Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.10 (2026)

Repealed. 1971, Act 75, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

552.10 Repealed. 1971, Act 75, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972.

Repealed. 1971, Act 75, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972.

Compiler's Notes:

The repealed section pertained to collusion or misconduct of parties.

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Divorce

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1950–1972 · leading case: Formicola v. Formicola, 189 N.W.2d 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Formicola v. Formicola, 189 N.W.2d 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “MCLA § 552.10 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.90).”

Gundry v. Gundry, 136 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “CL 1948, § 552.10 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.90); Sovereign v.”

Alexander v. Alexander, 200 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “[2] Defendant on the other hand relies on the provisions of MCLA 552.10; MSA 25.90 [3] which provides in part as follows: "* * * And no divorce shall be decreed in any case where the party complaining shall be guilty of the same crime or misconduct charged against the respondent.”

Sovereign v. Sovereign, 79 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. 1956). “Being dissatisfied with the provisions of the decree relating to child custody and property settlement, defendant appealed.”

Fish v. Fish, 143 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “However, the circumstances unrolled by this record fit squarely within CL 1948, § 552.10 (Stat Ann 1957 Eev § 25.90) wherein it is stated, “And no divorce shall be decreed in any case where the party complaining shall be guilty of the same crime or misconduct charged against the…”

Riha v. Riha, 186 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Proofs were heard in the cause on May 14, 1969, and on August 8, 1969, an order was entered dismissing appellant’s complaint for divorce.”

Gaw v. Gaw, 41 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. 1950). “Trombley, 313 Mich 80 , in which this Court, while recognizing that the statute (CL 1948, § 552.10 [Stat Ann § 25.90]) prohibits granting of divorce to a party who is guilty of the same misconduct charged by him against his spouse, a.”

Nickel v. Nickel, 156 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “, guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty, at least in a substantial degree toward the other, and under Michigan’s present divorce laws, neither is entitled to a severance of the marriage bond.”

Prus v. Prus, 204 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “Defendant, in his brief on appeal, discusses the recrimination defense, MCLA 552.10; MSA 25.90. On the basis of the testimony at trial, though, *452 defendant is asserting, not that the trial court erred in granting a divorce at all in this case, but that the trial court erred…”

Fee v. Fee, 162 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “As regards the first claim of error, it is indeed the rule in Michigan that no divorce shall he decreed where the party complaining is guilty of the same misconduct charged against the defendant.”

Harter v. Harter, 75 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1956). ““The court is of the opinion that each of the parties provoked the discord in the home, that both are guilty of the same faults, and consequently the statute, CL 1948, § 552.10 (Stat Ann § 25.90), prohibits a decree of divorce to either.”

Juda v. Juda, 41 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. 1950). “CL 1948, § 552.10 (Stat Ann § 25.90); Cook v. Cook, 245 Mich 339 ; McGuire v.”

Show all 13 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.