Family — child support floors

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Family — child support floors — modification

Michael Eisenga and Clare Hawthorne (formerly Eisenga) were married in September 2004 and filed for divorce in May 2010. Pursuant to a court order, Michael and Clare participated in binding arbitration to resolve the financial issues in the divorce, including the amount of child support Michael would be required to pay. The arbitrator issued an award ordering Michael to pay $18,000 per month to Clare in child support, and establishing a $15,000 per month child support “floor” below which Michael’s child support obligation could not fall. The circuit court subsequently issued a judgment of divorce and incorporated the arbitrator’s award, including the $15,000 per month child support floor, into the judgment.

Less than a year after the judgment of divorce was issued, Michael moved to modify his child support obligation because of a decline in his income.

Michael also moved to strike the child support floor provision of the arbitrator’s award as against public policy. Additionally, Michael moved to compel discovery from Clare regarding her financial resources, which he claimed he needed to develop support for his motion to reduce his child support obligation.

The circuit court denied all of Michael’s motions. The circuit court held that Michael waived his right to challenge the child support floor provision, and also found that the child support floor provision did not violate public policy. The circuit court refused to modify Michael’s child support obligation because it found that Michael could pay the amount out of his substantial separate estate. The circuit court also found that Clare had adequately responded to a number of Michael’s discovery requests, and that the other requests sought irrelevant material. Michael now appeals.

On appeal, Michael challenges the circuit court’s decisions denying his motion to strike the child support floor as against public policy, refusing to modify his child support obligation, and denying his motion to compel discovery from Clare. Affirmed. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP91 In re the marriage of: Eisenga v. Eisenga

Dist IV, Columbia County, White, J., Kloppenburg, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Roberson, Linda, Madison; Slota, Holly, Madison; For Respondent: Collins, Michael J., Madison; Podell, Richard J., Milwaukee