Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
552.7 Action for separate maintenance; filing; grounds; answer; effect of admission; counterclaim for divorce; judgment.
Sec. 7.
(1) An action for separate maintenance may be filed in the circuit court in the same manner and on the same grounds as an action for divorce. In the complaint the plaintiff shall make no other explanation of the grounds for separate maintenance than by use of the statutory language.
(2) The defendant, by answer, may either admit the grounds for separate maintenance alleged or deny them without further explanation. An admission by the defendant of the grounds for separate maintenance may be considered by the court but is not binding on the court's determination. The defendant may also file a counterclaim for divorce.
(3) If the defendant files a counterclaim for divorce, the allegation contained in the plaintiff's complaint as to the grounds for separate maintenance may be considered by the court but is not binding on the court's determination.
(4) If evidence is presented in open court that there has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved, the court shall enter:
(a) A judgment of separate maintenance if a counterclaim for divorce has not been filed.
(b) A judgment dissolving the bonds of matrimony if a counterclaim for divorce has been filed.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- Am. 1847, Act 105, Eff. May 16, 1847 ;-- Am. 1848, Act 150, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1848 ;-- CL 1857, 3228 ;-- CL 1871, 4739 ;-- How. 6229 ;-- CL 1897, 8622 ;-- CL 1915, 11398 ;-- CL 1929, 12729 ;-- CL 1948, 552.7 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 75, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 4 of Ch. 2, Title VII of R.S. 1838, and Act 60 of 1844.
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Divorce
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case:
Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010).
Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 8× “6 (divorce) and MCL 552.7 (separate maintenance). 35 See, e.”
King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× ““Neglected,” on the other hand, means to fail to give the proper attention to something, or otherwise to leave it undone; “refused” simply means to decline to do something.”
Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner), 590 B.R. 362 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.13 (1). The separation action is also known as an "action for separate maintenance.”
Borowsky v. Borowsky, 733 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“1 See MCL 552.7. 2 The primary property issue concerned the division of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“2162 (the right to not testify against a spouse); MCL 552.7 (authorizing actions for separate maintenance).”
Charlton v. Charlton, 243 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “98 was repealed which gave special rights to the wife.”
Rex v. Rex, 49 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. 1951).
· cites it 2× “She filed a cross bill for divorce from bed and board, under CL 1915, § 11398 (CL 1948, § 552.7 [Stat Ann § 25.87]), and was granted a decree accordingly, with an allowance for support.”
Engemann v. Engemann, 219 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Is a divorce from bed and board issued under MCLA 552.7; MSA 25.87, in one county a bar to a subsequent absolute divorce issued under the "no-fault” statute, 1971 PA 75 , MCLA 552.”
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 184 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff husband, Clifford Metcalf, sued for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, MCLA § 552.7 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.87).”
Kresnak v. Kresnak, 476 N.W.2d 650 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“MCL 552.7; MSA 25.87. Although a judgment for separate maintenance bears many similarities to a judgment of divorce, such a judgment does not terminate the marital relationship.”
Kretzschmar v. Kretzschmar, 210 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
“Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking separate maintenance under 1971 PA 75 ; MCLA 552.7; MSA 25.87. Dr. Kretzschmar, plaintiff, testified that marital difficulties commenced in 1957 when he, along with his sister, converted an inherited private hospital into a nursing home and…”
Champion v. Champion, 117 N.W.2d 107 (Mich. 1962).
“Lazerow, 362 Mich 27 , one who charges nonsupport has the burden ■of establishing that the defendant has “grossly or wantonly and cruelly refused or neglected” to furnish support as required by CL 1948, § 552.7 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.87). See, also, Hadley v.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.7(1) — 9 cases
Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010).
“6 (divorce) and MCL 552.7 (separate maintenance). 35 See, e.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.7(2) — 1 case
Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010).
“6 (divorce) and MCL 552.7 (separate maintenance). 35 See, e.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.7(4) — 4 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.7(4)(b) — 1 case
Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010).
“6 (divorce) and MCL 552.7 (separate maintenance). 35 See, e.”
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.