Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kalin v. Fleming

Court of Appeals of Michigan

November 21, 2017

JASON ROSS KALIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAIGE KATHERINE FLEMING, Defendant-Appellee.

         Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 15-001838-DC

          Before: O'Connell, P.J., and Murphy and K. F. Kelly, JJ.

          PER CURIAM.

         Plaintiff, Jason Ross Kalin, appeals by delayed leave granted[1] 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.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Kalin 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.

         Kalin 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.

         On July 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 extension.

         In 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.

         The 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 revoke paternity.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         We 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).

         The 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, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.