Trial court has authority to construe an ambiguous judgment to effectuate the trial court’s intent. Here, the judgment is not clear on the meaning of “gross income”. Therefore the trial court had the authority to clarify what it intended and its construction was reasonable in light of the entire record.
There is no right to withdraw from a stipulation after court approval. Court approval does not require a written judgment – court’s expression of its decision to adopt the stipulation is sufficient.
Trial court erred in finding that child stipulation was percentage-based: The language “The monthly amount of $400 (17% of current income of $28,000/year”) is unambiguously a dollar expressed order and that the dollar amount is based on husband’s wages.
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.
Stipulation freezing child support was unenforceable because it was not in the best interests of the children and therefore contrary to public policy.
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.
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.
Stipulation providing for non-modifiable maintenance continue past payor’s death, even though it is not expressly stated in the stipulation.
Trial court can look at transcript of agreement as stated in court to ascertain the intent of the parties. (Not published, but citable.)