Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2901 (2026)

Actions abolished; alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2901 Actions abolished; alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry.

Sec. 2901.

    The following causes of action are abolished:

    (1) alienation of the affections of any person, animal, or thing capable of feeling affection, whatsoever;

    (2) criminal conversation;

    (3) seduction of any person of the age of 18 years or more;

    (4) breach of contract to marry.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “40 MCL 600.2901 et seq. 13 miscellaneous tort actions including malpractice,41 defamation,42 and damage or waste to land.”
Teadt v. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 603 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “We first address defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty essentially alleges the amatory tort of seduction, which has been abolished in Michigan by statute, MCL 600.2901(3); MSA 27A.2901(3). This Court defined the tort of seduction in Cotton v…”
Roberts v. Salmi, 866 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Salmi also argues that Lale and Joan Roberts’ claim is essentially a claim for alienation of affection, which has been abolished under MCL 600.2901. As this Court has recognized, MCL 600.”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 5-301(a) (1980); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (1968); Minn.”
People v. Young, 340 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “See 1935 PA 127 , now MCL 600.2901; MSA 27A.2901 (prohibition of actions for alienation of affection); 1915 PA 314 , now MCL 600.”
Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 1972 PA 294 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 2× “301, now MCLA 600.2901; MSA 27A.2901; abolition of the defense of governmental function resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, 1945 PA 127 ; 1948 CL 691.”
Gilbert v. Barkes, 987 S.W.2d 772 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 2× “207, § 47A (West 1987)); Michigan (Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (West 1998)); Minnesota (Minn.”
Russo v. Sutton, 422 S.E.2d 750 (S.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “207, § 47B (1987); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (1986); Minn.”
Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 2007). “207, § 47B (1985); Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (1961); Minnesota, Minn.”
Berger v. Weber, 303 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 1981). “Another objection to the child’s cause of action raised by defendants-appellants is that it would be anomalous to allow a child to recover for negligent invasion of his family interest when he is specifically prohibited from recovery for intentional, direct invasion of his…”
Charles Ronald Brent v. Vennit B. Mathis, II, 154 So. 3d 842 (Miss. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (1961) and Minn.”
Robin Lepard v. Nbd Bank, a Div. of Bank One Walter O. Koch Jeremy H. Lepard & Patricia C. Lepard, 384 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 2004). “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2901 (“The following causes of action are abolished: (1) alienation of the affections of any person, animal, or thing capable of feeling affection, whatsoever[.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2901(1) — 2 cases
Berger v. Weber, 303 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 1981). “Another objection to the child’s cause of action raised by defendants-appellants is that it would be anomalous to allow a child to recover for negligent invasion of his family interest when he is specifically prohibited from recovery for intentional, direct invasion of his…”
Cholewa v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2901(3) — 1 case
Teadt v. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 603 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “We first address defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty essentially alleges the amatory tort of seduction, which has been abolished in Michigan by statute, MCL 600.2901(3); MSA 27A.2901(3). This Court defined the tort of seduction in Cotton v…”
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.