 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 JANUARY 7, 2005 |
::: Special Alert :::
Court of Appeals Rules in Vlies v. Brookman
Reversing Circuit Court JudgmentToday, the District II Court of Appeals issued their opinion in Vlies v. Brookman, No. 2004AP315 (Wis. Ct. App. June 15, 2005) (recommended for publication) reversing the judgment of Judge Paul Malloy (Ozaukee County Cir. Ct.) regarding family support and attorney fees and affirming his decision regarding life insurance.
At trial, Brookman, a lawyer in private practice, was ordered to pay family support of $7,500 per month for ten years (even though Vlies only proposed eight years), maintain a total of $750,000 in life insurance coverage for the benefit of the parties’ three minor children and contribute $2,000 to Vlies’ attorney fees. He appealed.
The court of appeals summarized the legislative history of family support, assisted by an amicus brief by the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers which was requested by the court. The appellate court found that while the trial court discussed the statutory factors which need to be considered in a support case, the trial court did not explain how these factors led to a support order of $7,500 per month for ten years. For example, the trial court did not explain its rationale for ordering fixed, monthly family support of $7,500 per month where Brookman’s monthly net income was $5,603 (he did receive annual bonus consideration in addition to salary, but this was not fixed income). In addition, the trial court did not either calculate child support under Wisconsin’s guidelines nor provide the necessary findings for a deviation from the guidelines. Also, the ten year term may cause Brookman severe tax implications as the tax deductible payments could be construed by the taxing authorities as disguised, non-deductible child support. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed the family support order and remanded for further analysis by the trial court.
Brookman also appealed an order that he maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children, arguing that there was no statutory authority for the trial court to make such an order. The court of appeals affirmed, however, holding that life insurance coverage can be part of the child support order “where the record so demonstrates.” At ¶26. The court of appeals remanded the life insurance issue in light of the remand on child support, but the holding supports the authority of a trial court to order life insurance coverage under appropriate circumstances.
Finally, the trial court reversed the award of attorney fees to Vlies since the trial court did not provide any rationale for its order.
