Whitwam v. Whitwam

273 N.W.2d 366, 87 Wis. 2d 22, 1978 Wisc. App. LEXIS 582
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedNovember 20, 1978
Docket77-759
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 273 N.W.2d 366 (Whitwam v. Whitwam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whitwam v. Whitwam, 273 N.W.2d 366, 87 Wis. 2d 22, 1978 Wisc. App. LEXIS 582 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

MOSER, P.J.

The action for divorce was commenced in July, 1975 and was tried to the court as a default on October 24, 1977. At a temporary hearing held on August 8, 1975, Mr. Whitwam’s support obligation was “held open” because he was unemployed. The temporary order *26 provided that if the wife or children received financial assistance from the county welfare department, Mr. Whitwam was to reimburse the department on such terms as it might direct. Subsequently, Mrs. Whitwam applied for and began receiving public assistance. Through a modified temporary order filed September 29, 1977, the court required Mr. Whitwam to pay child support of $20 per week. Mr. Whitwam paid the required child support in full.

At trial, the court granted the divorce to the plaintiff and disposed of all other issues in accordance with a written stipulation of the parties. At the court’s request, Mrs. Whitwam’s trial counsel drafted findings of fact and conclusions of law and the judgment which included the “usual orders” concerning social services.

The “usual orders” added to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment read as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED:

That the question of alimony is held open, to be reviewed only in the event either party becomes a public charge in the State of Wisconsin and any such alimony review shall be held upon the merits — except that no alimony shall be awarded which is in excess of the amount of public assistance which may have been furnished or may thereafter be furnished, it being the intention of this Interlocutory Order to be solely for the protection of the public.

That the Department of Social Services has heretofore paid unrefunded public assistance in the sum of $9,233.23 in behalf of the dependents of the parties in this action, and that the present monthly grant by said Department for said dependents is $218.00; that the parties herein shall repay said Department for all sums advanced heretofore and hereafter, in the amount and form required by law.

That in the event at any time hereafter any real estate, in which the parties or either of them have an interest, *27 shall be sold, the net proceeds of any such sale shall be paid over to the Clerk of Courts and held by said Clerk pending further order of the Court; that any application by either party to withdraw any such real estate sale funds shall be on written Notice of Motion to the Department of Social Services. . . .

On March 8, 1978, Mr. Whitwam moved that the judgment be amended to delete these provisions. The motion was denied April 14, 1978, and Mr. Whitwam appealed.

The issues presented on this appeal are (1) may a future grant of alimony be conditioned on the dependent spouse’s receipt of public assistance and limited to the amount of such assistance received, (2) did the trial court have the authority to order the parties to repay the welfare department for all unrefunded public assistance provided before or after the divorce judgment, and (3) did the trial court have the authority to encumber the parties’ current and after-acquired real estate for the benefit of the local welfare department.

CONDITIONAL ALIMONY

A future grant of alimony may not be conditioned upon the dependent spouse’s receipt of public assistance. A family court judge’s power to make judgments and orders regarding alimony or maintenance is limited to what the statutes allow. 1 Factors to be considered by the family trial court in making a determination of alimony are fixed on the basis of the needs of the wife and the ability of the husband to pay. These needs are ordinarily established by considering the wife’s assets, income, her special needs, her age and health, and her customary station in life. The ability of the husband to pay is usually determined by his income, assets and debts, as well as his age and health. These determinations are to be made upon *28 the basis of circumstances existing at the time of the divorce. 2

The Family Code of Wisconsin 3 provides for certain instances when social welfare agencies become active parties in marital actions. A welfare agency is permitted to maintain a separate cause of action for maintenance (alimony) when a recipient of aid refuses to proceed against a divorced spouse who is under a family court order for maintenance (alimony) of the recipient. 4 A welfare agency can also, by assignment and with the approval of the family court, become a real party in in *29 terest for the sole purpose of collecting unpaid alimony. 5 These provisions are obviously for the protection of the general public and the taxpayers.

These statutory requirements have not been satisfied in this case. Therefore, the inclusion of this paragraph conditioning alimony on the dependent spouse’s receipt of public assistance and the subsequent order denying the motion to strike this paragraph finds no support in either the family code or case law. The judgment must therefore be amended to delete this provision.

REPAYMENT OF UNREFUNDED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

The divorce judgment ordered the parties to pay the Waukesha County Department of Social Services the un-refunded amount of $9,233.23 paid heretofore on behalf *30 of the dependents of the parties. That judgment also noted that the social service’s grant was in the amount of $218 per month and ordered the parties to pay all sums hereafter owed to the department. Mr. Whitwam filed a motion under sec. 806.07(1) (d), Stats., for a modification of the judgment with this paragraph deleted. This motion was denied.

We note that there was a temporary order for support of $20 per week and that such order held open the issue of alimony. We note further that the divorce judgment grants custody to Mrs. Whitwam and ordered support payments in the amount of $25 per week, which judgment adopted the written stipulation of the parties. The record reflects that Mr. Whitwam was current with the court ordered support payments at the time of the divorce judgment and at the time of the denial of the motion to amend.

In the case of Mr. Whitwam, this paragraph of the judgment of divorce amounts to a judgment requiring retroactive support. In essence, it required Mr. Whitwam to pay for public assistance received prior to the divorce for the support of his child. Imposing liability for that assistance made Mr. Whitwam retroactively liable for more than $20 per week. Twenty dollars per week was all Mr. Whitwam was required to pay for child support, prior to the divorce. The order denying the motion to amend accomplished the same purpose. A family trial court has discretion to reduce or eliminate support ar-rearages with cause or justification. 6

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stevenson v. Stevenson
2009 WI App 29 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2009)
Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W.
578 N.W.2d 185 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1998)
W.W.W. v. M.C.S.
518 N.W.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1994)
In Re Paternity of CAS & CDS
518 N.W.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1994)
In RE MARRIAGE OF SCHULZ v. Ystad
456 N.W.2d 312 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1990)
Gerhardt v. Estate of Moore
441 N.W.2d 734 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1989)
MARRIAGE OF WOODMANSEE v. Woodmansee
444 N.W.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1989)
In RE MARRIAGE OF HARRIS v. Harris
415 N.W.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1987)
O'BRIEN v. Freiley
387 N.W.2d 85 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1986)
Marriage of Strawser v. Strawser
377 N.W.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1985)
Sauk County Child Support Agency v. Drier
351 N.W.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1984)
Marriage of Dennis v. State
329 N.W.2d 272 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1982)
Opinion No. Oag 33-81, (1981)
70 Op. Att'y Gen. 136 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1981)
Lucareli v. White (In Re White)
9 B.R. 11 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1981)
State Ex Rel. v. Reible
283 N.W.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 N.W.2d 366, 87 Wis. 2d 22, 1978 Wisc. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitwam-v-whitwam-wisctapp-1978.