Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
552.9f Divorce; taking of testimony; minor children; perpetuating testimony; nonresident defendant, residence of plaintiff.
Sec. 9f.
No proofs or testimony shall be taken in any case for divorce until the expiration of 60 days from the time of filing the bill of complaint, except where the cause for divorce is desertion, or when the testimony is taken conditionally for the purpose of perpetuating such testimony. In every case where there are dependent minor children under the age of 18 years, no proofs or testimony shall be taken in such cases for divorce until the expiration of 6 months from the day the bill of complaint is filed. In cases of unusual hardship or such compelling necessity as shall appeal to the conscience of the court, upon petition and proper showing, it may take testimony at any time after the expiration of 60 days from the time of filing the bill of complaint. Testimony may be taken conditionally at any time for the purpose of perpetuating such testimony. When the defendant in any case for divorce is not domiciled in this state at the time of commencing the suit or shall not have been domiciled herein at the time the cause for divorce arose, before any decree of divorce shall be granted the complainant must prove that the parties have actually lived and cohabited together as husband and wife within this state, or that the complainant has in good faith resided in this state for 1 year immediately preceding the filing of the bill of complaint for divorce.
History: Add. 1957, Act 257, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 227, Imd. Eff. May 26, 1958
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Divorce
Notes of Decisions
Barnes v. Jeudevine, 718 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 6× “MCL 552.9f sets forth certain procedural requirements in an action for divorce and provides, in pertinent part: No proofs or testimony shall be taken in any case for divorce until the expiration of 60 days from the time of filing the bill of complaint, except where the cause for…”
Calo v. Calo, 373 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff also alleged that the judgment was improper because it was entered in violation of the statutory prohibition against the taking of proofs or testimony within six months of the filing of the complaint for divorce where there exist dependent children under the age of 18.”
Pierson v. Pierson, 347 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Second, defendant claimed that plaintiff failed to comply with the six-month "waiting period” specified under MCL 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6). This motion was denied by the trial judge who reasoned that because plaintiff had been a resident of Michigan for 180 days at the time the…”
O'Neill v. O'Neill, 237 N.W.2d 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Since it appears uncontradicted in the record that defendant’s failure to appear and plead was caused by certain actions of the plaintiff and that a meritorious defense exists (also due to certain actions of the defendant), coupled with the fact that MCLA 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6)…”
Alexander v. Alexander, 303 N.W.2d 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “The parties stipulated to a waiver of the requirement of MCL 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6) that no proofs or testimony be taken until 60 days from the time of filing.”
Raj Kamal Govindarajulu v. Sangeetha Sundararajan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “-3- Plaintiff next argues that the trial court abused its discretion and failed to follow the procedures required in MCL 552.9f, when it did not address the 6-month waiting period and made no finding of undue hardship or compelling necessity to waive the period.”
Hood v. Hood, 397 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“The pertinent portion of MCL 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6) provides: In every case where there are dependent minor children under the age of 18 years, no proofs or testimony shall be taken in such cases for divorce until the expiration of 6 months from the day the bill of complaint is…”
Peltola v. Peltola, 263 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“MCLA 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6). Had such been the case, on the basis of the agreed statement of facts before us, the trial court would have been obliged to grant a judgment of divorce.”
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.