Van Price v. Van Price

81-FA-31 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Winnebago County Nov. 11, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51138

Description

Court Has Equitable Powers in Extraordinary Circumstances to Reopen Child Support Judgments That Are Over One Year Old

Abstract

The court has held that, although petitioner mother could move to modify her child support obligation retroactive to the date she became disabled, she was not entitled to having the underlying child support judgments vacated. In 1989, mother was ordered to pay respondent father $50 per week in child support. In 1992, mother became disabled and began receiving SSI benefits. She sought to amend her current child support obligation from $50 per week to a percentage figure and to vacate and reopen child support judgments entered after she became disabled and to reduce her retroactive child support obligation. The parties settled the issue of current support. Father, in opposing mother's motion to reopen the 1991 or 1994 child support judgments, argued that retroactive modification of child support was prohibited under state law, which requires motions for modification to be made within one year of judgment. Mother asserted that the court had broad discretionary authority to fashion an appropriate remedy pursuant to its inherent equitable authority. The court held that, in extraordinary circumstances and in the interest of justice, child support judgments over one year old may be reopened. In doing so, the court must consider (1) whether the judgment was entered as a result of conscientious, deliberate, and well-informed choice of the claimant; (2) whether the claimant received effective assistance of counsel; (3) whether there was judicial consideration of the merits; (3) whether there is a meritorious defense to the claim; and (5) whether intervening circumstances make it inequitable to grant relief. However, finding that mother cited no "intervening circumstances" other than her disability as a basis for modification, the court held that relief was unjustified; a disability finding for social security purposes is not the same as a finding that she was unable to contribute to her children's support.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Petitioner represented by Karen Roehl, Legal Services of Northeastern Wisconsin, 404 N. Main St., Suite 702, Oshkosh, WI 54901, (414) 233-6521.
Docket Date
1970-01-01 06:00:00+00:00