Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150319_C319608_32_319608.OPN.PDF"><em>Adler v. Dormio</em></a>, No. 319608, the Court of Appeals held that a person who obtains a judgment under the Revocation of Paternity Act may seek relief from a prior support order under applicable Michigan Court Rules. Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court’s order that denied defendant’s motion to vacate a child support order.

contentpilot/introduction

Jennifer Adler filed a paternity complaint in 2006 and named Defendant Aaron Dormio as the biological father of her son. Dormio failed to respond to the complaint and the trial court entered a default judgment of filiation against him. The court further ordered Dormio to pay monthly child support and childcare. In 2013, Dormio filed a motion to set aside the judgment under the then new Revocation of Paternity Act, which was granted because genetic tests showed that Dormio was not the father.&nbsp; However, over $45,000 in support costs had accrued prior to the order to set aside that were unaffected by the order.

core/paragraph

Dormio filed a motion with the circuit court to vacate his support orders. The court denied his motion on the basis that he failed to meet his burden for relief. Dormio argued on appeal that the plain language of the Revocation of Paternity Act allows him to seek relief under Michigan Court Rules.

The Court of Appeals held that Dormio did have an avenue to set aside the support order under MCR 2.612(C), which provides grounds under which a court may relieve a party from a final judgment. The court reasoned that while the Revocation of Paternity Act does not automatically excuse a parent from compliance with prior support orders, it does expressly allow an individual to seek relief under applicable court rules to vacate a judgment. The court further explained that nothing in the text of MCR 2.612(C) renders it ineffective against a child support order and thus a person who has obtained a judgment under the Revocation of Paternity act may seek relief from prior support orders under MCR 2.612. The court also concluded that the trial court did not state reasons for its holding. Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying Dormio’s motion to set aside and remanded the case back to the trial court for an articulation of its reasoning.

Labor and Employment

COA concludes that a party who prevails under the Revocation of Paternity Act may vacate a prior child support order

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 