Family law: marriage and divorce; certain references in Chapter 84 of divorce; make gender neutral. Amends secs. 9f, 23, 27, 36 & 37 of 1846 RS 84 (MCL 552.9f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25
House Bill 4629 updates Michigan’s divorce and annulment statutes to use gender-neutral language throughout several provisions of Chapter 84 of the Revised Statutes of 1846. The bill replaces references such as “husband and wife” with “spouses,” and makes corresponding wording changes in sections governing divorce timing, spousal support, child support-related payments, liens on property, and annulment standards. It also revises terminology in provisions addressing separate maintenance, the role of the friend of the court, and enforcement of support obligations.
Substantively, the bill preserves existing legal standards rather than changing the underlying rights or procedures. It keeps the 60-day waiting period before testimony in most divorce cases, the 6-month waiting period when dependent minor children are involved, the hardship exception, residency requirements for certain cases, and the rules governing spousal support, property division, liens, and annulment. The bill is tied to a separate constitutional amendment proposal, meaning it would not take effect unless that related resolution becomes part of the Michigan Constitution.
The bill would amend several sections of Michigan’s divorce law to modernize statutory language and make it gender neutral, affecting MCL 552.9f, 552.23, 552.27, 552.36, and 552.37. It would not materially alter divorce eligibility, support enforcement, or annulment standards, but it would change how courts, parties, and related agencies refer to spouses and marital parties in the statute. Because it is tie-barred to a constitutional resolution, its legal effect depends on separate voter or constitutional approval.
The available context suggests the bill is largely procedural and technical, with a neutral-to-positive policy posture centered on updating outdated gendered terminology. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or support in the available record. The tie-bar indicates the bill was considered alongside a broader constitutional change, but the text itself reflects a noncontroversial modernization of family-law language.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists from the text, is not about the divorce rules themselves but about the bill’s dependency on a separate constitutional amendment. That tie-bar could make the bill contingent on broader political agreement beyond the statutory language. Otherwise, the bill appears to be a technical cleanup measure, with no substantive disputes evident in the provided materials.