Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.161 (2026)

Petition; verification; contents; filing; accepting or forwarding petition.

✓ 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


780.161 Petition; verification; contents; filing; accepting or forwarding petition.

Sec. 11.

    (1) The petition shall be verified and shall state the name and, so far as known to the obligee, the address and circumstances of the obligor and the persons for whom support is sought and all other pertinent information. The obligee may include in or attach to the petition any information which may help in locating or identifying the obligor, including a photograph of the obligor, a description of any distinguishing marks on the obligor's person, other names and aliases by which the obligor has been or is known, the name of the obligor's employer, the obligor's fingerprints, or the obligor's social security number.

    (2) The petition may be filed in the appropriate court of any state in which the obligee resides. The court shall not decline or refuse to accept the petition, or if necessary, forward the petition pursuant to section 13a, on the ground that it should be filed with some other court of this or any other state because there is pending another action for divorce, separation, annulment, dissolution, habeas corpus, adoption, or custody between the same parties or because another court has already issued a support order in some other proceeding and has retained jurisdiction for its enforcement.

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 1 case, 1978–1978 · leading case: Martin v. Coffey, 268 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Martin v. Coffey, 268 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “) MCL 780.161; MSA 25.225(11). We believe that the petition in this case was properly quashed because it failed to set out "other pertinent information".”
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.