Archives: Articles By Gregg Herman

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has issued its opinion in Chen v. Warner affirming the circuit court’s conclusion that a physician mother’s decision to quit her job after the divorce to stay home with the children, with which whom she had shared equal placement with the physician father, was not shirking.

In my March 30 column, I praised the Wisconsin District IV Court of Appeals for their opinion in Derr v. Derr. However, a lesser portion of the opinion might prove problematic.

This column has criticized appellate courts from time-to-time for inconsistency in their use of language. Recently, the District IV Court of Appeals used their opinion in Derr v. Derr to clear up years of confusion regarding non-divisible property. The result is a clear, consistent scheme which will undoubtedly serve as the lodestar for trial courts for many years to come.

Any confusion about Wisconsin law regarding credits for child support arrears might have (finally) been put to rest, thanks to a recent supreme court decision.

In a previous article, we looked at the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s significant family law cases from 2004. In this article, I will focus on significant 2004 cases decided by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Per tradition, it is time to take a look back at the significant family law cases which were decided during the past year, with either plaudits for the well-reasoned decisions or – forgive me, judges – one last kick at those with which I take issue.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently decided Kenyon v. Kenyon, 2004 WI 147, the first case since Rohde-Giovanni v. Baumgart, 2004 WI 27, 269 Wis. 2d 598, 676 N.W.2d 452 to consider the difficult issue of post-judgment maintenance.

In Rumpff v. Rumpff, the District II Court of Appeals called into question the definition of “equivalent care” and the efficacy of the sharing of “variable expenses” in the state’s child support guidelines.

A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, which is recommended for publication, contradicts long-held beliefs regarding the ability of parties to contract for determination of child issues outside of the court system.

What happens when new legislation causes a direct conflict with an existing statute? Did the Wisconsin legislature forget about the existing law? How does an appellate court, which is supposed to interpret statutes, not rewrite them, deal with such a conflict?