Trial court had jurisdiction to order marital property in Costa Rica to be sold and its proceeds divided.
Constructive trust for childrens’ higher education was an appropriate remedy under Tikalsky v. Friedman for under reporting income following divorce.
Custody ordered reversed where the trial judge accepted a Facebook “friend” request from the mother after the trial, but before issuing a written decision.
Circuit court erred by continuing the appointment of the Parent Coordinator over father’s objections where the stipulation of the parties allowed either one to terminate the appointment after 12 months and the Parent Coordinator appointment did not comply with requirements of §805.06 and State ex rel Universal Processing Serv. Of Wis. V. Circuit Ct. Of Milwaukee Cty, 2017 WI 26, 374 Wis. 2d 26, 892 N.W. 2d 267. (Unpublished, but citeable)
Child support modification motion was property denied based on claim preclusion where mother had voluntarily agreed to dismiss her prior motion with prejudice.
Trial court impermissibly delegated judicial power to the referee which is constitutionally vested in the court system. The Wisconsin Constitution provides a judicial system for a resolution of disputes. Used properly, a court may appoint and assign functions to a referee. But in this case, the court’s order impermissibly delegated power to the referee by using the standard of erroneous exercise of discretion.
The circuit court’s order appointing a referee that the circuit court’s review of the referee’s “rulings” shall be based only on the referee’s “erroneous exercise of discretion,” impermissibly delegated to the referee judicial power constitutionally vested in the court.
Court did not misuse its discretion in not conducting evidentiary hearing on placement where it interpreted the motion to fill in the void from a previous order rather than to modify placement. (Not published, but citable.)
Trial court could order child support in contempt action where the wife requested child support in her affidavit to contempt action and husband responded, showing that he had notice. (Not published, but citable.)
Trial court was not required to accept the opinion of the only expert as to husband’s income. (Not published, but citable.)
“Clean hands doctrine” prohibits relief to wife who transferred condo to friend to avoid it being considered in divorce action. (Not published, but citable.)
Trial court erred in not affording movant an opportunity to present testimony when he requested a “hearing de novo”. He was entitled to a fresh look at the issues.
Court will not aid either party to an illegal agreement. Contract to hide an asset from wife is not enforceable.
Circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting expert testimony on a legal definition, even if the testimony embraced an ultimate issue. The expert’s testimony encompassed specialized financial knowledge that would assist the jury in understanding the evidence presented.
Absent a motion, petition or order to show cause brought by a party, the trial court lacked authority to amend or modify a custody order from joint to sole custody.
Father did not waive his right to object to wife’s parenting plan when he failed to submit his own plan prior to the scheduling conference. A scheduling conference is not a pretrial conference.
Trial court erred in deviating from an unequal division of the largest asset in the marital estate upon consideration of only one statutory factor, neglecting entirely the other statutory factors.
A common law action for unjust enrichment cannot be litigated in a divorce action.
In a divorce proceeding, a trial court has only that authority given it by statute.
Trial court also properly provided for a dollar-for-dollar offset of child support against property division payments.