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

The Michigan Supreme Court <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20141223_S150206_63_01_150206_2014-12-23_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">granted leave</a> to appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals' <a href="http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/July-2014/COA-holds-that-paternity-must-be-contested-and-dec" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision</a> in <em>Glaubius v. Glaubius</em>.

contentpilot/introduction

The Plaintiff and Defendant were married for four years and during this time the Plaintiff became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. Soon after the child's birth, the couple divorced and both parties agreed in a divorce settlement to joint legal custody and a visitation schedule for the Defendant. Later, the Plaintiff filed a motion under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA) contesting the Defendant's paternity. The Defendant first argued that he was an "affiliated father" under the RPA rather than a "presumed father" which placed a greater burden on Plaintiff to revoke paternity. He next argued that the divorce judgment constituted a determination of paternity and that res judicata barred the Plaintiff's action to revoke his paternity. The Court of Appeals determined that the Defendant was a presumed father under the RPA; that the issue of paternity was not decided by the trial court in the divorce judgment; and that res judicata did not bar the claim.

core/paragraph

The Supreme Court has asked the parties to brief and argue (1) Whether the Defendant was a presumed father or an affiliated father under MCL 7202.1443; (2) Whether the Plaintiff lacked a remedy under the RPA for the reason that the divorce judgment precluded her effort to obtain a determination that the minor child was born out of wedlock; and (3) whether the claim was barred by res judicata.

Partner

Jason L. Byrne

Labor and Employment

MSC grants oral argument to consider several parts of the Revocation of Paternity Act

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. 

MSC grants oral argument to consider several parts of the Revocation of Paternity Act

professionals