Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101 (2026)

Judgment of divorce or separate maintenance; determining rights of wife or husband in and to policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity; discharge of liability on policy; determination of rights; assignment of rights.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

JUDGMENTS OF DIVORCE OR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE

Act 259 of 1909

552.101 Judgment of divorce or separate maintenance; determining rights of wife or husband in and to policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity; discharge of liability on policy; determination of rights; assignment of rights.

Sec. 1.

(1) Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the wife in and to the proceeds of any policy or contract of life insurance, endowment, or annuity upon the life of the husband in which the wife was named or designated as beneficiary, or to which the wife became entitled by assignment or change of beneficiary during the marriage or in anticipation of marriage. If the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance does not determine the rights of the wife in and to a policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity, the policy shall be payable to the estate of the husband or to the named beneficiary if the husband so designates. The company issuing the policy is discharged of all liability on the policy by payment of its proceeds in accordance with the terms of the policy unless before the payment the company receives written notice, by or on behalf of the insured or the estate of the insured, 1 of the heirs of the insured, or any other person having an interest in the policy, of a claim under the policy and the divorce.

(2) Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the husband in and to the proceeds of any policy or contract of life insurance, endowment, or annuity upon the life of the wife in which the husband was named or designated as beneficiary, or to which he became entitled by assignment or change of beneficiary during the marriage or in anticipation of marriage. If the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance does not determine the rights of the husband in and to the policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity, the policy shall be payable to the estate of the wife, or to the named beneficiary if the wife so designates. The company issuing the policy is discharged of all liability on the policy by payment of the proceeds in accordance with the terms of the policy unless before the payment the company receives written notice, by or on behalf of the insured or the estate of the insured, 1 of the heirs of the insured, or any other person having an interest in the policy, of a claim under the policy and the divorce.

(3) Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights, including any contingent rights, of the husband and wife in and to all of the following:

(a) Any vested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits.

(b) Any accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system.

(4) For any divorce or separate maintenance action filed on or after September 1, 2006, if a judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance provides for the assignment of any rights in and to any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits shall be included in the assignment unless the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes 1 or more components. Components include, but are not limited to, supplements, subsidies, early retirement benefits, postretirement benefit increases, surviving spouse benefits, and death benefits. This subsection applies regardless of the characterization of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefit as regular retirement, early retirement, disability retirement, death benefit, or any other characterization or classification, unless the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes a particular characterization or classification.

History: 1909, Act 259, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 11436 ;-- CL 1929, 12766 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 220, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 552.101 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 184, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1982 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 42, Imd. Eff. June 13, 1985 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 288, Imd. Eff. July 20, 2006 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 378, Eff. Mar. 22, 2017

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 70 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: in Re Lett Est., 887 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

in Re Lett Est., 887 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 17× “After denying Nancy’s motion for summary disposition, the probate court conducted a trial, ruled in favor of Craig’s petition, and entered an order on March 9, 2015, effectively voiding Nancy’s interest in the insurance proceeds “pursuant to MCL 552.101 and in light of the…”

Hudson v. Hudson, 885 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “a determination of the rights of the parties in pension, annuity, and retirement benefits, as required by MCL 552.101(4). MCL 552.101(4) states as follows: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights, including any contingent rights,…”

Estes v. Titus, 751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals interpreted this provision as giving authority to the divorce court to order the husband to name the couple’s children as the principal beneficiaries of his (continued…) 17 prohibition against third-party attacks on life insurance provisions in divorce…”

In Re Genaw Est., 776 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 28× “2d 124 (1986): The purpose of the 1939 amendment to MCL 552.101 . . . was to resolve the situation where a divorced wife could inadvertently receive the proceeds of a forgotten policy.”

Zaher v. Miotke, 832 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “See MCL 552.101(1) (requiring the court to include in a divorce judgment “a provision in lieu of the dower” to bar the wife’s future dower claims).”

MacInnes v. MacInnes, 677 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “To the extent that defendant contends that the provision in the divorce judgment is indirectly preempted because MCL 552.101(2) and (3) require that all divorce judgments contain a provision determining the rights of the divorcing spouse to the proceeds of any life insurance…”

Kilbride v. Kilbride, 432 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “] MCL 552.101(4); MSA 25.131(4) provides: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the husband and wife in and to all of the following: (a) Any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits.”

In Re Seitz Est., 397 N.W.2d 162 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 4× “See MCL 552.101; MSA 25.131. Further, the divorce judgment ordered that Leroy Seitz "shall designate his two children as beneficiaries of the total sum of $40,000.”

Metro. Life Ins. v. Flusty, 545 F. Supp. 2d 624 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 5× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101 (2). It does not require that the wife extinguish any rights she may have in such policies.”

In Re Est. of Lamparella, 109 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 552.101 -.102 (2004); Ohio Rev.”

Massuchusetts Indem. & Life Ins. v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Alternatively, Regina argues that Dorothy’s claim to the proceeds is invalid pursuant to MCL 552.101; MSA 25.131. We reverse. In 1986, when Willie and Dorothy were husband and wife, Dorothy purchased life insurance on herself, naming Willie as the primary beneficiary and their…”

Mixon v. Mixon, 602 N.W.2d 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “MCL 552.101(4); MSA 25.131(4) provides: [E]ach judgment of divorce .”

Show all 70 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(1) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(2) — 11 cases

in Re Lett Est., 887 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “After denying Nancy’s motion for summary disposition, the probate court conducted a trial, ruled in favor of Craig’s petition, and entered an order on March 9, 2015, effectively voiding Nancy’s interest in the insurance proceeds “pursuant to MCL 552.101 and in light of the…”

MacInnes v. MacInnes, 677 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “To the extent that defendant contends that the provision in the divorce judgment is indirectly preempted because MCL 552.101(2) and (3) require that all divorce judgments contain a provision determining the rights of the divorcing spouse to the proceeds of any life insurance…”

In Re Genaw Est., 776 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “2d 124 (1986): The purpose of the 1939 amendment to MCL 552.101 . . . was to resolve the situation where a divorced wife could inadvertently receive the proceeds of a forgotten policy.”

In Re Seitz Est., 397 N.W.2d 162 (Mich. 1986). “See MCL 552.101; MSA 25.131. Further, the divorce judgment ordered that Leroy Seitz "shall designate his two children as beneficiaries of the total sum of $40,000.”

Massuchusetts Indem. & Life Ins. v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Alternatively, Regina argues that Dorothy’s claim to the proceeds is invalid pursuant to MCL 552.101; MSA 25.131. We reverse. In 1986, when Willie and Dorothy were husband and wife, Dorothy purchased life insurance on herself, naming Willie as the primary beneficiary and their…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(3) — 5 cases

Karl Johnson v. Doris Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Tommie L Reed v. Deborah Reed (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

20230105_C358735_27_358735.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(3)(a) — 1 case

Curtis Noel Cotner v. Beth Janene Cotner (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(3)(b) — 1 case

Caroline R Stacy v. James a Stacy (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(4) — 12 cases

Kilbride v. Kilbride, 432 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “] MCL 552.101(4); MSA 25.131(4) provides: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the husband and wife in and to all of the following: (a) Any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits.”

Hudson v. Hudson, 885 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “a determination of the rights of the parties in pension, annuity, and retirement benefits, as required by MCL 552.101(4). MCL 552.101(4) states as follows: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights, including any contingent rights,…”

Mixon v. Mixon, 602 N.W.2d 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 552.101(4); MSA 25.131(4) provides: [E]ach judgment of divorce .”

Kurz v. Kurz, 443 N.W.2d 782 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

Neville v. Neville, 295 Mich. App. 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(4)(a) — 1 case

In Re Combs, 435 B.R. 467 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(5) — 4 cases

Kenneth Gray v. Jacqueline Gray (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

in Re Harkema Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Kurt J Hein v. Terri Jo Hein (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.101(c) — 1 case

Metro. Life Ins. v. Gibbs, 89 F. Supp. 2d 877 (E.D. Mich. 2000).

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.