Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.12 (2026)

Suit; conduct, power of court.

✓ 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

552.12 Suit; conduct, power of court.

Sec. 12.

Suits to annul or affirm a marriage, or for a divorce, shall be conducted in the same manner as other suits in courts of equity; and the court shall have the power to award issues, to decree costs, and to enforce its decrees, as in other cases.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3233 ;-- CL 1871, 4744 ;-- How. 6234 ;-- CL 1897, 8627 ;-- CL 1915, 11403 ;-- CL 1929, 12734 ;-- CL 1948, 552.12

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Divorce

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Sparks v. Sparks, 485 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sparks v. Sparks, 485 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “[10] MCL 552.12; MSA 25.92 provides: Suits to annul or affirm a marriage, or for a divorce, shall be conducted in the same manner as other suits in courts of equity; and the court shall have the power to award issues, to decree costs, and to enforce its decrees, as in other…”

Beason v. Beason, 460 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 2× “[2] MCL 552.12; MSA 25.92 provides: Suits to annul or affirm a marriage, or for a divorce, shall be conducted in the same manner as other suits in courts of equity; and the court shall have the power to award issues, to decree costs, and to enforce its decrees, as in other cases.”

Reed Est. v. Reed, 810 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 552.12. 28 Wiand v Wiand, 178 Mich App 137, 144 ; 443 NW2d 464 (1989), quoting Schaeffer v Schaeffer, 106 Mich App 452, 457 ; 308 NW2d 226 (1981).”

Draggoo v. Draggoo, 566 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “” To allow a defaulted party to flout the court’s authority but still have an opportunity to contest the property division would thus negate the effectiveness of the court rule as a deterrent in a divorce action.”

Kilbride v. Kilbride, 432 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Defendant first claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay $3,000 of plaintiffs attorney fees.”

Rodenhiser v. Duenas, 818 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “At the close of their proofs, defendant made a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action, which the trial court granted.”

Hansmann v. Fid. Investments Institutional Servs. Co., 326 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2003). “” See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.12 (stating in relevant part “[sjuits to annul or affirm marriage, or for a divorce, shall be conducted in the same manner as other suits in courts of equity”).”

Lynch v. Lynch, 338 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Plaintiff argues that defendant’s claims should have been resolved under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.”

Earl H Allard Jr v. Christine a Allard (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “401 provides, The circuit court of this state may include in any decree of divorce or of separate maintenance entered in the circuit court appropriate provisions awarding to a party all or a portion of the property, either real or personal, owned by his or her spouse, as appears…”

Rebecca a Ruthko v. Marvin J Morris (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “To the extent Morris contends that the trial court was without authority to award Ruthko attorney fees, the trial court’s award was specifically authorized by MCR 3.”

Janet Lashar Eppel v. Christopher James Eppel (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Plaintiff also accurately notes that under MCL 552.12, “In every action brought . . .”

Show all 18 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.