Washington v. Sherrod

Michigan Court of Appeals

Washington v. Sherrod

266 N.W.2d 480, 82 Mich. App. 143, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2205

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 1978

DocketDocket No. 77-916

StatusPublished

This text of 266 N.W.2d 480 (Washington v. Sherrod) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washington v. Sherrod, 266 N.W.2d 480, 82 Mich. App. 143, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2205 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 N.W.2d 480, 82 Mich. App. 143, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-sherrod-michctapp-1978.