Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming
322 Mich. App. 97
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child born March 11, 2012; the next day both parties signed an affidavit of parentage and the birth certificate lists Kalin as father.
- Fleming later admitted she did not tell Kalin there was a possibility he was not the biological father.
- Kalin and Fleming separated in April 2015; Fleming then denied Kalin access and told him by text he was not the father.
- June 2015 Kalin moved for custody, parenting time, and support.
- July 2015 Fleming moved for an extension of time to set aside the acknowledgment of parentage under MCL 722.1443(12), asserting mistake of fact (Kalin’s belief he was the father) and earlier alleging misrepresentation/misconduct.
- Trial court denied Kalin’s summary-disposition motion and granted Fleming’s extension; Court of Appeals reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fleming established grounds for an extension to file an untimely revocation under MCL 722.1443(12) | Kalin argued Fleming’s affidavit did not allege facts showing one of the statutory exceptions caused her delay, so extension improper | Fleming argued a “mistake of fact” (Kalin’s belief he was father) justified extending the 3‑year filing deadline | Reversed: Fleming’s affidavit failed to show that any listed exception prevented timely filing; extension improperly granted |
| Whether Kalin’s mistaken belief supports revocation or extension | Kalin contended mistake by itself doesn’t excuse Fleming’s delay or support an extension | Fleming relied on cases where mistake of fact supported revocation of paternity | Court: Mistake of fact may support a timely revocation action, but Fleming’s affidavit did not allege that mistake caused her delay, so it cannot support an extension |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v Wcisel, 312 Mich App 79 (discusses mistake of fact and standards for revocation and extensions)
- Helton v Beaman, 304 Mich App 97 (mistake/factual error can support revocation)
- Bay Co Prosecutor v Nugent, 276 Mich App 183 (statutory interpretation and revocation context)
- Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377 (interpretation of mandatory statutory deadlines; “shall” is mandatory)
- Montgomery Ward & Co v Williams, 330 Mich 275 (definition/explanation of mistake of fact)
- Villadsen v Mason Co Rd Comm, 268 Mich App 287 (argument abandonment principles on appeal)