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.)