Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.28 (2026)

Judgment for alimony or allowance or for appointment of trustees; revision or alteration.

✓ 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

552.28 Judgment for alimony or allowance or for appointment of trustees; revision or alteration.

Sec. 28.

On petition of either party, after a judgment for alimony or other allowance for either party or a child, or after a judgment for the appointment of trustees to receive and hold property for the use of either party or a child, and subject to section 17, the court may revise and alter the judgment, respecting the amount or payment of the alimony or allowance, and also respecting the appropriation and payment of the principal and income of the property held in trust, and may make any judgment respecting any of the matters that the court might have made in the original action.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3249 ;-- CL 1871, 4760 ;-- How. 6248 ;-- CL 1897, 8641 ;-- CL 1915, 11417 ;-- CL 1929, 12748 ;-- CL 1948, 552.28 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 182, Imd. Eff. Aug. 3, 1970 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 290, Eff. Jan. 1, 1993

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Divorce

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 122 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Staple v. Staple, 616 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Staple v. Staple, 616 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 20× “This conflicts panel is asked to decide if parties who negotiate a divorce settlement may forgo this statutory right to petition the court to modify the alimony provisions and instead agree that the agreed-upon alimony provisions are final, binding, and nonmodifiable.”

Gates v. Gates, 664 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “§ 552.28 ... will always apply to any alimony arrangement adjudicated by the trial court when the parties are unable to reach their own agreement.”

Rickner v. Frederick, 590 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 16× “§ 552.28; MSA 25.106, which provides: [4] On petition of either party, after a judgment for alimony or other allowance for either party or a child, or after a judgment for the appointment of trustees to receive and hold property for the use of either party or a child, and…”

Richards v. Richards, 874 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “However, we vacate the spousal support provision to the extent that the trial court may have limited spousal support for a term of six *687 years in contravention of MCL 552.28. We also vacate the order to the extent it denied plaintiffs request for attorney fees because the…”

Rose v. Rose, 795 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Recognizing the need for flexibility in this realm, our Legislature enacted MCL 552.28, which grants circuit courts the authority to modify the spousal-support award contained in a divorce judgment.”

Loutts v. Loutts (After Remand), 871 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “The trial court acknowledged that MCL 552.28 authorizes the modification of alimony on a showing of changed circumstances, but noted that defendant’s reading of the rule was unreasonable because it would allow a party to “come back five, ten or even 20 years later to request a…”

Lemmen v. Lemmen, 749 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 7× “17(1) and MCL 552.28 fall within an exception to the rule of MCR 7.”

Woodington v. Shokoohi, 792 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “” 1 The trial court did not explain its reasons for awarding alimony in gross, its reasons for awarding the specific amount of alimony in gross, or its reasons for denying plaintiffs request for periodic spousal support subject to modification under MCL 552.28. Accordingly, we…”

Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “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.”

Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz, 912 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 2018). “In so holding, we made clear that another law need not grant jurisdiction specifically for judgments pending on appeal to qualify as an exception under MCR 7.208(A)(4). Rather, a statute satisfies MCR 7.”

Ackerman v. Ackerman, 414 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “This Court held in Hettiger v Hettiger, 37 Mich App 431, 432-433 ; 195 NW2d 10 (1971), lv den 386 Mich 789 (1972), that remarriage alone is not sufficient to support a cancellation of alimony, stating as follows: Although MCL 552.28; MSA 25.106 authorizes revision and alteration…”

Andrus v. Ajemian (In Re Ajemian), 338 B.R. 746 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, alimony in gross is considered nonmodifiable and exempt from modification under [ Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.28 ], though the recipient spouse dies or remarries before all the payments are made.”

Show all 122 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.28(1) — 1 case

John G Graham v. Vivian a Graham (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

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.