Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.171 (2026)

Nullification of support orders; crediting amounts paid.

✓ 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


780.171 Nullification of support orders; crediting amounts paid.

Sec. 21.

    A support order made by a court of this state pursuant to this act does not nullify and is not nullified by a support order made by a court of this state pursuant to any other law or by a support order made by a court of any other state pursuant to a substantially similar act or any other law, regardless of priority of issuance, unless otherwise specifically provided by the court. Amounts paid for a particular period pursuant to any support order made by the court of another state shall be credited against the amounts accruing or accrued for the same period under any support order made by the court of this state.

History: Add. 1953, Act 202, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 147, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 172, Eff. Mar. 1, 1986

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: Miskimon v. Miskimon, 433 N.W.2d 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Miskimon v. Miskimon, 433 N.W.2d 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Under MCL 780.171; MSA 25.225(21), these payments were also credited against the 1980 Michigan judgment of support.”
Babcock v. Martinez, 857 N.E.2d 911 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “2d at 930 , quoting Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §780.171 (West 1982).”
In re Marriage of Gifford, 521 N.E.2d 929 (Ill. 1988). “That is, the antisupersession clause only prevents the responding court from entering a support order which modifies or supersedes the vested arrearage as determined by the original order of support.”
STATE, DHRS v. Franklin, 630 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “The applicable Michigan URESA statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.171 (21) (West 1990), is identical except the title to that section of the Michigan law is "Support orders made pursuant to other laws.”
McMath v. McMath, 436 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “In order to determine the effect of the Tennessee order, we must look to the antinullification provision of ruresa, MCL 780.171; MSA 25.225(21). This *584 provision was substantially changed by the 1985 amendments.”
Kass v. Cleveland Metro. Gen. Hosp., 583 N.E.2d 1012 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “Mich.Comp.Laws 780.171 and 780.182(2) provide: "Sec.”
Babcock v. Martinez (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “2d at 930 , quoting Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §780.171 (West 1982).”
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.