Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
552.23 Judgment of divorce or separate maintenance; further award of real and personal estate; transmittal of payments to department of human services; service fee; failure or refusal to pay service fee; contempt; “state disbursement unit” or “SDU” defined.
Sec. 23.
(1) Upon entry of a judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage who are committed to the care and custody of either party, the court may also award to either party the part of the real and personal estate of either party and spousal support out of the real and personal estate, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as the court considers just and reasonable, after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case.
(2) Upon certification by a county department of human services that a complainant or petitioner in a proceeding under this chapter is receiving public assistance either personally or for children of the marriage, payments received by the friend of the court or the state disbursement unit for the support and education of the children or maintenance of the party shall be transmitted to the department of human services.
(3) If the court appoints the friend of the court custodian, receiver, trustee, or escrow agent of assets owned by a husband and wife, or either of them, the court may fix the amount of the fee for such service, to be turned over to the county treasurer and credited to the general fund of the county. The court may hold in contempt a person who fails or refuses to pay a fee ordered under this subsection.
(4) As used in this section and section 24, "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" means the entity established in section 6 of the office of child support act, 1971 PA 174, MCL 400.236.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3244 ;-- CL 1871, 4755 ;-- Am. 1877, Act 91, Eff. Aug. 21, 1877 ;-- How. 6245 ;-- CL 1897, 8638 ;-- CL 1915, 11414 ;-- CL 1929, 12745 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 133, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 552.23 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 81, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 11, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 73, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 182, Imd. Eff. Aug. 3, 1970 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 175, Imd. Eff. Dec. 2, 1971 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 193, Imd. Eff. Nov. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 159, Imd. Eff. Nov. 3, 1999 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 234, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2010
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Divorce
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
196
cases (
48 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case:
Reeves v. Reeves, 575 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
Reeves v. Reeves, 575 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “§§ 552.23 and 552.401; M.S.A. §§ 25.103 and 25.”
Charlton v. Charlton, 243 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 12× “[4] MCLA 552.23; MSA 25.103 states: "Upon every divorce from the bond of matrimony and also upon every divorce from bed and board if the estate and effects awarded to either party shall be *93 insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and such…”
Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “This Court disagreed and determined that MCL 552.23 4 and MCL 552.28 require courts to consider “all the circumstances of the case” “and empower courts to award [spousal support] out of the property of the former spouse when circumstances warrant it.”
Korth v. Korth, 662 N.W.2d 111 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “23 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Upon entry of a judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage as are committed to the…”
Myland v. Myland, 804 N.W.2d 124 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “We hold that MCL 552.23 prohibits the use of rigid and arbitrary formulas that fail to account for the parties’ unique circumstances and relative positions and reaffirm the mandate that a trial court awarding spousal support must consider the relevant factors.”
Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner), 590 B.R. 362 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018).
· cites it 4× “, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.7 . Where the action is for a "separation," rather than for a divorce, the court may award a "judgment of .”
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 4× “MCL 552.23(1) provides that in divorce and actions for separate maintenance, the court may also award spousal support “after considering the ability of either party to pay .”
Beard v. Comm'r, 77 T.C. 1275 (Tax Ct. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Upon the annulment of a marriage, a divorce from the bonds of matrimony or a judgment of separate maintenance, the court may make a further judgment for restoring to either party the whole, or such parts as it shall deem just and reasonable, of the real and personal estate that…”
Reed v. Reed, 693 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 552.23(1), permits the trial court to invade a spouse's separate property when, after the division of the marital assets, "the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party.”
Allard v. Allard, 867 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “B Because we conclude that the parties’ antenuptial agreement was enforceable, we turn our attention to defendant’s other arguments.”
Stoudemire v. Stoudemire, 639 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “d to defendant was her sole and separate property, and the joint and separate property was part of the marital estate, (3) the parties were to proceed to trial on the division of joint prop: erty, including the marital home, its contents, and a Chrysler pension plan, and (4) the…”
Allard v. Allard, 878 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 6× “] Despite the antenuptial agreement, the defendant sought to invade the plaintiffs separate estate pursuant to MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401. The Court of Appeals held that MCL 552.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.23(1) — 115 cases
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
“MCL 552.23(1) provides that in divorce and actions for separate maintenance, the court may also award spousal support “after considering the ability of either party to pay .”
Reed v. Reed, 693 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 552.23(1), permits the trial court to invade a spouse's separate property when, after the division of the marital assets, "the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party.”
Allard v. Allard, 867 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“B Because we conclude that the parties’ antenuptial agreement was enforceable, we turn our attention to defendant’s other arguments.”
Allard v. Allard, 878 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. 2016).
“] Despite the antenuptial agreement, the defendant sought to invade the plaintiffs separate estate pursuant to MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401. The Court of Appeals held that MCL 552.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.23(2) — 2 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.