Circuit Court LC No. 15-001838-DC
Before: O'Connell, P.J., and Murphy and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
Jason Ross Kalin, appeals by delayed leave
granted the trial court's order denying his
motion for summary disposition. The trial court also granted
a motion filed by defendant, Paige Katherine Fleming, for an
extension of time to file an action to revoke Kalin's
paternity. We reverse and remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
and Fleming had an on-again, off-again relationship. Fleming
gave birth to a child on March 11, 2012. The next day, both
Kalin and Fleming signed an affidavit of parentage. The
child's birth certificate also lists Kalin as the father.
Fleming did not challenge Kalin's signature of the
affidavit, and she later admitted that she intentionally did
not tell Kalin that there was a possibility that he was not
the child's father.
and Fleming separated in April 2015. In May 2015, Fleming
would not let Kalin see the child because their relationship
ended. In a text conversation, Fleming told Kalin that he was
not the child's father. In June 2015, Kalin moved for
custody, parenting time, and support.
11, 2014, Fleming filed a motion for an extension of time to
set aside Kalin's affidavit of parentage on the basis of
misrepresentation and misconduct. Fleming filed an amended
motion for an extension of time, adding mistake of fact as a
basis for seeking an extension. Fleming asserted that
Kalin's mistaken belief that he was the child's
biological father was the mistake of fact warranting an
addition to opposing Fleming's amended extension motion,
Kalin moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7)
(statute of limitations) and (8) (failure to state a claim).
Kalin argued that Fleming did not allege facts to excuse the
three-year deadline for revoking an acknowledgment of
parentage. Fleming opposed summary disposition.
trial court denied Kalin's motion for summary disposition
and granted Fleming's motion for an extension of time to
seek to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. The trial
court rejected Fleming's misrepresentation and misconduct
arguments. However, the trial court agreed that Kalin signed
the acknowledgment of parentage under the mistaken belief
that he was the child's father, constituting a mistake of
fact warranting an extension of time for Fleming to seek to
STANDARD OF REVIEW
review a trial court's factual findings regarding a
revocation of paternity action for clear error. Rogers v
Wcisel, 312 Mich.App. 79, 86; 877 N.W.2d 169 (2015).
"The trial court has committed clear error when this
Court is definitely and firmly convinced that it made a
mistake." Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted). This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory
interpretation. Bay Co Prosecutor v Nugent, 276
Mich.App. 183, 187; 740 N.W.2d 678 (2007).
standards for statutory interpretation are well-established:
The goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the
Legislature's intent. If a statute's language is
clear, this Court assumes that the Legislature intended its
plain meaning and enforces it accordingly. In doing so, every
word should be given meaning, and we should avoid a
construction that would render any part of the statute
surplusage or nugatory. While generally words and phrases
used in a statute should be assigned their primary and
generally understood meaning, words and phrases which have a
technical or special meaning in the law should be construed
according to that technical or special meaning[.] Statutory
language should be construed reasonably, ...