Wolfe v. Geno, Docket No. 73404

• Decision Date: 12 July 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 73404
• Citation: 351 N.W.2d 316,134 Mich.App. 433
• Parties: Kathleen WOLFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David P. GENO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 316

351 N.W.2d 316

134 Mich.App. 433

Kathleen WOLFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David P. GENO, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 73404.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Aug. 29, 1983.

Decided May 1, 1984.

Released for Publication July 12, 1984.

Robert L. Kaczmarek, Pros. Atty., and Roy Degesero, Asst. Pros. Atty., Saginaw, for plaintiff-appellant.

Before BEASLEY, P.J., and KELLY and CYNAR, JJ.

Per Curiam (on remand).

Plaintiff filed this paternity action on March 3, 1981, alleging that defendant was the father of her child born on February 2, 1973. The trial court granted defendant's motion for accelerated judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(5), on the ground that plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to paternity actions. M.C.L. Sec. 722.714(b); M.S.A. Sec. 25.494(b). We affirmed the trial court's decision in Wolfe v. Geno, 122 Mich.App. 250, 332 N.W.2d 457 (1982), relying on Shifter v. Wolf, 120 Mich.App. 182, 327 N.W.2d 429 (1982), lv. den. 417 Mich. 892 (1983).

Several months after the release of our decision the United States Supreme Court decided Pickett v. Brown, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2199, 76 L.Ed.2d 372 (1983), in which Tennessee's two-year statute of limitations for paternity actions was declared violative of equal protection principles. On plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court --- Mich. ---, 336 N.W.2d 756, directed us to reconsider our prior decision in light of Pickett v. Brown, 417 Mich. 1090, 336 N.W.2d 756 (1983).

In striking down Tennessee's two-year limitations period, the United States Supreme Court followed precisely the reasoning set forth in Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 102 S.Ct. 1549, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 (1982), where a one-year limitations period imposed by Texas was also found to be violative of equal protection principles. The analysis of Mills v. Habluetzel had been followed by this Court in Shifter v. Wolf, supra, where a different result was deemed justifiable given the difference in length between a one-year and a six-year statute of limitations.

Upon full consideration of plaintiff's claims, we reaffirm our earlier decision and again hold that Michigan's six-year statute of limitations for paternity actions does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of either the state or federal constitutions. U.S. Const., Am. XIV; Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 2. Pickett v. Brown does not alter the constitutional analysis to be applied in this case and we continue to rely on Shifter v. Wolf, supra, in holding that (1) the six-year limitations period is substantially related to a permissible state interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims, see Herrick v. Taylor, 113 Mich.App. 370, 374, 317 N.W.2d 631 (1982), and (2) six years provides a reasonable opportunity for legally interested parties to file paternity actions. See also Daniel v. Collier (On Remand), 130 Mich.App. 345, 343 N.W.2d 16 (1983).

Affirmed.

CYNAR, Judge (dissenting) (on remand).

I must respectfully dissent from the majority. The paternity action...