In Arkansas, when a defendant makes a partial payment on a criminal or traffic court judgment, how is that payment split between court costs, restitution, and fines?

Plain-English summary

State Senator Ronald Caldwell asked the AG to lay out how partial payments on Arkansas court judgments get applied. A defendant ordered to pay $300 in court costs, $200 in restitution, and $500 in fines makes a $100 payment. Where does that $100 go? Caldwell asked the question for district court and circuit court, and asked whether the payment method (cash, installments, credit card) changes the answer, whether the court itself can change the allocation by order, and whether cities or counties can change it by ordinance.

AG Leslie Rutledge gave a clean three-part answer:

1. District court allocation is statutory. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) (Supp. 2015) directs that partial payments be applied to court costs until paid in full, then to restitution until paid in full, then to fines. So the example $100 payment goes entirely to court costs until that bucket is full.

2. Circuit court has no analogous statute. A circuit court therefore has discretion to specify the allocation in each case. If the court's order does not explicitly direct allocation, court officials applying payments would not be acting unreasonably to follow the district-court rule by analogy.

3. Method of payment doesn't change the allocation, but may carry deductions.

   • Installment payments: a $5/month installment fee assessed twice (§ 16-13-704(b)) may be deducted from the payment before the remainder is allocated.
   • Credit/debit card payments: transaction fees (§§ 16-13-706(b), 16-92-118(d), (e)) may also be deducted first.

4. A district court can practically alter the order by structuring the judgment. The AG identified one legitimate workaround: a district court can order restitution payable immediately while permitting court costs to be paid in installments. The statutory allocation only applies to partial/installment payments, so a "pay this in full now" obligation for restitution sits outside that scheme. The AG was careful: this only works to the extent the court does not permit all three categories to be paid in installments. Once any item is on the installment ladder, the statutory order applies.

5. Cities and counties cannot change the allocation. Section 16-10-209(5)(F)(iii) preserved any pre-July 1, 2013 city or county ordinances that altered the allocation under prior law, but it bars new ordinances. The grandfather clause clearly implies that fresh local-government tinkering is no longer authorized.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Why allocation matters

The order in which a partial payment is applied to costs, restitution, and fines has real consequences:

• Crime victims awaiting restitution benefit when restitution comes earlier in the order. If defendants frequently pay only partial amounts before defaulting, restitution under a "fines first" rule would often go unpaid.
• County treasuries that receive court costs benefit when costs come earlier in the order.
• State and local fine revenues are residual under any front-loaded allocation: they get paid only after the earlier categories are full.

The district-court rule in Arkansas chose "costs first, then restitution, then fines." That ordering reflects a policy balance: keeping court systems funded (costs first), then making victims whole (restitution second), with fines as residual revenue.

The text of § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i)

The statute directs partial payments in district court to "court costs until they have been paid in full, then to restitution until paid in full, then to fines." That language gives a sequential cascade. It is mandatory, not advisory.

Why circuit court is different

No analogous statute exists for circuit court. The AG read the absence as meaningful: a circuit court has discretion in each case. The court's order typically indicates the allocation either expressly or by implication. If silent, the officials applying the payment could reasonably follow the district-court analogue. This is a gap-filler suggestion, not a binding rule.

Why payment method doesn't change the allocation

Cash, check, money order, credit card, or installment plan: the statutory or court-ordered allocation governs. Some payment methods do carry overhead that is deducted before the allocation.

• Installment fees: under § 16-13-704(b), defendants on installment plans owe two $5 monthly installment fees, which presumably come out of the payment first.
• Credit/debit card transaction fees: under § 16-13-706(b) and § 16-92-118(d), (e), transaction fees can be passed on to the defendant.

The opinion uses "presumably" because the statutory language does not literally specify "before the allocation," but the AG read the structure of the system as requiring those overhead amounts to be backed out before the remainder is allocated among the three categories.

The workaround: immediate payment vs. installment

A district court can structure its judgment to require certain items "immediately" (in full) while permitting others to be paid in installments. The statutory allocation rule speaks to "partial payments." If restitution is ordered as a single immediate payment and the defendant pays it in full, the partial-payment cascade was never engaged for that item. A defendant who then needs to pay court costs and fines in installments will have those subject to § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i)'s order. But because there's now only court costs and fines (restitution being paid), the cascade reaches fines after court costs are full.

This route is bounded. As soon as a district court allows any of the three categories to be paid in installments, the statutory cascade controls the allocation. The court cannot, by judgment, simply substitute its own order.

Cities and counties locked out

Section 16-10-209(5)(F)(iii) is a grandfather clause: ordinances adopted before July 1, 2013, providing alternative installment-payment allocation remained in effect until repealed. That preservation has a negative implication: local governments no longer have the power to enact new ordinances altering the allocation. The legislature kept the field for itself, subject only to pre-2013 ordinances.

Common questions

Q: I pay $50 a month on a $1,000 district court judgment ($400 costs, $200 restitution, $400 fines). Where does my $50 go each month?
A: For the first 8 months, your payments go entirely to court costs (until the $400 is paid off). For the next 4 months, they go to restitution. After that, payments apply to fines.

Q: Can a victim get paid faster by asking the court to prioritize restitution?
A: In district court, no, because the statutory allocation is mandatory. The one carveout is if the judgment makes restitution due in a single immediate payment rather than via installments. In circuit court, the court has discretion to set the allocation differently.

Q: Does paying by credit card change anything?
A: The allocation itself is the same, but the credit card transaction fee may be deducted from your payment before the remainder is allocated.

Q: Can a city pass an ordinance to change how my court payments get applied?
A: Not for new ordinances. A pre-July 1, 2013, ordinance that altered the allocation could remain in effect, but cities and counties cannot adopt new alternative allocation rules.

Q: Why does the statute send district court payments to costs first instead of restitution?
A: That is a legislative policy choice. The AG didn't critique the choice; it just stated the law. The system arguably trades faster victim recovery for steadier funding of court operations.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-202(b) (Repl. 2013), fines payable immediately unless deferred
• Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205(e)(1) (Supp. 2015), restitution payable immediately
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) (Supp. 2015), district court partial payment allocation
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-209(5)(F)(iii), grandfather clause for pre-2013 local allocation ordinances
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b) (Supp. 2015), monthly installment fees
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-706(b) (Supp. 2015), credit/debit card transaction fees
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-118(d), (e) (Supp. 2015), transaction fees

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-036
July 15, 2016

The Honorable Ronald Caldwell
State Senator
120 CR 393
Wynne, AR 72396

Dear Senator Caldwell:

This is my opinion on your questions about the allocation of partial payments to court costs, restitution, and fines in district and circuit courts. You ask how payments are allocated among those three items; whether payment by one method or another changes the allocation; whether the court may change the allocation; and whether a city or county may change the allocation.

RESPONSE

In my opinion, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) (Supp. 2015), partial payments in district court are allocated to court costs, then to restitution, then to fines. But because no similar statute exists governing circuit courts, a circuit court has discretion to specify the allocation of payments to court costs, restitution, and fines.

The method of making a partial payment does not change the prevailing allocation, although certain payment methods may involve additional items to be deducted from the payment before the allocation is made. For example, installment fees (for those paying in installments) and transaction fees (for those paying by credit or debit card) may be deducted prior to allocating the payment among the statutory categories.

There appears to be one way a district court can comply with Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) but effect a practical alteration of the allocation order. Specifically, a district court may make one or more items payable immediately (for example, restitution) while permitting the other(s) to be paid in installments over time (for example, court costs). To the extent a district court permits the items to be paid in installments, the court has no express authority to alter the allocation set by statute.

Cities and counties may not change the allocation set by statute with respect to district court or by the court itself with respect to circuit court.

DISCUSSION

Question 1 - How are partial payments in district and circuit courts allocated among court costs, restitution, and fines?

Fines, court costs, and restitution are all payable immediately unless the court grants permission for payment within a specified time or in specified installments. Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) provides that, in district courts, partial payments are allocated to court costs until they have been paid in full, then to restitution until paid in full, then to fines.

No similar statute governs allocations in circuit court. In my opinion, a circuit court may specify in its discretion an allocation of payments with respect to a particular defendant. The court's order likely will indicate expressly or by implication in which order the obligations are to be satisfied. In the event a circuit court order does not specify or imply an allocation, the officials responsible for applying a payment would not, in my view, be acting unreasonably to follow the statutory district court allocation.

Question 2 - Does the method of payment change the allocation?

The making of a partial payment by some method other than cash does not, in my opinion, change the appropriate allocation among fines, court costs, and restitution. There may, however, be amounts in payment of other items to be deducted from a particular partial payment.

For example, when fines are payable by installments, two monthly installment fees of $5.00 each are assessed and presumably are deducted from the payment before the remainder is allocated among fines, court costs, and restitution.

Additionally, transaction fees may be imposed on offenders paying by credit or debit card. These fees are also presumably deducted from the payment before the remainder is allocated among fines, court costs, and restitution.

Question 3 - May a court alter the allocation?

In my opinion, there is one way a district court may, in essence, alter the allocation of installment payments. A district court may comply with the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-10-209(5)(F)(i) while, as a practical matter, altering the statutory allocation by ordering that one or more of court costs, restitution, and fines be paid immediately and the other(s) be paid in installments over time. For example, a district court could order restitution to be paid immediately, but court costs to be paid in installments over time.

However, this is the only way to effect an alteration of the statutory allocation requirements. Specifically, there appears to be no express provision of law permitting such alteration to the extent the court permits all categories to be paid in installments. The statute described above that sets forth the district court allocation implies that a district court may not change the specified allocation. Because there is no law specifying the allocation in circuit court, such courts have discretion to specify the allocation in each case. There is, in other words, no specified allocation to alter.

Question 4 - May a city or county change the allocation?

In my opinion, the answer to this question is "no." Current law provides that "[a] municipal or county governing body that adopted . . . legislation before July 1, 2013, to provide an alternative method of installment payment allocation as then authorized by state law shall remain in effect until repealed." This provision clearly implies that, while local governments previously were empowered to alter the allocation and that ordinances adopted under that power may continue in effect, local governments are no longer authorized to alter the allocation of installment payments.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General