Beaudry v. Beaudry

• Decision Date: 26 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. 2,Docket No. 6225,2
• Citation: Beaudry v. Beaudry, 174 N.W.2d 28, 20 Mich.App. 287 (Mich. App. 1969)
• Parties: Claudia M. BEAUDRY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph H. BEAUDRY, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 28

174 N.W.2d 28

20 Mich.App. 287

Claudia M. BEAUDRY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph H. BEAUDRY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 6225.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Nov. 26, 1969.

Released for Publication Feb. 13, 1970.

Robert A. McKenney, Holly, for appellant.

Thomas P. Gillotte, Pontiac, for appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and McGREGOR and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a denial of his motion to dismiss a complaint for divorce based on plaintiff's inability to meet the jurisdictional requirement set forth in M.C.L.A. § 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, 36 N.W.2d 152; Flynn v. Flynn (1962), 367 Mich. 625, 116 N.W.2d 907. 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 (M.C.L.A. § 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, 219 N.W. 593; Lehman v. Lehman (1945), 312 Mich. 102, 19 N.W.2d 502; and Fox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (1965), 375 Mich. 238, 134 N.W.2d 146.

Reversed.