Cameron v. Cameron
Court erred when it imposed a trust on child support arrearages without the consent of the payee and without a finding that she was unable to wisely manage the money.
Court erred when it imposed a trust on child support arrearages without the consent of the payee and without a finding that she was unable to wisely manage the money.
New statute limits court’s authority to modify arrearage. Where parties orally agreed to different support payment, equitable estoppel under Shulz and Harms are no longer available.
Payer entitled to credit for support payments made during period where covered by social security disability payments paid to payee for the minor child.
(1) Court can order a party to put up security for future child support if there is a history of arrears. (2) Court cannot order child support past age of majority.
Legislature can change child support obligations retroactively.
Lump sum payment in paternity is res judicata for future support.
Two-tiered child support order affirmed.
Child who reaches age of majority does not have cause of action for award or modification of child support.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding open child support, even though wife was receiving AFDC.
On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court decides that lump sum payment for paternity judgment denies equal protection of laws.