Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.159 (2026)

Reimbursement of state or political subdivision.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ACT

Act 8 of 1952

780.159 Reimbursement of state or political subdivision.

Sec. 9.

If a state or a political subdivision furnishes support to an individual obligee, it has the same right to initiate a proceeding under this act as the individual obligee for the purpose of securing reimbursement for support furnished and of obtaining continuing support.

History: 1952, Act 8, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 202, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 172, Eff. Mar. 1, 1986

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1978–1981 · leading case: Brown v. Turnbloom, 280 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown v. Turnbloom, 280 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “MCL 780.159; MSA 25.225(9). Thus, the real party in interest on the side of the plaintiff is the State of Ohio.”

San Joaquin Cty. Cal. v. Dewey, 306 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “” MCL 780.159; MSA 25.225(9). Once a court in a responding state finds a "duty of support”, it has discretion to order the respondent to make such payments.”

Robinson v. Harris, 273 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 780.159; MSA 25.225(9). Thus, the real party in interest on the side of the plaintiff is the State of Ohio.”

State of Maine v. Horton, 297 N.W.2d 622 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “The circuit court action was initiated by plaintiff under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), pursuant to MCL 780.159; MSA 25.225(9). By affidavit of Anna Horton, the plaintiff established that Mrs.”

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.