Michigan House Bill HB4612

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Family law: marriage and divorce; certain references in provision for name change upon solemnization; make gender neutral. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1905 PA 299 (MCL 552.391). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

HB4612 amends a 1905 Michigan law governing name changes after divorce to make the statute gender-neutral. The bill changes the title from referring to “divorced women” to “individuals” and revises the operative language so that, when a divorce judgment is entered, the circuit court may restore a party’s birth name or prior legal surname, or allow the party to adopt another surname, so long as the request is not made with fraudulent or evil intent. The bill preserves the existing divorce-court process for name restoration while broadening its application to any party to the divorce, regardless of gender or whether they were the complainant or defendant. It also includes a tie-bar provision, meaning it would not take effect unless a related constitutional amendment or joint resolution becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. In practical terms, the bill would update state family-law terminology and make the name-change provision more inclusive without creating a new standalone name-change procedure.

Impact

HB4612 would amend MCL 552.391, the statute that authorizes circuit courts to restore a divorced person’s former name or approve another surname at the time of divorce. The main legal effect is to replace gender-specific references with gender-neutral language, expanding the statute’s text from divorced women to all individuals or parties in a divorce action. It would affect circuit courts, divorce litigants, and the administration of divorce judgments, but it does not appear to alter the underlying standard that the requested name change must not be fraudulent or made with evil intent.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is largely noncontroversial and technical in nature, focused on modernizing outdated gendered language in an existing family-law statute. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or debate in the record supplied. The tie-bar to a related constitutional change indicates the bill is part of a broader package, but the bill itself appears to have been framed as a straightforward update.

Contention

The only notable point of contention apparent from the text is the bill’s dependency on a related constitutional amendment or joint resolution before it can take effect. That tie-bar suggests lawmakers wanted the statutory change to align with a broader constitutional or procedural reform. Otherwise, the substantive issue is limited: the bill removes gender-specific wording and extends the divorce-name-change provision to any party, which is likely to be supported by those favoring gender-neutral drafting and potentially scrutinized only insofar as it is linked to the companion resolution.