Court Opinion

ID: 9840070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 05:07:47.027949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:23.782165
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                          STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

KELLY MARIE GRAHAM,                                                  UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     September 14, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 364274
                                                                     Kent Circuit Court
KEVIN DWAYNE CRAFT,                                                  LC No. 22-003941-DP

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and O’BRIEN and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       In this paternity case, defendant, Kevin Dwayne Craft, appearing in propria persona,
appeals by right the trial court’s December 13, 2022 judgment of paternity and uniform child
support order setting defendant’s child support obligation at $720 a month. We affirm.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

        On April 29, 2022, the prosecutor filed a paternity complaint on behalf of plaintiff, Kelly
Marie Graham, and the minor child (KRG) to establish child support and paternity of KRG under
the Paternity Act. Defendant was alleged to be the father of KRG. The prosecutor also alleged
that defendant had the ability to provide support to KRG.

        The prosecution had problems serving defendant, and was therefore granted permission to
use alternate means to serve defendant. Defendant was eventually served on July 7 and 8, 2022.
On July 21, 2022, on the court’s own motion, the trial court entered an order for genetic testing of
plaintiff, defendant, and KRG.

        After being served, defendant filed numerous motions in the trial court, but he did not
notice any of the motions for hearing in accordance with MCR 2.119. For that reason, the trial
court did not hear any of defendant’s motions.

      On November 3, 2022, the prosecutor filed a motion for entry of the proposed paternity
judgment and proposed uniform child support order that she submitted with the motion. The

                                                -1-
prosecutor also filed a notice of hearing with remote participation instructing all parties how to
participate.

        Defendant filed a number of motions following the prosecutor’s motion, including one on
December 7, 2022, titled “Notice of Default Judgment Filed Under Federal Rule 55,” but, like with
the rest of defendant’s motions, the trial court never held a hearing on this motion because
defendant failed to properly notice it for hearing.

        On December 9, 2022, a hearing took place before a referee on the prosecutor’s motion for
child support. Both plaintiff and defendant were present for the hearing. The prosecutor argued
that service was proper on defendant on July 8, 2022. The prosecutor stated that genetic testing
was coordinated with defendant on multiple occasions, but he failed to appear. Plaintiff advised
the prosecutor that defendant is the only potential father, as plaintiff and defendant were engaged
and living together at the time KRG was conceived. The prosecutor requested that the referee
enter the proposed judgment of paternity and uniform child support order pursuant to MCL
722.716(1)(a).

        Following the prosecutor’s arguments, the referee repeatedly gave defendant the
opportunity to make a statement and defendant did so. In those statements, defendant objected to
the referee’s entering of any order and demanded that the referee “provide evidence of personal
jurisdiction” and respond in writing to his motions. Defendant also requested the opportunity to
appeal. In response, the referee told defendant that she would grant the prosecutor’s motion so
that defendant could then appeal.

        The referee signed the judgment of paternity and uniform child support order on December
12, 2022, and the trial court signed and entered both orders on December 13, 2022. The paternity
judgment deemed defendant the father of KRG and found defendant to have net earnings of
$2,561.80 (actual income) per month. The judgment gave plaintiff physical custody of KRG. The
child support order gave defendant zero overnights with KRG and ordered that defendant pay to
plaintiff $720/month.

        On December 19, 2022, defendant filed an objection to the referee’s order. In that
objection, defendant argued that the trial court could not move forward until the court responded
in writing to his various motions.

        On January 12, 2023, the trial court issued a notice of hearing to the parties scheduling
defendant’s objection for February 3, 2023. On that date, the trial court held a Zoom hearing on
defendant’s objection and entered an order denying defendant’s objection. The trial court held
that “all current judgment of paternity orders [would] remain in effect.”

       This appeal followed.

                                         II. ANALYSIS

        Before turning to the substantive analysis, we recognize that, at all times, defendant has
been proceeding in propria persona. Although individuals appearing in propria persona are
entitled to a degree of leniency when construing their pleadings, they are not exempt or excused

                                               -2-
from supporting their claims. Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97, 106-108; 97 S Ct 285; 50 L Ed 2d
251 (1976).

                        A. DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COURT MOTIONS

          Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s failure to address his motions titled,
“Notice of Rebuttal I am Not a Person” and a “Notice of Dismissal and Default Judgment under
Federal Rule 55,” deprived him of his right to be heard and present his legal arguments. Defendant
also argues that the trial court’s failure to respond to said motions violated his due process rights.
This Court was unable to locate a motion titled “Notice of Rebuttal I am Not a Person” in the
record; defendant filed numerous motions in the trial court with lengthy titles, but none contain
this title. On December 7, 2022, defendant filed a “Notice of Default Judgment filed under Federal
Rule 55 or a State Law Equivalent Mich Ct. R. 2.603 Notice of Dismissal in Response to Plaintiff’s
Failure to Meet Constitutional Requirement of Meeting the Minimum of Standing to Bring a
Claim.” This title is similar to “Notice of Dismissal and Default Judgment under Federal Rule
55,” and is presumably the motion defendant is referring to on appeal. Notably, defendant did not
file a notice of hearing with this motion or any other motion he filed with the trial court in order
to have his motions heard by the court. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s “failure to
respond” to his motions was a violation of due process and thus requires this Court to reverse the
trial court. We disagree with both arguments.

        We consider both of defendant’s arguments to be abandoned. Blackburne & Brown Mortg
Co v Ziomek, 264 Mich App 615, 619; 692 NW2d 388 (2004) (“An appellant may not merely
announce its position or assert an error and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the
basis for its claims, unravel or elaborate its argument, or search for authority for its position.
Insufficiently briefed issues are deemed abandoned on appeal.”) (Quotation marks and citations
omitted.) Defendant failed to cite any authority which would require the trial court to address or
respond to defendant’s motions that were never properly noticed for hearing. Defendant also failed
to sufficiently brief his argument that his due process rights were violated. However, even
addressing these arguments, both are without merit.

         As noted above, defendant failed to include a notice of hearing with any of the motions he
filed in the trial court. MCR 2.119 provides in relevant part:

               (C) Time for Service and Filing of Motions and Responses.

               (1) Unless a different period is set by these rules or by the court for good
       cause, a written motion (other than one that may be heard ex parte), notice of the
       hearing on the motion, and any supporting brief or affidavits must be served as
       follows:

               (a) at least 9 days before the time set for the hearing, if served by first-class
       mail, or

              (b) at least 7 days before the time set for the hearing, if served by delivery
       under MCR 2.107(C)(1) or (2) or MCR 1.109(G)(6)(a). [emphasis added]

                                                 -3-
Without a notice of hearing, defendant’s motions were not filed in accordance with MCR 2.119
and were not properly scheduled to be heard by the trial court. Thus, the trial court did not err by
failing to address defendant’s motions. Defendant does not explain how his due process rights
were violated by the trial court’s failure to hear or respond to defendant’s motions, which were not
filed in compliance with the applicable court rules. For thoroughness, however, we will address
defendant’s due process argument.

        A claim of deprivation of procedural due process is a question of constitutional law, which
this Court reviews de novo. Bonner v City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209, 221; 848 NW2d 380 (2014).
The guarantee of procedural due process requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard” prior to
a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Id. at 235. Defendant’s due process rights were not
violated as he had notice of the hearing regarding the prosecutor’s motion for child support on
December 9, 2022, and the opportunity to be heard at the hearing.

       In addition, defendant argues that under MCR 2.119, a court must grant a motion that is
not opposed, provided the motion is well-taken. There is nothing in MCR 2.119 that supports
defendant’s argument. Therefore, defendant’s argument is without merit.

                 B. THE ABSENCE OF A PROMISSORY NOTE OR CONTRACT

       Defendant appears to argue on appeal that without evidence of a promissory note or
contract, he cannot be held responsible for child support. Defendant failed to cite to any authority
in support of his position and therefore this Court considers his argument abandoned. Blackburne,
264 Mich App at 619. However, addressing this issue for the sake of thoroughness, defendant’s
argument is without merit.

       The Paternity Act, MCL 722.717, governs issues of child support in paternity cases for
minor children in Michigan. MCL 722.717 specifically provides, in relevant part:

               (1) In an action under this act, the court shall enter an order of filiation
       declaring paternity and providing for the support of the child under 1 or more of
       the following circumstances:

                 (a) The finding of the court or the verdict determines that the man is the
       father.

               (b) The defendant acknowledges paternity either orally to the court or by
       filing with the court a written acknowledgment of paternity.

               (c) The defendant is served with summons and a default judgment is entered
       against him or her.

                 (d) Genetic testing under section 6 determines that the man is the father.

Pursuant to this statute, the trial court had the authority to enter the judgment of paternity and
uniform child support order. The trial court found that defendant is the father of KRG and entered
the paternity judgment after defendant was properly served with the summons and failed to file an
answer. There is no requirement in MCL 722.717 that the trial court require proof of a contract or

                                                  -4-
promissory note in order to enter a paternity judgment and child support order. The trial court was
thus clearly within its authority to issue the judgment of paternity and uniform child support order
under MCL 722.717. See also Teran v Rittley, 313 Mich App 197, 205; 882 NW2d 181 (2015).

                   C. PERSONAL AND SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

        Defendant argues that the trial court did not have personal or subject-matter jurisdiction
because there was no sworn affidavit, verifiable complaint, or forensic evidence proving that
defendant committed a common law crime or was responsible for damages. Defendant argues
that without such evidence, there was no legal basis for the trial court to order defendant to pay
child support.

       Defendant failed to cite any authority in support of his position that the trial court lacked
both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, this Court considers his argument abandoned.
Blackburne, 264 Mich App at 619. However, even addressing this issue, we disagree with
defendant.

       Whether a court has personal or subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this
Court reviews de novo. Teran v Rittley, 313 Mich App 197, 205; 882 NW2d 181 (2015); Oberlies
v Searchmont Resort, Inc, 246 Mich App 424, 426; 633 NW2d 408 (2001).

        Before a court may require a party to comply with its orders, the court must have in
personam jurisdiction over the party. Oberlies, 246 Mich App at 427. “Jurisdiction over the
person may be established by way of general personal jurisdiction or specific (limited) personal
jurisdiction.” Id. MCL 600.701 provides that general personal jurisdiction can be obtained over
a defendant who was present in Michigan at the time that process was served; who was domiciled
in Michigan at the time process was served; or who consents to personal jurisdiction. In this case,
defendant was domiciled in Michigan at the time he was served at his verified address in
Muskegon, Michigan. As a result, the trial court had general personal jurisdiction over defendant.

        Subject-matter jurisdiction “is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over a class
of cases, not the particular case before it.” Grebner v Oakland Co Clerk, 220 Mich App 513, 516,
560 NW2d 351 (1996). The Paternity Act, MCL 722.714, grants the circuit court subject-matter
jurisdiction to determine the paternity of a child born out of wedlock and to order child support.
Teran, 313 Mich App at 205. See also MCL 722.717. Therefore, the trial court also had subject-
matter jurisdiction to determine the paternity of KRG and to order defendant to pay child support.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Brock A. Swartzle
                                                              /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                              /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

                                                 -5-