Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 552 / R.S. of 1846

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.1

Invalidity of marriages; legitimacy of issue.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


552.1 Invalidity of marriages; legitimacy of issue.

Sec. 1.

    If solemnized within this state, a marriage that is prohibited by law because of consanguinity or affinity between the parties, because either party had a wife or husband living at the time of solemnization, or because either party was not capable in law of contracting at the time of solemnization is absolutely void. The issue of such a marriage are legitimate.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3222 ;-- CL 1871, 4733 ;-- How. 6223 ;-- Am. 1883, Act 24, Imd. Eff. Apr. 11, 1883 ;-- CL 1897, 8616 ;-- CL 1915, 11392 ;-- CL 1929, 12723 ;-- CL 1948, 552.1 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 229, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 107, Eff. Sept. 30, 2001

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Divorce
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2023 · leading case: In Re KH
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re KH (2004) mich · cites it 2× “2114(1)(a) ("If a child is born or conceived during a marriage, both spouses are presumed to be the natural parents of the child for the purposes of intestate succession.”
Korth v. Korth (2003) michctapp · cites it 2× “Real-Property Distribution Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in dividing the real property owned by defendant before the marriage, and by failing to take into account defendant's contribution when dividing this property.”
Rodenhiser v. Duenas (2012) michctapp · cites it 5× “1 provides in relevant part: If solemnized within this state, a marriage that is prohibited by law because of consanguinity or affinity between the parties, because either party had a wife or husband living at the time of solemnization, or because either party was not capable in…”
Reeves v. Reeves (1998) michctapp · cites it 2× “Defendant claims that the trial court erred in considering the entire equity value of the condominium and the $100,000 appreciation of the Standish Plaza as part of the marital estate.”
Cunningham v. Cunningham (2010) michctapp “MCL 552.1 et seq.; see Charlton, 397 Mich at 92 .”
Vittiglio v. Vittiglio (2012) michctapp “Plaintiff sought an award of permanent spousal support in her complaint for divorce, spousal support was identified as a disputed issue in the scheduling order that referred the case to mediation, and spousal support was addressed and decided in the recording of the parties’…”
Miller v. Miller (1978) michctapp · cites it 2× “The plaintiff-husband's right in the fund is fully vested and cannot be subjected to divestment or forfeiture, except as herein noted for breach of the public trust.”
Smith v. Smith (1989) mich · cites it 2× “" [9] There can be no dispute that žž 15 through 17a of Michigan's divorce laws, MCL 552.1 et seq. ; MSA 25.81 et seq., address the issue of child custody and support pursuant to a divorce action.”
Hutchins v. Hutchins (1976) michctapp · cites it 2× “See MCLA 552.1 et seq.; MSA 25.81 et seq. Therefore, it must be included as an asset in the distribution of property.”
May v. Leneair (1980) michctapp · cites it 2× “[7] MCL 552.1; MSA 25.81. [8] MCL 552.3; MSA 25.”
Chisnell v. Chisnell (1978) michctapp “The plaintiff-husband’s right in the fund is fully vested and cannot be subjected to divestment or forfeiture, except as herein noted for breach of the public trust.”
In re Burnett Estate (2013) michctapp “See MCL 552.1, 552.2, 552.3, 552.35, and Rodenhiser v Duenas, 296 Mich App 268, 279-281 ; 818 NW2d 465 (2012).”
Show all 28 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.