Beaudry v. Beaudry

Michigan Court of Appeals

Beaudry v. Beaudry

174 N.W.2d 28, 20 Mich. App. 287, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 830

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1969

DocketDocket 6,225

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 174 N.W.2d 28 (Beaudry v. Beaudry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaudry v. Beaudry, 174 N.W.2d 28, 20 Mich. App. 287, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a denial of bis motion to; dismiss a complaint for divorce based on plaintiff’s inability to meet the jurisdictional requirement set forth in MCLA § 552.9 [Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 25.89]. The plaintiff took up residence in Oakland county on June 22, 1968; ten days later, on July 1, 1968, she filed her complaint.

Jurisdiction in circuit courts over divorce actions is entirely statutory. Hatch v. Hatch (1949), 323 Mich 581; Flynn v. Flynn (1962), 367 Mich 625. The statutory requirement regarding residence within the county in which the divorce suit is started is residence for ten days. The manner in which the ten-day period is to be computed is set forth both by statute (MCLA § 8.6 [Stat Ann-1969 Rev § 2.217]) and by court rule (GCR 1963, 108.6). The first day of the period is to be excluded, and the last day included.

Because the statutory jurisdiction was not established, the trial court was without jurisdiction and should have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. White v. White (1928), 242 Mich 555; Lehman v. Lehman (1945), 312 Mich 102; and Fox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (1965), 375 Mich 238.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a denial of bis motion to; dismiss a complaint for divorce based on plaintiff’s inability to meet the jurisdictional requirement set forth in MCLA § 552.9 [Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 25.89]. The plaintiff took up residence in Oakland county on June 22, 1968; ten days later, on July 1, 1968, she filed her complaint.

Jurisdiction in circuit courts over divorce actions is entirely statutory. Hatch v. Hatch (1949), 323 Mich 581; Flynn v. Flynn (1962), 367 Mich 625. The statutory requirement regarding residence within the county in which the divorce suit is started is residence for ten days. The manner in which the ten-day period is to be computed is set forth both by statute (MCLA § 8.6 [Stat Ann-1969 Rev § 2.217]) and by court rule (GCR 1963, 108.6). The first day of the period is to be excluded, and the last day included.

Because the statutory jurisdiction was not established, the trial court was without jurisdiction and should have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. White v. White (1928), 242 Mich 555; Lehman v. Lehman (1945), 312 Mich 102; and Fox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (1965), 375 Mich 238.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.W.2d 28, 20 Mich. App. 287, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaudry-v-beaudry-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack