COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

May 9, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2021AP1164 Cir. Ct. No. 2016FA1471

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT III

ELISA ELLEN BARONE CORBEILLE,

 JOINT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 V.

CURTIS PAUL BARONE CORBEILLE,

 JOINT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Brown County: 

DONALD R. ZUIDMULDER, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Curtis Barone Corbeille appeals an order denying 

his motion to reduce or terminate maintenance he pays to his former wife, 
No. 2021AP1164

2

Elisa Barone Corbeille.1 Corbeille argues that the circuit court erred by 

concluding he was estopped from pursuing maintenance modification. For the 

reasons discussed below, we affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The parties divorced in April 2017 after more than twelve years of 

marriage. Pursuant to a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into 

the divorce judgment, Corbeille agreed to pay Barone $1,600 in monthly

maintenance for ten years—from December 2016 until December 2026. In April 

2018, the parties, without the assistance of counsel, attempted to modify 

maintenance by stipulation. Because their stipulation was never approved by the 

circuit court, the court later deemed the stipulation to be unenforceable, leaving 

the original terms of the marital settlement agreement in place. 

¶3 In February 2019, Corbeille filed a motion for revision of the 

divorce judgment seeking, among other requests, a modification or termination of 

his maintenance payments. Corbeille stated that he was unable to meet his 

maintenance obligation because he was no longer receiving overtime hours from 

his employer. Corbeille also claimed that the parties informally agreed the

maintenance payments would be reduced after the sale of their home, and the 

home was sold in April 2018. Corbeille added that Barone had sufficient income 

to support herself because she was living in her boyfriend’s home with minimal 

expenses. At an April 2019 motion hearing, the circuit court approved the parties’ 

stipulation to reduce Corbeille’s maintenance payments to $1,300 per month, 

 

1

 Because the parties share a surname, we will refer to the appellant as “Corbeille” and 

the respondent as “Barone.” 
No. 2021AP1164

3

continuing until “December 31, 2026 or upon remarriage or death of the wife, or 

by Court order, whichever comes first which is consistent with the divorce 

judgment filed on April 3, 2017.” 

¶4 Barone subsequently moved the circuit court for remedial contempt 

based on Corbeille’s failure to pay maintenance as required under the April 

stipulation. At a July 10, 2019 hearing, the court approved the parties’ agreement 

for the payment of maintenance and arrears. The court also expressed its hope that 

the parties would not return to court until the point when Corbeille satisfied his 

arrearage payment plan. 

¶5 In July 2020, Corbeille filed the underlying motion to terminate or 

modify maintenance. After briefing by the parties, the circuit court denied the 

motion, concluding that Corbeille was estopped from seeking maintenance 

modification “based upon conduct that he has demonstrated in this case over a 

number of ... hearings.” This appeal follows. 

DISCUSSION

¶6 Although we agree with the circuit court’s decision to deny 

Corbeille’s motion, we affirm on different grounds.2 See State v. Baudhuin, 141 

Wis. 2d 642, 648, 416 N.W.2d 60 (1987) (where the circuit court’s decision is 

correct, we may affirm on grounds not utilized by that court). A request for a 

change in a maintenance award rests within the circuit court’s discretion. Haeuser 

 

2

 In his reply brief, Corbeille contends that we cannot affirm based on the merits of his 

underlying motion because this alternate argument was made by Barone for the first time on 

appeal. A respondent, however, may advance for the first time on appeal any argument that will 

sustain the circuit court’s ruling. See State v. Holt, 128 Wis. 2d 110, 124-25, 382 N.W.2d 679 

(Ct. App. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds.
No. 2021AP1164

4

v. Haeuser, 200 Wis. 2d 750, 764, 548 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1996), abrogated on 

other grounds by Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, 279 Wis. 2d 520, 694 

N.W.2d 879. Even if the circuit court fails to articulate the reasons for its 

decision, we will independently review the record to determine whether there is 

any reasonable basis upon which we may uphold the court’s discretionary 

decision. State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶53, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606. 

¶7 Maintenance modification can be made “only upon a positive 

showing” of a substantial change in the parties’ financial circumstances, a burden 

borne by the party seeking modification. Haeuser, 200 Wis. 2d at 764. We 

review a circuit court’s determination of whether there was a substantial change in 

circumstances for an erroneous exercise of discretion. See Cashin v. Cashin, 

2004 WI App 92, ¶44, 273 Wis. 2d 754, 681 N.W.2d 255. When determining 

whether there has been a substantial change in the parties’ financial circumstances, 

“the appropriate comparison is to the set of facts that existed at the time of the 

most recent maintenance order, whether that is the original divorce judgment or a 

previous modification order.” Kenyon v. Kenyon, 2004 WI 147, ¶27, 277 Wis. 2d 

47, 690 N.W.2d 251. The circuit court “should compare the facts regarding the 

parties’ current financial status with those surrounding the previous order in 

determining whether the movant has established the requisite substantial change in 

circumstances so as to warrant modification of the maintenance award.” Id., ¶2.

¶8 Here, the grounds for Corbeille’s July 2020 motion to modify 

maintenance were substantially similar to the grounds set forth in his 

February 2019 motion. The primary arguments in support of both motions were 

that Corbeille was no longer working overtime hours; that he was entitled to a 

reduction in maintenance after the sale of the parties’ home; and that Barone had 

no need for maintenance because she was living with her boyfriend. 
No. 2021AP1164

5

¶9 In his 2020 motion, the factual basis for Corbeille’s last two primary 

arguments remained the same. With respect to his overtime hours argument, both 

the February 2019 and July 2020 motions stated that Corbeille was working forty 

hours per week at Dorn’s Delivery in Appleton. In the February 2019 motion, 

Corbeille stated that he was “no longer getting [overtime] hours” from his 

employer, and in the July 2020 motion, he stated that his doctor recommended that 

he “no longer work any overtime” due to shoulder and back issues. Thus, 

although the factual basis for the inability to work overtime hours had changed, 

the underlying ground for maintenance modification—a lack of overtime hours—

remained the same in both motions. 

¶10 Ultimately, Corbeille failed to make a positive showing that there 

was a substantial change in the parties’ financial situation between the February 

2019 and July 2020 motions to justify either terminating or reducing the 

maintenance award. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order. 

By the Court.—Order affirmed. 

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2021-22).