Loeb & Herman, S.C. ::: Articles By Matthew J. Price

Articles By Matthew J. Price

Wisconsin Journal of Family Law Case Spotlights

Settipalli v. Settipalli

In recent years, the Publication Committee of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin has been the focus of intense criticism concerning its decision-making process relative to the publication of family law cases that are either resolved upon the application of well-settled, controlling precedent to a pedestrian set of facts, or a modification of existing law premised upon an impossibly- convoluted, fact-limited set of circumstances not likely to reemerge in our lifetime. Those charges aside, periodically, the court of appeals issues an opinion recommended for publication (a virtually certainly it will be published) that employs the services of what would ordinarily be a run-of-the-mill per curium opinion applying straightforward law as a vehicle for communicating a message, oftentimes powerful, to the public and/or the bar. Some of these "message" opinions require varying levels of reading-between-the-lines to elicit the theme. Others, such as this issue’s spotlight case addressing sanctions against appellate counsel, Settipalli v. Settipalli, No. 03-3287 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2004), bear no such cloaking.

Franke v. Franke

The exponential growth over the last ten years in the employment, in all areas of law, of binding arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution technique can be attributed to the achievement of its primary objectives of expeditious, affordable, and, in many cases, private settlement. Fundamental to this process is the overarching goal of finality, for what would be the purpose of participating in a binding process if it was not, in fact, binding? Some lawyers argue that a recent supreme court decision may cast a deep pall of uncertainty as to the future of binding arbitration.

State v. Hamilton

On May 30, 2003, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued its opinion in State v. Hamilton, 2003 WI 50 (May 30, 2003), aff'g 2002 WI App 89, 253 Wis. 2d 805, 644 N.W.2d 243, concerning the application of the statute of limitations in independent actions to collect child support arrears.

Kowalski v. Obst

When the supreme court issued its decision in In re the Paternity of Tukker M.O., 199 Wis. 2d 186, 544 N.W.2d 417 (1996), WIS. STAT. § 767.51(5) set forth the child support factors to be applied in paternity cases. The specific section at issue in Tukker, § 767.51(5)(e), permitted the trial court to consider "the need and capacity of the child for education, including higher education." By contrast, the general child support (i.e. divorce) factors contained in § 767.25(1m) are devoid of any reference to higher education. Instead, these factors merely permit the trial court to evaluate "the child’s educational needs." § 767.25(1m)(g). Most practitioners theorized that the general child support factors did not include higher education consideration because the authority to award child support in a divorce action, in most cases, ends at the time of graduation from high school, which by operation of law divests the trial court of the authority to order the parties to provide future support, in the form of higher education contributions.

McLaren v. McLaren

As the budget bill furor which engulfed the State Capitol in Madison throughout most of the spring and summer diminishes to a simmer, among other issues, state legislators can now turn to wrangling with several possible options to overhaul the child support system in Wisconsin. Up for consideration are administrative rule proposal CR 03-022, promulgated by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, and 2003 Assembly Bill 250, which strips the authority from DWD to establish child support guidelines by instead making it statutory. Whichever proposal (or some variation on either) they might prefer, it appears that one matter that the majority of participants in the child support process (parties, attorneys, court commissioners, judges and child support enforcement agency personnel) can agree is that the methodology for computing child support requires repair. By way of example, one flaw exposed in the current child support system follows from the uncertainty concerning the division of responsibility for child care expenses.

© 2008, Loeb & Herman, S.C.
Suite 1725 - Chase Tower
111 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4868
414.272.5632 | Fax 414.272.7918