Motte v. Motte
Stipulation making future child support unmodifiable in the event of a change in placement is against public policy and void. However, stipulation forgiving arrearages is not contrary to public policy.
Frisch v. Henrichs
Stipulation freezing child support was unenforceable because it was not in the best interests of the children and therefore contrary to public policy.
Jalovec v. Jalovec
Because Frisch v. Henrichs (2007 WI 102) and Krieman v. Goldberg, 214 Wis. 2d 163, have declared restrictive child support provisions similar to the one here against public policy, we determine that the provision at issue here is against public policy, and we decline to apply equitable estoppel against James.
Tensfeldt v. Haberman
Stipulation for property benefit for adult children is enforceable. Parties may freely and knowingly stipulate to an overall settlement that is fair and equitable and not against public policy and such a judgment is enforceable by contempt sanctions.
Wagner v. Estate of Sobczak
Stipulation providing for non-modifiable maintenance continue past payor’s death, even though it is not expressly stated in the stipulation.
In Re Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny
Trial court can look at transcript of agreement as stated in court to ascertain the intent of the parties. (Not published, but citable.)
Articles on Social Security Benefits and Divorce
Articles from scholarly/legal journals on service of process and divorce.
Marriage of Mack v. Mack
Social security benefits are not retirement plan to be valued and considered in divorce.
Marriage of Langlois v. Langlois
(1) SSI is not available for child support, but (2) seek-work order was appropriate and does not conflict with SSI program.
In Re Marriage of Paulhe v. Riley
Payer entitled to credit for support payments made during period where covered by social security disability payments paid to payee for the minor child. SSD are not gratuitous benefits, but are a substitute for the disabled parent’s earnings, funded by payment of social security taxes. Although the credit statute refers to “unpaid support”, failure to give credit to a payor who continued to make payments would deny equal protection of laws.