Archives: Articles By Gregg Herman

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals intermittently tells us that it is primarily an error-correcting court. Recently, however, the court couldn’t resist the temptation to depart from that primary role to make a little new law, in Randy A.J. v. Norma I.J.,

A recent District II Court of Appeals case, recommended for publication, addressed the difficult issue of biological versus psychological parentage. In an interesting decision involving what the court of appeals called “an unusual factual situation scenario”, the court upheld the result reached by the trial court, but for entirely different reasons.

While not professing to understand much of the extraordinary complexity of the mathematics, I find that there is a correlation between game theory and divorce settlement negotiations.

While the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage is one of many factors entering into a maintenance case, certainly there have to be better ways to establish it than the very public method chosen by Janet Welch.

It is well-established that under Wisconsin law income from excluded, non-marital property, is marital property. However, the law is not as clear regarding the effect of appreciation of non-marital property. A recent court of appeals decision does little to clear up this confusion.

Family law has its own “urban legends.” This article examines several such legends and discusses their reality.

Imagine calling to the witness stand the paramour of your client’s estranged spouse, in an attempt to prove that the spouse entered into a marital property agreement with a divorce in mind.

Among the most difficult issues in family law is the interplay between the amount of time children spend with each parent and child support. No doubt, the more time a parent has the children, the higher the cost. Yet, where is the “breaking point” where additional time should result in a change in the child support?

Frivolous actions seem to occur more frequently in family court than in most other areas of law.

Collaborative divorce requires lawyers who believe in the process and commit to work to resolve problems. Collaborative lawyers use problem solving techniques to fashion a “win-win” approach to the case, rather than the intimidation and threats of going to court to litigate.