Case Name: WASHINGTON v. SHERROD
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-03-21
Citations: 82 Mich. App. 143
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-916
Parties: WASHINGTON v SHERROD
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and D. F. Walsh and H. L. Heading, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 82
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
WASHINGTON v SHERROD
Bastards — Support—Paternity Act — Support Enforcement Act— Statutes — Court Rules.
Actions under the Paternity Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act are governed by General Court Rules unless inconsistent or modified by those acts, and the methods of enforcement provided in the Paternity Act are not exclusive because enforcement of support orders may also be sought under the provisions of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (MCLA 722.711 et seq., 780.151 et seq.; MSA 25.491 et seq., 25.225 et seq., GCR 1963, 730.1, 731).
Appeal from Jackson, Gordon W. Britten, J.
Submitted December 13, 1977, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 77-916.)
Decided March 21, 1978.
Petition filed by Wanda Washington in Nebraska seeking support payments for her daughter from Russell A. Sherrod. Petition forwarded to Michigan and filed in circuit court under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Wanda Washington also sought support payments for her daughter in a paternity action. Accelerated judgment for defendant.
Plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
James O. Marks, for plaintiff.
References for Points in Headnote
10 Am Jur 2d, Bastards § 126 et seq.
Illegitimate children: application, to illegitimate children, of criminal statutes relating to abandonment, neglect, and nonsupport of children. 99 -ALR2d 746.
Determination of paternity of child as within scope of proceeding under Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. 81 ALR.3d 1175.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and D. F. Walsh and H. L. Heading, JJ.
Detroit Recorder’s Court judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff filed a petition in Nebraska seeking support payments for her daughter. The petition was forwarded to Jackson County, Michigan, where defendant resides, for filing in the Jackson County Circuit Court under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, MCLA 780.151 et seq.; MSA 25.225(1) et seq. A paternity action, MCLA 722.711 et seq.; MSA 25.491 et seq., had previously been instituted by plaintiff in the Jackson County Circuit Court and a consent order of support had been entered directing defendant to pay $12 per week towards the support of the child.
The circuit court, sua sponte, entered accelerated judgment for the defendant. GCR 1963, 116.1(4). The court ruled that it could not maintain two support files on defendant.
We find error in the entry of accelerated judgment. GCR 1963, 730.1 and GCR 1963, 731 provide that actions under the Paternity Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act shall be governed by the General Court Rules except as inconsistent with or modified by those acts. MCLA 722.728; MSA 25.508 expressly provides that the methods of enforcement provided in the Paternity Act are not exclusive and that enforcement of support orders may also be sought under the provisions of URESA.
The order of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded for further URESA proceedings.
No costs, a public question.