Court Opinion

ID: 9706457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:43:58.511178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.881486
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). I agree completely with the sound legal analysis written by the majority. Where I disagree is with the application of the law to the facts of this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The economic facts are somewhat difficult to glean from this record, particularly because the circuit court made no specific economic analysis or findings other than some conclusory references. What we do glean from the record is the following.
Husband Michael Luciani has aftertax monthly income of approximately $1900 ($22,000 annually). Wife Dr. Angelina Luciani has aftertax monthly income of approximately $8300 ($100,000 annually). Mr. Luciani has the children for approximately 117 overnight days and 49 nonovemight days per year, a placement characterized by the court of appeals as a "nearly equal child placement provision." Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani, 191 Wis. 2d 67, 77, 528 N.W.2d 477 (1995).1 He pays $650 a month rent for a home for himself and his children when they are with him. From the statement of facts presented by Dr. Luciani's attorney to the court of appeals, we further learn that Mr. *311Luciani spends about $150 monthly for utilities and $130 monthly for child care.
The majority affirms the circuit court decision that says Mr. Luciani must pay approximately $680 a month in child support. Taking into account his rent, utilities, and child care, this leaves him with approximately $290 a month for himself (and his children when they are with him) for expenses such as food, car, gasoline, clothing, car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, and incidentals. It leaves him with little or no discretionary income to spend on gifts, entertainment, vacations and the like for either himself or the children. We compare this to his wife who will have more than ample discretionary income to bestow upon the children, a fact that will certainly resonate with them as they get older.
On the face of it, this result is tantamount to forced impoverishment of one spouse while the other spbuse has ample income to live exceedingly well.2 Without further economic analysis by the circuit court with respect to the circumstances of each party, this result could hardly be more inequitable.
What we have here is a situation in which the non-primary parent with a substantially lower income than the primary parent has a time share with the children that approaches equal time. Such a situation was *312directly addressed in a 1992 study authored by Marygold S. Melli and Pat Brown under a contract between the Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services and the Institute for Research on Poverty, entitled "Child Support in Shared Physical Custody in Wisconsin: Present Guidelines and Possible Alternatives."
In addressing the shared-time formula, the authors state that the formula results in inequitable award calculations in two situations: one, where the non-primary parent's time share approaches equal; two, where the non-primary parent has a lower income. Where both situations are present, as they are here with husband Luciani, the authors state unequivocally: "the resulting support award, as calculated by the formula currently in effect, produces markedly inequitable results." Id. at 15 (emphasis added).
The authors use an example, outlined more fully below,3 in which the mother is the non-primary parent with $3000 less income than the father, but, after paying support consistent with the current formula, ends up with nearly $10,000 less yearly income than the *313father. The authors' conclusion is that this is "tremendously inequitable" to the mother. Id. at 17.
Here, the facts are different from their example only with respect to who the non-primary parent is (and of course gender should make no difference) and the amount of the income disparity (which is far greater here than in the example where the authors found the disparity to be "tremendously inequitable" to the mother).
There is a way for this court to resolve the inequity: put teeth into the statutory provision which permits the court to deviate from the standards if the court finds by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the use of the standards is unfair to the children or the party requesting such deviation. See Wis. Stat. § 767.25(lm). To do so requires far more fact finding than is presented by this record.
I conclude that Judge Nettesheim, writing for a unanimous court of appeals, got it exactly right. That court concluded that the circuit court "erred in the exercise of its discretion ... by failing to analyze the economic consequences of the support order in light of the parties' budgets, incomes and nearly equal child placement provisions." Id. Even a cursory look at both circuit court decisions compel this conclusion. Not one figure is cited. There is no analysis whatsoever. All statements are conclusory.
The majority says Mr. Luciani failed to prove by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the presumptive application of the percentage standards would be unfair to either the parties or the children. What more does he need to produce other than the above described facts to establish basic inequity? These facts, on their face, are more than enough evidence to overcome the presumption. I agree with the court of *314appeals that this case must be sent back for further economic analysis. High income disparity cases present significant problems of fairness, requiring a high degree of economic analysis. Without such analysis, at the very least a perception of unfairness will inevitably linger. Accordingly, I dissent.

Although the circuit court provided a maintenance award of $1000 a month, maintenance is payable for only 36 months. After that, according to the circuit court, "maintenance shall be barred." At that time, the two children will be ages 8 and 9.
Although the majority argues that Mr. Luciani may seek revision after the maintenance expires, the family court's order that "maintenance shall be barred" leaves scant hope that such request would be viewed with favor absent some change in circumstance other than the termination of maintenance.

 The authors state:
In this case, a mother who has her children living in her home for 15 fewer days over the course of a year than the father, and who has a yearly income of $16,000 versus a yearly income of $19,000 for the father, would be ordered to pay the father $3,282 per year using the formula currently in effect. The family incomes which would result after the child support transfer are, for the father, $22,292; for the mother, $12,718. The disparity in family finances which results from the application of the current shared custody child support formula would be tremendously inequitable in this case for the mother and the children.
Melli, Child Support in Shared Physical Custody, at 17 (emphasis added).