Archives: Caselaw

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.

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.

As a result of June 7, 2000, a Supreme Court of Wisconsin case, Washington v. Washington, 2000 WI 47, trial courts now have the power to grant relief, even years after the judgment.

On Feb. 22, the high court granted review of the Court Appeals decision, to focus upon whether a court in a maintenance determination can consider a period of premarital cohabitation, and whether a professional degree is an asset for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Troxel v. Granville, No. 99-138 (argued Jan. 12, 2000), involving the issue of grandparent visitation. While it remains unclear whether the Court’s opinion will have any significant impact in Wisconsin, the case involves issues of basic and significant societal concerns.

In family law, there are agreements and there are agreements. Some are merely recommendations to the court, while others are binding on the parties. The distinction is exemplified in three relatively recent court of appeals decisions.