767.55(3)(a)3.
3. The child has been deprived of parental support by reason of the continued absence of a parent from the home.
767.55(3)(b)
(b) Except as provided in
par. (c), in a case involving a dependent child, if the child's parent who is absent from the home is not employed, the court shall order that parent to do one or more of the following:
767.55(3)(c)
(c) An order is not required under
par. (b) if the court makes written findings that there is good cause for not issuing the order.
767.55(3)(d)
(d) Paragraph (b) does not limit the authority of a court to issue an order, other than an order under
par. (b), regarding employment of a parent in an action for modification of a child support order under
s. 767.59 or an action in which an order for child support is required under
s. 767.511 (1),
767.805 (4), or
767.89 (3).
767.55(4)(a)(a) In this subsection, "unemployed teenage parent" means a parent who satisfies all of the following criteria:
767.55(4)(a)4.
4. Would be ordered to make payments for the support of a child but for
subd. 3.
767.55(4)(b)
(b) In an action for revision of a judgment or order providing for child support under
s. 767.59 or an action in which an order for child support is required under
s. 767.511 (1),
767.805 (4), or
767.89 (3), the court shall order an unemployed teenage parent to do one or more of the following:
767.55(4)(b)4.
4. Pursue or continue to pursue an accredited course of instruction leading to the acquisition of a high school diploma or its equivalent if the unemployed teenage parent has not completed a recognized high school course of study or its equivalent, except that the court may not order the unemployed teenage parent to pursue instruction if the instruction requires the expenditure of funds by the unemployed teenage parent other than normal transportation and personal expenses.
767.55 History
History: 2005 a. 443 ss.
40,
41,
107,
108,
135,
136,
223.
767.553
767.553
Annual adjustments in support orders. 767.553(1)(a)(a) An order for child or family support under this chapter may provide for an annual adjustment in the amount to be paid based on a change in the payer's income if the amount of child or family support is expressed in the order as a fixed sum and based on the percentage standard established by the department under
s. 49.22 (9). No adjustment may be made under this section unless the order provides for the adjustment.
767.553(1)(b)
(b) An adjustment under this section may not be made more than once in a year and shall be determined on the basis of the percentage standard established by the department under
s. 49.22 (9).
767.553(1)(c)
(c) In the order the court shall specify what information the parties must exchange to determine whether the payer's income has changed, and shall specify the manner and timing of the information exchange.
767.553(2)
(2) Form for stipulating. If the court provides for an annual adjustment, the court shall make available to the parties, including the state if the state is a real party in interest under
s. 767.205 (2) (a), a form approved by the court for the parties to use in stipulating to an adjustment of the amount of child or family support and to modification of any applicable income-withholding order. The form shall include an order, to be signed by the court, for approval of the stipulation of the parties.
767.553(3)(a)(a) If the payer's income changes from the amount found by the court or stipulated to by the parties for the current child or family support order, the parties may implement an adjustment under this section by stipulating, on the form under
sub. (2), to the changed income amount and the adjusted child or family support amount, subject to
sub. (1) (b).
767.553(3)(b)
(b) The stipulation form shall be signed by all parties, including the state if the state is a real party in interest under
s. 767.205 (2) (a), and filed with the court. If the stipulation is approved, the order shall be signed by the court and implemented in the same manner as an order for a revision under
s. 767.59. An adjustment under this subsection is effective as of the date on which the order is signed by the court.
767.553(4)(a)(a) Any party, including the state if the state is a real party in interest under
s. 767.205 (2) (a), may file a motion, petition, or order to show cause for implementation of an annual adjustment under this section if any of the following applies:
767.553(4)(a)2.
2. The payer's income changes, but a party refuses to sign the stipulation for an adjustment in the amount of child or family support.
767.553(4)(b)
(b) If the court determines after a hearing that an adjustment should be made, the court shall enter an order adjusting the child or family support payments by the amount determined by the court, subject to
sub. (1) (b). An adjustment under this subsection may not take effect before the date on which the party responding to the motion, petition, or order to show cause received notice of the action under this subsection.
767.553(4)(c)
(c) Notwithstanding
par. (b), the court may direct that all or part of the adjustment not take effect until such time as the court directs, if any of the following applies:
767.553(4)(c)1.
1. The payee was seeking an adjustment and the payer establishes that extraordinary circumstances beyond his or her control prevent fulfillment of the adjusted child or family support obligation.
767.553(4)(c)2.
2. The payer was seeking an adjustment and the payee establishes that the payer voluntarily and unreasonably reduced his or her income below his or her earning capacity.
767.553(4)(c)3.
3. The payer was seeking an adjustment and the payee establishes that the adjustment would be unfair to the child.
767.553(4)(d)
(d) If in an action under this subsection the court determines that a party has unreasonably failed to provide the information required under
sub. (1) (c) or to provide the information on a timely basis, or unreasonably failed or refused to sign a stipulation for an annual adjustment, the court may award to the aggrieved party actual costs, including service costs, any costs attributable to time missed from employment, the cost of travel to and from court, and reasonable attorney fees.
767.553(5)(a)(a) Nothing in this section affects a party's right to file at any time a motion, petition, or order to show cause under
s. 767.59 for revision of a judgment or order with respect to an amount of child or family support.
767.553(5)(b)
(b) Nothing in this section affects a party's right to move the court for a finding of contempt of court or for remedial sanctions under
ch. 785 if the other party unreasonably fails to provide or disclose information required under this section or unreasonably fails or refuses to sign a stipulation for an annual adjustment.
767.56
767.56
Maintenance. Upon a judgment of annulment, divorce, or legal separation, or in rendering a judgment in an action under
s. 767.001 (1) (g) or
(j), the court may grant an order requiring maintenance payments to either party for a limited or indefinite length of time after considering:
767.56(2)
(2) The age and physical and emotional health of the parties.
767.56(4)
(4) The educational level of each party at the time of marriage and at the time the action is commenced.
767.56(5)
(5) The earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to find appropriate employment.
767.56(6)
(6) The feasibility that the party seeking maintenance can become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and, if so, the length of time necessary to achieve this goal.
767.56(7)
(7) The tax consequences to each party.
767.56(8)
(8) Any mutual agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage, according to the terms of which one party has made financial or service contributions to the other with the expectation of reciprocation or other compensation in the future, if the repayment has not been made, or any mutual agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage concerning any arrangement for the financial support of the parties.
767.56(9)
(9) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other.
767.56(10)
(10) Such other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant.
767.56 History
History: 1971 c. 220;
1973 c. 12 s.
37;
1977 c. 105;
1979 c. 32 ss.
50,
92 (4);
1979 c. 196; Stats. 1979 s. 767.26;
2005 a. 443 s.
110; Stats. 2005 s. 767.56.
767.56 Annotation
While arrearages under a temporary order for alimony and attorney fees and costs that the husband is required to pay do not constitute part of a wife's division of the estate, they are a charge against the entire estate. Tesch v. Tesch,
63 Wis. 2d 320,
217 N.W.2d 647 (1974).
767.56 Annotation
An obligation to support children is a factor in determining the amount of maintenance payments. Besaw v. Besaw,
89 Wis. 2d 509,
279 N.W.2d 192 (1979).
767.56 Annotation
The trial court abused its discretion by denying a mother's choice to remain at home to care for small children. Hartung v. Hartung,
102 Wis. 2d 58,
306 N.W.2d 16 (1981).
767.56 Annotation
The trial court abused its discretion by terminating maintenance without sufficiently addressing the factors under this section. Vander Perren v. Vander Perren,
105 Wis. 2d 219,
313 N.W.2d 813 (1982).
767.56 Annotation
Compensation for a person who supports a spouse while the spouse is in school can be achieved through both property division and maintenance payments. Lundberg v. Lundberg,
107 Wis. 2d 1,
318 N.W.2d 918 (1982).
767.56 Annotation
The trial court may begin its maintenance evaluation with the proposition that the dependent partner may be entitled to 50% of the total earnings of both parties. Bahr v. Bahr,
107 Wis. 2d 72,
318 N.W.2d 391 (1982).
767.56 Annotation
The trial court may not consider marital misconduct as a relevant factor in granting maintenance payments. Dixon v. Dixon,
107 Wis. 2d 492,
319 N.W.2d 846 (1982).
767.56 Annotation
It was improper to discontinue maintenance payments to a former wife solely upon the ground of her cohabitation with another man. Van Gorder v. Van Gorder,
110 Wis. 2d 188,
327 N.W.2d 674 (1983).
767.56 Annotation
Three formulas were approved for calculating maintenance or property division awards in cases in which one spouse has contributed to the other's pursuit of an advanced degree. Haugan v. Haugan,
117 Wis. 2d 200,
343 N.W.2d 796 (1984).
767.56 Annotation
An alcoholic spouse's refusal of treatment is relevant to the trial court's determination regarding a request for permanent maintenance. DeLaMatter v. DeLaMatter,
151 Wis. 2d 576,
445 N.W.2d 676 (Ct. App. 1989).
767.56 Annotation
Military disability payments may be considered in assessing ability to pay maintenance. Weberg v. Weberg,
158 Wis. 2d 540,
463 N.W.2d 382 (Ct. App. 1990).
767.56 Annotation
The trial court's use of a computer program to analyze financial evidence was not error. Bisone v. Bisone,
165 Wis. 2d 114,
477 N.W.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1991).
767.56 Annotation
An award may be based on a percentage of the payer's income in "unusual circumstances." Unpredictable future income warrants a percentage award. Hefty v. Hefty,
172 Wis. 2d 124,
493 N.W.2d 33 (1992).
767.56 Annotation
Maintenance furthers two objectives: 1) to support the recipient spouse in accordance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties; and 2) to ensure a fair and equitable financial agreement between the parties. In the interest of fairness, maintenance may exceed the recipient's budget. Hefty v. Hefty,
172 Wis. 2d 124,
493 N.W.2d 33 (1992).
767.56 Annotation
Maintenance is measured by the parties' lifestyle immediately before the divorce and that they could anticipate enjoying if they were to stay married. The award may take into account income increases the parties could reasonably anticipate. Hefty v. Hefty,
172 Wis. 2d 124,
493 N.W.2d 33 (1992).
767.56 Annotation
A maintenance award must account for the recipient's earning capacity and ability to be self-supporting at a level comparable to that during marriage. It is unfair to require one spouse to continue income production levels to maintain the standard of living of the other who chooses a decrease in production. Forester v. Forester,
174 Wis. 2d 78,
497 N.W.2d 78 (Ct. App. 1993).
767.56 Annotation
Consideration of one spouse's solicitation to have the other murdered in denying maintenance did not violate the statutory scheme and was not an improper consideration of "marital misconduct." Brabec v. Brabec,
181 Wis. 2d 270,
510 N.W.2d 762 (1993).
767.56 Annotation
A maintenance award based on equalization of income is not "self-evidently fair'' and does not meet the statutory objectives of support and fairness. Olson v. Olson,
186 Wis. 2d 287,
520 N.W.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1994).
767.56 Annotation
An otherwise short-term marriage should not be considered a long-term marriage because there are children. Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani,
191 Wis. 2d 67,
528 N.W.2d 477 (Ct. App. 1995).
767.56 Annotation
One spouse's contribution of child-rearing services and family support while the other spouse completed an education program was not sufficient grounds for awarding compensatory maintenance. Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani,
191 Wis. 2d 67,
528 N.W.2d 477 (Ct. App. 1995).
767.56 Annotation
Leaving maintenance open due to potential future health problems of one spouse without expert testimony was proper, but failure to limit the order accordingly was improper. Grace v. Grace,
195 Wis. 2d 153,
536 N.W.2d 109 (Ct. App. 1995),
94-2653.
767.56 Annotation
Post-divorce increases in a pension fund valued in a divorce should be treated as an income stream available for maintenance. Olski v. Olski,
197 Wis. 2d 237,
540 N.W.2d 412 (1995),
93-3332.
767.56 Annotation
A court may consider earning capacity rather than actual earnings in determining child support and maintenance if it find's a spouse's job choice voluntary and unreasonable. Sellers v. Sellers,
201 Wis. 2d 578,
549 N.W.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1996),
95-2730.
767.56 Annotation
When parties have been married to each other more than once, a trial court can look at the total years of marriage when determining maintenance. The trial court is not bound by the terms of maintenance in the first divorce and may look to current conditions in setting maintenance. Wolski v. Wolski,
210 Wis. 2d 183,
565 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-0136.
767.56 Annotation
A stipulation incorporated into a divorce judgment is in the nature of a contract. That a stipulation appears imprudent is not grounds for construction of an unambiguous agreement. Rosplock v. Rosplock,
217 Wis. 2d 22,
577 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1998),
96-3522.
767.56 Annotation
The purpose of maintenance is, at least in part, to put the recipient in a solid financial position that allows the recipient to become self-supporting by the end of the maintenance period. That the recipient becomes employed and makes productive investments of property division proceeds and maintenance payments is not a substantial change in circumstances but an expected result of receiving maintenance. Rosplock v. Rosplock,
217 Wis. 2d 22,
577 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1998),
96-3522.
767.56 Annotation
The trial court's exclusion of pension payments when considering income available to a maintenance recipient was correct when the pension had been awarded to the recipient as part of the property division and had no value outside of the payments made from it. Seidlitz v. Seidlitz,
217 Wis. 2d 82,
578 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-0824.
767.56 Annotation
The "fairness objective" of equalizing total income does not apply in a postdivorce situation. Modification of maintenance has nothing to do with contributions, economic or noneconomic, made during the marriage. Johnson v. Johnson,
217 Wis. 2d 124,
576 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-2961.
767.56 Annotation
When a reviewing court finds that a trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance, the case should be remanded for the trial court to properly exercise its discretion. It was an abuse of discretion for a trial court to assume that a spouse is legally entitled to maintenance. King v. King,
224 Wis. 2d 235,
590 N.W.2d 480 (1999),
97-0994.
767.56 Annotation
Equal income division is a reasonable starting point in determining maintenance, but the goal is the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, not 50% of the total predivorce earnings. Maintenance may surpass 50% of the couple's predivorce income, but the payee is not entitled to live a richer lifestyle than that enjoyed during the marriage. Johnson v. Johnson,
225 Wis. 2d 513,
593 N.W.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-2141.
767.56 Annotation
Maintenance is not intended to provide a permanent annuity. Generally limited-term maintenance provides funds for training intended to enable the recipient to be self-supporting by the end of the maintenance period, and may also be used to limit the responsibility of the payer to a certain time and to avoid future litigation. Absent a substantial change of circumstances, the parties may rightfully expect no change. The law of change of circumstances should not require a paying spouse to finance unwise financial decisions of the recipient. Murray v. Murray,
231 Wis. 2d 71,
604 N.W.2d 912 (Ct. App. 1999),
99-1369.
767.56 Annotation
Under sub. (9), the contribution by one party to the other's eductions is not limited to contributions that arose only during the marital period. The court may freely consider the total contributions. Meyer v. Meyer, 2000 WI 132,
239 Wis. 2d 731,
620 N.W.2d 382,
99-0178.
767.56 Annotation
It was not error for the trial court to consider under sub. (10) evidence of the parties having lived "separate lives" for much of their marriage. By not equalizing their incomes, the court in effect implemented what the parties had already agreed to in practice. Schmitt v. Schmitt, 2001 WI App 78,
242 Wis. 2d 565,
624 N.W.2d 14,
00-0695.
767.56 Annotation
When a pension is divided by a qualified domestic relations order, and no value is assigned to either spouse's interest to be offset by other property awarded in the property division, a court is not prohibited by double-counting rules from considering pension distributions when determining maintenance. Wettstaedt v. Wettstaedt, 2001 WI App 94,
242 Wis. 2d 709,
625 N.W.2d 900,
00-3061.
767.56 Annotation
A court's authority to order maintenance includes authority to impose obligations on the payee to ensure compliance with the payment order if those obligations are reasonably necessary to effect compliance with the payment order. Finley v. Finley, 2002 WI App 144,
256 Wis. 2d 508,
648 N.W.2d 536,
01-1705.
