Gregg wrote:Does Pete own a home or any assets that can be taken?
I haven't tried to search public records (I'll leave the heavy lifting to Demo), but I expect that the answer is yes, and that Pete and Doreen own a home and other assets.
According to Hendrickson, there's never been an assessment of tax, in which case there are no tax liens, but the civil judgment acts as a lien against any real estate that they own, and the criminal fines and restitution imposed against Hendrickson should also be a lien against property that he owns, but should not be a lien against property in joint names.
I make that distinction because Michigan recognizes that real property owned by a husband and wife is held as a "tenancy by the entireties" and is subject to claims of creditors on joint debts, but is not subject to the claims of the creditors of an individual debt of one spouse. This rule would not apply to tax liens (see United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002) (Michigan law does not prevent attachment of federal tax lien to one taxpayer's interest in property held with spouse as tenants by entireties)), but should still apply to judgment liens. The civil action was against both Pete and Doreen on jointly filed returns, and so the judgment is a joint obligation and should be a lien on their home. The criminal fines and restitution were against Pete alone, and should not attach to jointly owned property.
Judgments do not affect ownership of banks accounts and other "personal property" until there has been an actual garnishment or attachment. Pennsylvania applies the rules of tenancy by the entireties to personal property as well as real property, but I don't know if Michigan goes that far.