North Dakota Senate Bill SB2057

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/16/25
• Engrossed: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/7/25
• Refer: 3/7/25
• Report Pass: 3/20/25
• Enrolled: 4/4/25
• Passed: 4/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 6 of section 12.1-32-08 and sections 27-03-05, 27-05.2-03, and 29-26-22 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to court fees.

Summary

SB 2057 revises several North Dakota court fee provisions and increases a number of filing and administration charges across the criminal and civil court systems. The bill raises the Supreme Court filing fee, increases district court civil filing fees, increases fees for answers and certain motions, and adjusts small claims and miscellaneous clerk fees. It also increases the cost assessment tied to restitution cases involving insufficient-funds checks, while preserving the existing structure that directs some collections to restitution-related funds and county general funds. In criminal cases, the bill increases the court administration fee schedule for misdemeanors and felonies and adds an indigent defense and court facilities fee. It also keeps the community service supervision fee and the ability to waive fees for indigent defendants, and it retains the rule allowing waiver of unpaid fines and fees upon successful completion of an approved adult drug court program, except restitution. The bill also updates how collected fees are distributed among the general fund, indigent defense administration fund, court facilities improvement and maintenance fund, civil legal services fund, displaced homemaker account, and other special funds.

Impact

The bill amends multiple sections of the North Dakota Century Code governing court costs, filing fees, and fee distribution. Its practical effect is to increase the amount paid by litigants, criminal defendants, and parties filing certain domestic relations and civil matters, while also increasing revenue flowing to state and county funds that support court operations, indigent defense, civil legal services, displaced homemaker services, restitution collection, and court facilities. It changes both the fee amounts and the allocation thresholds for some dedicated funds, which may alter how quickly excess collections are redirected to the general fund.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill had broad but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate and House with clear majorities, indicating general legislative acceptance of the need to update court fees and funding streams. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the final votes show the measure was not especially controversial overall, though a meaningful minority opposed it in the House and a small minority in the Senate.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the higher costs imposed on court users, especially civil litigants, family law parties, and criminal defendants. Opponents may have viewed the increases as burdensome or as adding financial barriers to accessing the courts, while supporters likely emphasized the need to fund indigent defense, court facilities, restitution collection, and other judicial branch functions. The bill’s fee increases and fund reallocations also create tension between raising revenue for court-related services and preserving affordability for parties who must use the court system.