If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ANNE MARIE HAZEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

December 12, 2019

v No. 345994

Eaton Circuit Court

KEVIN ANTHONY PHILLIS, Family Division

LC No. 2011-000549-DS

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order denying her motion for revocation of 

acknowledgment of paternity. We affirm.

I. FACTS

In April 2011, plaintiff signed a complaint for support that stated that defendant, Kevin 

Anthony Phillis, is the father of plaintiff’s child born on November 1, 2009. On May 24, 2011, 

the trial court entered a consent judgment of support containing a finding that defendant is the 

father of plaintiff’s child. Plaintiff acknowledges that the parties executed an acknowledgment 

of paternity that established defendant as the child’s father, although she now claims that she did 

not understand what she signed.

Over the years, the parties have disagreed about parenting time and custody of their

minor child which led to court intervention and several appeals to this Court. After 

acknowledged father moved to amend parenting time on September 4, 2018, plaintiff filed on 

September 18, 2018, for revocation of acknowledgment of defendant’s paternity. Plaintiff 

requested that the trial court order genetic testing because she asserted that a possibility existed

that the minor child may have another biological father since she had broken up with defendant 

numerous times during which she had been “with another man” who may have impregnated her. 

She contended, therefore, that the acknowledgment of paternity was based on a mistake of fact.

She stated that she did not know the law and signed the paper for a birth certificate. Following a

hearing, the trial court ruled that her motion was frivolous and untimely because she failed to 

bring it within the limitations period set forth in MCL 722.1437.
-2-

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Kalin v Fleming, 322 Mich App 

97, 100; 910 NW2d 707 (2017). “When the underlying facts are not disputed, whether a claim is 

barred by a statutory limitations period is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” 

Titan Ins Co v Farmers Ins Exch, 241 Mich App 258, 260; 615 NW2d 774 (2000). “We review 

a trial court’s factual findings regarding a revocation of paternity action for clear error.” Kalin, 

322 Mich App at 100. “The trial court has committed clear error when this Court is definitely 

and firmly convinced that it made a mistake.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the trial court clearly erred by denying her motion for revocation of 

acknowledgment of paternity. We disagree.

Revocation of acknowledgment of paternity is governed by the Revocation of Paternity 

Act (RPA), MCL 722.1431 et seq. “ ‘[I]n order to revoke an acknowledgment of parentage, an 

individual must file a claim as provided under the [RPA].’ ” Rogers v Wcisel, 312 Mich App 79, 

87; 877 NW2d 169 (2015), quoting MCL 722.1007(h) (alterations in original). Under MCL 

722.1437(1), “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney 

may file an action for revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage” but “[a]n action under this 

section shall be filed within 3 years after the child’s birth or within 1 year after the date the 

acknowledgment of parentage was signed, whichever is later.” This Court explained in Kalin, 

322 Mich App at 101-102, that:

The term “shall” is mandatory. Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 383; 751 NW2d 

431 (2008). Accordingly, MCL 722.1437 provides no basis under which a parent 

may file an action for the revocation of paternity later than three years after the 

child’s birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of 

parentage.

However, MCL 722.1443 provides an exception under which a party may 

request an extension of time to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of 

parentage:

(12) A court may extend the time for filing an action or 

motion under this act. A request for extension shall be supported 

by an affidavit signed by the person requesting the extension 

stating facts that the person satisfied all the requirements for filing 

an action or motion under this act but did not file the action or 

motion within the time allowed under this act because of 1 of the 

following:

(a) Mistake of fact.

(b) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could 

not have been found earlier.
-3-

(c) Fraud.

(d) Misrepresentation or misconduct.

(e) Duress.

Plaintiff did not file for the revocation of acknowledgment of paternity until 

September 18, 2018. Because she filed nine years after the 2009 birth of the minor child and

more than one year after the parties executed the acknowledgment of paternity, plaintiff untimely 

filed under MCL 722.1437(1). “Therefore, it was necessary for [plaintiff] to request an 

extension of the statutory three-year deadline.” Kalin, 322 Mich App at 102.

The record reflects that plaintiff did not request an extension of the statutory deadline. 

Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for revocation of acknowledgment of parentage failed to

comply with the mandatory statutory limitations period prescribed by the RPA. The trial court, 

therefore, properly denied plaintiff’s motion for revocation of acknowledgment of parentage.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ James Robert Redford