Warner v. Warner
150 miles is measured by “ordinary routes of travel,” not “as the crow flies.” (Not Published; Cannot Be Cited.)
150 miles is measured by “ordinary routes of travel,” not “as the crow flies.” (Not Published; Cannot Be Cited.)
Circuit court had no authority to prospectively order that Wife not move beyond forty-five miles from the marital home. By its enactment of Wis. Stat. § 767.481, the legislature has made a judgment that moves of less than 150 miles are not subject to the best interests of the children standard.
Trial court properly ordered mother to return to Wisconsin after she moved to area and school district other than the one she had designated in her petition for removal.
While father’s intent to move to Washington was not unreasonable as it would allow him to pursue his best career options in the navy, the removal of the children from Wisconsin to Washington was unreasonable and not in their best interests.
The requirement that judges terminate maintenance on remarriage is unconditional and applies even though the second marriage was void or voidable by annulment.
Date of vacation of maintenance on basis of remarriage depends on the equities of each case. When payor applies to the court with proof of remarriage, the court must vacate maintenance, but not necessarily retroactive to the date of remarriage.
Stipulation was not ambiguous – payments were maintenance and thus stop on remarriage.
Where parties remarried, trial court properly utilized combined years of marriage when setting maintenance. Trial court does not have to either strictly adhere to, or even consider, the initial marital settlement agreement.
A party has a right to seek to reopen a divorce judgment, even where judgment was based on the agreement of the parties. But, a motion based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect must be brought within one year.
A party can reopen property division based on a stipulation of the parties where she never agreed on the record, and the order was unclear.