Sprenger v. Bickle
307 Mich. App. 411
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff alleges he is the biological father of a child born to defendant during her marriage to Adam Bickle.
- Plaintiff filed a paternity action under the Paternity Act; defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- The trial court dismissed the action for lack of standing and denied plaintiff’s request for genetic testing.
- Plaintiff then pursued an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA) seeking a declaration that the child was not the child of the presumed father.
- The trial court found that conception occurred during the marriage and that plaintiff did not know the mother was married at conception, or, alternatively, that conception occurred outside wedlock, based on evidence.
- This Court affirms the trial court’s rulings, rejecting the RPA standing theory and sanction request, and clarifies RPA interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under MCL 722.1441(3)(a) and (c) | Plaintiff contends standing exists under both subsections. | Bickle argues plaintiff fails to prove the prerequisites of both subsections. | Plaintiff fails to meet prerequisites; standing not established. |
| Conception timing evidence under 722.1441(3)(a) | Conception occurred after divorce, satisfying 3(a). | Conception likely occurred during marriage; 3(a) not satisfied. | Evidence supports conception during marriage; 3(a) not satisfied. |
| Conception timing evidence under 722.1441(3)(c) | Conception may have occurred post-divorce; 3(c) supports standing. | Conception overwhelmingly during marriage; 3(c) not satisfied. | Trial court did not clearly err; 3(c) not satisfied. |
| Admissibility/utility of attempted testimony on biological father | Testimony about Adam Bickle as biological father is relevant to 3(a)(ii). | Error is harmless given failure on 3(a) and 3(c). | Harmless error; no reversal on this issue. |
| Sanctions under MCR 2.114 | Sanctions were warranted due to frivolous position. | No abuse of discretion; RPA issues are novel; not frivolous. | Sanctions denied; no abuse of discretion; positions not frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Parks, 304 Mich App 232 (2014) (RPA requires an evidentiary hearing where contested facts exist)
- Kitchen v. Kitchen, 465 Mich 654 (2002) (sanctions standards and interpretation of pleadings)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Null, 304 Mich App 508 (2014) (analysis of judicial estoppel and standing considerations)