LAWRENCE L PERKINS V CAROLE PERKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LAWRENCE L. PERKINS, VIRGINIA
PERKINS, DOWNRIVER LOAN, INC. d/b/a
LINCOLN PARK JEWELRY, and GINNY BEA
PROPERTIES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2003
Plaintiffs/CounterdefendantsAppellees,
v
No. 242634
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-107842-CK
CAROLE PERKINS,
Defendant/Counterplaintiff/CrossPlaintiff-Appellant,
and
JEFFREY PERKINS,
Defendant/Cross-Defendant.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Murphy and Bandstra, JJ.
PER CURIUM.
Defendant Carole Perkins appeals as of right from a circuit court judgment, following a
bench trial, adjudicating her liable for promissory notes that she cosigned with her husband. We
affirm.
Defendant does not dispute that she cosigned with her husband promissory notes agreeing
to repay an indebtedness to plaintiffs. She argues, however, that she may not be held liable for
the promissory notes because she did not receive separate consideration for agreeing to repay the
indebtedness. We disagree.
-1-
A woman is empowered to enter into a joint contractual obligation with her husband and
be held liable thereon, even if she does not receive separate consideration. MCL 557.26(2);1
Binne v Bench, 302 Mich 327, 329; 4 NW2d 674 (1942)(consideration need not benefit the
married woman nor her estate, including where joint contract is for repayment of a personal loan
made to husband); Kies v Walworth, 250 Mich 34, 37; 229 NW 519 (1930); Manufacturers Nat’l
Bank v Pink, 128 Mich App 696, 700; 341 NW2d 181 (1983); Michigan Nat’l Leasing Corp v
Cardillo, 103 Mich App 427, 435; 302 NW2d 888 (1981). The Supreme Court in North Ottawa
Community Hosp v Kieft, 457 Mich 394; 578 NW2d 267 (1998), held that the statutes variously
described as the married women’s property act, MCL 557.21 et seq., were not abolished by
Const 1963, art 10, § 1. In North Ottawa, the defendant was not liable for her deceased
husband’s debts, i.e., medical bills, where she did not contract for his care, nor agree to guarantee
payment for his care. Here, defendant executed the promissory notes. The North Ottawa
holding did not nullify the legal proposition that a woman is empowered to enter into a joint
contractual obligation with her husband and be held liable thereon, even if she does not receive
separate consideration. The circuit court did not err in ruling that defendant was obligated on the
promissory notes despite the lack of consideration flowing to defendant.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
1
MCL 557.26(2) provides:
A married woman may enter into a written contract giving a general
guarantee obligating her personally for the debt of another person, including the
debt of her husband. If the married woman signs such a written contract, a
judgment rendered for payment of the debt may be satisfied out of any of the
separate property of the married woman . . ., whether or not the separate property
derives a benefit from the general guarantee.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
