Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau
Maryland Court of Appeals
135 A.3d 419 (2016)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
After the birth of twin boys, Justin Davis (defendant) executed an affidavit of parentage attesting that he was the boys’ father. Two years later, the Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement (bureau) (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Davis, alleging that because he had attested to being the boys’ father, he was responsible for paying child support. Davis then twice asked the court to order a paternity test, arguing that it would show he was not the boys’ father. He claimed that he was induced to sign the affidavit by fraud or misrepresentation and it should therefore not be enforced. However, he did not present evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation. Further, the boys’ mother testified that she informed Davis he was not the boys’ father during her pregnancy and he nevertheless voluntarily executed the affidavit of parentage after the boys’ birth. The trial court denied Davis’s requests for a paternity test, holding that biological paternity was irrelevant because an affidavit of parentage could be rescinded only for fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, none of which were credibly before the court. The trial court therefore ordered Davis to pay child support. The state appeals court affirmed, and Davis appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Battaglia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

