Graham v. Foster
Docket No. 152058
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Presumptive father is a necessary party when court is determining parental rights, and the mother could not assert the presumptive father’s limitations defense until he joined the case as a defendant.
In 2009, Sharea Foster gave birth to a baby boy. Under Michigan law, her husband, Christopher Foster, was the child’s presumptive father. See Pecoraro v. Rostagno-Wallat, 291 Mich. App. 303 (2011). But Shae Graham filed a petition under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA), MCL 722.1431 et seq., to prove his paternity of the child. Graham sued Sharea Foster only, however (not both of the Fosters). As a result, Sharea moved for summary disposition, arguing that (1) her husband Christopher was a necessary party; and (2) the RPA’s limitations period had expired in relation to Christopher. The trial court disagreed, and Sharea filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred, but still affirmed the denial of Sharea’s motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals deemed Christopher a necessary party, but held that a “necessary party” exception allows a plaintiff to add a necessary party after a limitations period expires. The court then remanded the case to the trial court to add Christopher. Sharea Foster appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Christopher was a necessary party, but held that the Court of Appeals erred by ruling on the merits of his limitations claim before he was in the case. Sharea could not assert her husband’s limitations defense on her own behalf. The Court thus vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion that “preemptively adjudicate[ed] whether Christopher may avail himself of a statute of limitations defense.”
In sum, the Court did not rule on the Court of Appeals’ application of the “necessary-party exception.” But in a footnote, the Michigan Supreme Court wrote: “This appears to be the first case in either this Court or the Court of Appeals in which the exception has ever actually been applied.” Whether this expresses the Court’s skepticism about this exception remains to be seen, but this issue could be back before the Supreme Court in the near future.
Full opinion here.