low incomes lack resources to draw on for payment. This high level of uncollected debt demonstrates why fees and fines are such an unreliable way to raise revenue. And courts keep track of debts in perpetuity, making it all but impossible for defendants to get out from under them.

For the most part, jurisdictions do not know how much it costs them to collect fees and fines. Of the three states studied, only Texas systematically tracks some of the costs for court collection units. But even there, the picture is incomplete.

Though Texas collects some data on the costs of jailing people who fail to pay fees and fines or are allowed to earn jail credit against amounts owed, most courts and other criminal justice agencies do not track and report such costs.

Revelations that cities like Ferguson, Missouri, collect millions in fees from poor citizens sparked a national debate in about predatory and regressive policies targeting vulnerable communities. As detailed below, fee and fine assessments in each of the states studied amount to significant costs for the people who pass through the criminal justice system, many of whom are poor.

Across the three states, billions of dollars are charged without regard to ability to pay. The fees and fines charged in these three states may well be more than what the average defendant can afford and the noticeable growth of unpaid fee and fine debt bears this out. This is particularly so where evidence exists that policing frequently has a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.

Baumgartner, Derek A. Courts rely excessively on criminal fee and fine practices that are costly and inefficient, unfairly burden the poor, and do little to deter crime or improve public safety. Reforms are urgently needed. Courts need to be funded adequately.

But even under a conservative estimate of the costs of collection, fees are an inefficient source of revenue. In addition, they fall disproportionately on the poor and create perverse incentives. And they transfer the obligation of taxpayers to fund courts to defendants in the justice system, even though the system serves society as a whole.

State legislators should allocate appropriate funding to courts from their general funds and repeal legislation requiring courts to raise their own revenue by imposing fees. The purpose of fines is to deter people from violating the law and punish those who do. Charging people amounts they cannot pay is draconian. In addition to ending the disproportionate punishments given to the poor, sliding-scale fines would more effectively incentivize the wealthy to obey the law.

Studies show that sliding-scale fines can increase both collection rates and total fine revenue. Mandating that fines are calibrated according to ability to pay would also drastically reduce the resources allocated to collections — since fines that are manageable are more likely to be paid — and reduce the burden on indigent defendants, creating a more efficient and just system.

In the three states studied here, 46 percent of fees and fines were not paid. Sometimes courts waive fees and fines for those unable to pay, and sometimes they offer credit for court-ordered community service. Too frequently, however, they jail people for nonpayment. Judges, not juries, make the ultimate decision when disputes over court costs arise.

Rule 54 d 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows exceptions to this general rule via statute or court order. Judges will typically defer to any court cost provisions in a contract between the parties. The prevailing party usually must create, substantiate, and present an itemized list of their court costs that are recoverable in the jurisdiction. Page Content. Overview You may have to pay fees money in your court case.

What is a filing fee? Do all court cases require filing fees? Witness fee — if you subpoena or call a witness to testify at trial, you will have to pay the witness a fee. Mediation fee — in some states, if you file a family law case that involves children, you may be charged a fee to have a mediator help you and the other parent of your child come to an agreement about your children.

Appeal fee — the amount of money you pay to appeal or to ask a higher court to review your case to determine if the previous judge made any mistakes. Each court has different rules, but you may be able to get some or all of the court fees waived if: you are receiving public benefits such as welfare, Food Stamps, or SSI benefits; or you do not have enough income to support your family and pay the court fees.

For More Information Looking for more information on this topic? Disclaimer This guide was prepared for general information purposes only.