Archives: Family Law

After nearly nine months without a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case arising from a divorce action being recommended for publication, late last month, the District I Court of Appeals its opinion in Lubinski v. Lubinski.

A song by the Temptations comes to mind after reading Steinmann v. Steinmann. “Ball of Confusion.” That’s what the law of maintenance is today.

This is the second of three articles analyzing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Steinmann v. Steinmann, examining its implications for marital property agreements.

Last month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in its only pending family law case, Steinmann v. Steinmann. This is the first of three articles which will discuss the case, and its puzzling implications.

In this series of articles, Attorney Gregg Herman discusses the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Steinmann v. Steinmann, which dealt with post-nuptial marital property agreements and property division issues.

On December 4, 2007, the District I Court of Appeals issued their opinion in Wright v. Wright. The decision, ordering the trial court to consider income from all sources in determining the maintenance calculation.

May a circuit court use its remedial contempt powers to craft a remedy, where a party fails to provide tax returns and income information in a timely manner as required under statute, a divorce judgement, and a court order, but then the party produces the information just before the contempt hearing? The Wisconsin Supreme Court says “Yes.”

What would the role of a child’s representative be in a perfect world?

Much ink has been spilled over the GAL’s role, and much real and virtual debate has taken place. This article offers a discussion on the roles of lawyers for children other than the role prescribed in Wisconsin.

Usually, a lawyer represents a client. In Wisconsin, on the other hand, a GAL represents the “concept” of the best interests of the child.