Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.162 (2026)

Certification of petition; sending forms package and copy of act to interstate central registry; certification requirements.

✓ 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

780.162 Certification of petition; sending forms package and copy of act to interstate central registry; certification requirements.

Sec. 12.

If the initiating court finds that the petition sets forth facts from which it may be determined that the obligor owes a duty of support and that a court of the responding state may obtain jurisdiction of the obligor or the obligor's property, the initiating court shall so certify and cause a completed forms package as required by federal regulation and 1 copy of this act, to be sent to the responding state's interstate central registry. Certification shall be in accordance with the requirements of the initiating state.

History: 1952, Act 8, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 202, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 191, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 172, Eff. Mar. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 241, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 1990

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1978–1980 · leading case: Fitzwater v. Fitzwater, 294 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fitzwater v. Fitzwater, 294 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 780.162; MSA 25.225(12). This has the effect of requesting the responding state "to obtain jurisdiction of the respondent.”

Martin v. Coffey, 268 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “" Among the duties of the initiating state, set forth in MCL 780.162; MSA 25.225(12) is the following: "If the court of this state, acting as an initiating state, finds that the petition sets forth facts from which it may be determined that the respondent owes a duty of support…”

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.