874 N.W.2d 355
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Graham, the alleged father, sues Foster under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA) after an extramarital affair with Foster's wife.
- Blake Foster, born Sept 23, 2009, has Foster listed as the presumed father on the birth certificate.
- Graham previously filed a Paternity Act action in 2010 which was dismissed for lack of standing prior to the RPA.
- The RPA allows an alleged father to seek paternity even if the mother is married at conception or birth.
- In May 2013 Graham filed an RPA complaint naming only Foster’s wife as defendant; Foster was not named.
- Foster argued he is a necessary party and that the statute of limitations barred adding him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Foster a necessary party under MCR 2.205(A)? | Foster need not be named under the RPA. | Foster must be named because his interest would be affected. | Foster is a necessary party. |
| Does failure to join Foster bar the action due to statute of limitations? | Amendment to add Foster is permissible; limitations tolling applies. | Late joinder should bar the action. | Not barred; amendment allowed and remanded. |
| May Graham amend to add Foster as a party despite limitations, under relevant rules? | Amendment should be allowed to ensure complete relief. | Limited by statutory time and joinder rules. | Amendment allowed; remand for addition of Foster. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mather Investors, LLC v Larson, 271 Mich App 254 (Mich App 2006) (necessary-party joinder when interests may be affected by final decree)
- Amer v Clarence A Durbin Assoc, Inc, 87 Mich App 62 (Mich App 1978) (timeliness exception for adding necessary party after limitations period)
- O’Keefe v Clark Equip Co, 106 Mich App 23 (Mich App 1981) (exception to amend to add party when plaintiff initially sued fictitious entity)