DAVID MICHAEL THAMM JR V HOLLI CRUM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID MICHAEL THAMM, JR.,
UNPUBLISHED
December 6, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 255483
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 03-245770-DP
HOLLI CRUM,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
After agreeing to a paternity test, which established plaintiff as the father, and a
psychological evaluation of plaintiff, plaintiff and defendant reached an agreement regarding
paternity, visitation and custody. The agreement was placed on the record and documents were
prepared incorporating the agreement and the court’s decision on the few items that were left to
its discretion. It was clear at the time of the agreement that defendant was married to another
man.
There is no question that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction of the paternity action.
The standing issue involves the interpretation of the Paternity Act, not the constitutional
requirement that there be a case or controversy. Clearly an actual controversy was involved and
plaintiff had a direct interest in the outcome.
Defendant could have raised the standing issue as a defense at any time before entering
the agreement, but apparently chose not to do so. Instead, she entered into an agreement on the
record, enforceable under MCR 2.507(H).
The only ground asserted in support of defendant’s motion to set aside the agreement was
that defense counsel mistakenly believed that defendant was seeking a divorce, and that in the
absence of such a proceeding, plaintiff lacked standing. However, plaintiff’s lack of standing
was apparent without regard to whether defendant was seeking or would ultimately seek a
divorce, and defendant clearly had knowledge of her own intent. Further, there was no
indication at the time of the agreement that it was contingent on defendant’s obtaining a divorce,
or that such a proceeding was even contemplated.
Nevertheless, I am constrained to concur with the majority opinion. In Kaiser v
Schreiber, 258 Mich App 357; 670 NW2d 697 (2003), a panel of this Court reversed a trial
-1-
court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant mother in a similar situation, involving a
claim under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., for reasons comparable to those
discussed above. The Supreme Court reversed, Kaiser v Schreiber, 469 Mich 944; 670 NW2d
671 (2003), finding dispositive that “[p]laintiff did not have standing under the Child Custody
Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., and would not have standing under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et
seq., to seek custody of and visitation rights with a child whose mother was married at the time
of the child’s conception and birth.” Id. I am unable to distinguish Kaiser, and therefore concur.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
