Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
552.9 Judgment of divorce; residency requirement; exception.
Sec. 9.
(1) A judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in this state for 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint and, except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), the complainant or defendant has resided in the county in which the complaint is filed for 10 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
(2) A person may file a complaint for divorce in any county in the state without meeting the 10-day requirement set forth in subsection (1) if all of the following apply and are set forth in the complaint:
(a) The defendant was born in, or is a citizen of, a country other than the United States of America.
(b) The parties to the divorce action have a minor child or children.
(c) There is information that would allow the court to reasonably conclude that the minor child or children are at risk of being taken out of the United States of America and retained in another country by the defendant.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3230 ;-- CL 1871, 4741 ;-- How. 6231 ;-- Am. 1887, Act 137, Eff. Sept. 28, 1887 ;-- Am. 1895, Act 202, Eff. Aug. 30, 1895 ;-- Am. 1897, Act 116, Eff. Aug. 30, 1897 ;-- CL 1897, 8624 ;-- Am. 1899, Act 210, Eff. Sept. 23, 1899 ;-- CL 1915, 11400 ;-- CL 1929, 12731 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 139, Imd. Eff. May 21, 1931 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 2, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 323, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 552.9 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 174, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 95, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 257, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 227, Imd. Eff. May 26, 1958 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 174, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 344, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1974 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 217, Imd. Eff. Nov. 27, 1989
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Divorce
Notes of Decisions
Stamadianos v. Stamadianos, 385 N.W.2d 604 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 36× “This matter is before this Court to *3 decide a question certified by the Court of Appeals [1] as to whether the panel in the instant case erred in holding that the ten-day county residency rule set forth in MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89 is a venue provision rather than a jurisdictional…”
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “i Defendant first argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that plaintiff satisfied the 10-day jurisdictional residency requirement of MCL 552.9(1). 1 We disagree. A claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Kar v. Nanda, 805 N.W.2d 609 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 19× “MCL 552.9 does not define the word “resided.”
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “714(1) is analogous to MCL 552.9(1), which is jurisdictional with respect to an action for divorce.”
Stamadianos v. Stamadianos, 350 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 26× “Various responsive pleadings were filed, following which plaintiff eventually filed an affidavit admitting that she had failed to comply with the ten-day residency rule set forth *433 in MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89. While plaintiff had resided in Livingston County ten days prior to…”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi, 918 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Defendant, who remained in India, challenged the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiff failed to meet the statutory residency requirements, MCL 552.9(1), before bringing this divorce action in Michigan.”
Altman v. Nelson, 495 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, this Court concluded that jurisdiction was the dispositive issue, but that MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89 is a venue rather than a jurisdictional provision.”
Smith v. Smith, 555 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89. This hearing will necessarily include an inquiry into whether plaintiff intended to reside in Kent County at that time.”
Abadi v. Abadi, 259 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 552.9; MSA 25.89. Michigan statute provides that a judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in the county in which the complaint is filed for 10 days immediately preceding the…”
Leader v. Leader, 251 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Defendant then filed his motion to dismiss approximately one month later, maintaining that plaintiff failed to meet the 180-day jurisdictional residency requirement of MCLA 552.9; MSA 25.89. This Court initially denied defendant leave to appeal, but, following defendant’s…”
In re Nettles-Nickerson, 750 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. 2008).
“*338 See MCL 552.9. This factor weighs heavily in favor of the imposition of a more severe sanction.”
Calo v. Calo, 373 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Alexander v Alexander, 103 Mich App 263, 266 ; 303 NW2d 202 (1981); MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89. Consequently, the judgment was not void ab initio.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.9(1) — 12 cases
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“i Defendant first argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that plaintiff satisfied the 10-day jurisdictional residency requirement of MCL 552.9(1). 1 We disagree. A claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Kar v. Nanda, 805 N.W.2d 609 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“MCL 552.9 does not define the word “resided.”
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“714(1) is analogous to MCL 552.9(1), which is jurisdictional with respect to an action for divorce.”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi, 918 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant, who remained in India, challenged the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiff failed to meet the statutory residency requirements, MCL 552.9(1), before bringing this divorce action in Michigan.”
Smith v. Smith, 555 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89. This hearing will necessarily include an inquiry into whether plaintiff intended to reside in Kent County at that time.”
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.