RIGHTS AND LIABILITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
Act 216 of 1981
557.24 Contract by married woman; liability of husband for breach of contract.
Sec. 4.
(1) A married woman may enter into a contract with respect to her separate property as described in section 1. She may bring an action to enforce the contract, recover damages for breach of the contract, or seek other remedy with respect to the contract as provided by law. The married woman shall be personally liable upon the contract and a judgment entered against the woman may be satisfied out of the separate property as described in section 1.
(2) The husband of a married woman shall not be liable for breach of a contract which was entered into by the married woman and which relates to the separate property of the married woman as provided in subsection (1) unless the husband acted as a surety, co-signor, or guarantor on the contract.
History: 1981, Act 216, Eff. Mar. 31, 1982
Notes of Decisions
North Ottawa Cmty. Hosp. v. Kieft, 578 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 3× “As explained above, for historical reasons, there was greater need to legislate the economic equality of women, and, therefore, the absence of corresponding provisions (other than the provision protecting the property of married men, MCL 557.24[2]; MSA 26.165[4][2]) regarding…”
Farmington Educ. Ass'n v. Farmington Sch. Dist., 351 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“*578 Plaintiffs also contend that the no double coverage provision contravenes the public policy of this state as expressed in the married women’s property act, MCL 557.24; MSA 26.165(4), and §§ 3436, 3438, and 3440 of the Insurance Code of 1956, MCL 500.”
Virginia M Cappaert v. David S Cappaert (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“It has no applicability to a trial court’s determination and distribution of marital debt for purposes of dividing property upon divorce.”
Virginia M Cappaert v. David S Cappaert (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“It has no applicability to a trial court’s determination and distribution of marital debt for purposes of dividing property upon divorce.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.24(1) — 2 cases
Virginia M Cappaert v. David S Cappaert (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“It has no applicability to a trial court’s determination and distribution of marital debt for purposes of dividing property upon divorce.”
Virginia M Cappaert v. David S Cappaert (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“It has no applicability to a trial court’s determination and distribution of marital debt for purposes of dividing property upon divorce.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.24(2) — 1 case
North Ottawa Cmty. Hosp. v. Kieft, 578 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 1998).
“As explained above, for historical reasons, there was greater need to legislate the economic equality of women, and, therefore, the absence of corresponding provisions (other than the provision protecting the property of married men, MCL 557.24[2]; MSA 26.165[4][2]) regarding…”
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.