Court News

---

| Public Information Office | 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

---

July 14, 2008
Committee Releases Recommendations on Court Costs, Filing Fees

Eleven recommendations designed to streamline the process for determining, collecting and monitoring court costs and filing fees were announced today in a report by a joint legislative-judicial committee.

While the recommendations from the Joint Committee to Study Court Costs and Filing Fees target specific issues, the committee also found definitional confusion with court costs and fees in the Ohio Revised Code. According to the report, “it became apparent that the words ‘costs’ and ‘fees’ were undefined, defined but used inconsistently, or used interchangeably.” The committee urged the General Assembly – with input from the Supreme Court of Ohio – to implement standard definitions to avoid future confusion.

A sampling of the specific recommendations from the committee includes:

• Court costs should be reasonable, nominal and directly related to the operation and maintenance of the court.
• The General Assembly should amend current law to give trial courts the statutory authority to suspend the imposition or payment of costs after the court has imposed sentence.
• The discretionary court costs that courts use for a variety of needs should be maintained.
• Courts should be given authority to dispose of uncollectible debt.
• Court costs should be returned to the funding (collecting) source.
• There should be an entity charged with an ongoing review of court costs and filing fees.

“When Ohioans pay for court costs, these monies should not fund special interests or be considered income by a court. They should be used to fund the justice system programs that make our judicial branch more efficient and effective,” said committee co-chair and State Rep. Matt Huffman (R-Lima). “I believe this report addresses many problematic areas in our courts, and, hopefully, these recommendations will be adopted in future legislation and rule-making procedures.”

“With more than 300 references in the Revised Code about the authority of a judge to assess court costs and fines, it’s crucial that consistency exists,” said Steven C. Hollon, Supreme Court administrative director and committee co-chair. “It’s also important to ensure that court costs and fees remain at a level that doesn’t impede access to justice.”

Created by the 126^th General Assembly in Substitute House Bill 336, the committee met seven times since October 2007 and accepted testimony from individuals and associations. The committee was comprised of members of the General Assembly, judges, clerks of court, court administrators, local legislative authorities and practitioners.

To access the report, visit this link: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/publications/JtCommCourtCostsReport.pdf.

Contact: Chris Davey or Bret Crow at 614.387.9250.