Court Opinion

ID: 9851813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:20:08.120262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:15.932118
License: Public Domain

BROWN, C.J.
¶ 33. (concurring). I just want to note that Jeffery has not claimed that the retroactive child support order in this case runs afoul of Wis. Stat. § 767.59(lm) (prohibiting retroactive increases in support payments). See also Foregger v. Foregger, 40 Wis. 2d 632, 645, 162 N.W.2d 553 (1968); Whitwam v. *464Whitwam, 87 Wis. 2d 22, 30, 273 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1978). Thus, the issue is waived.
¶ 34. However, even had he raised this issue, it would have been rejected, in my opinion. We must read Wis. Stat. § 767.59(lm) in harmony with Wis. Stat. § 767.127(5), the statute at issue in this case. Read together, § 767.127(5) creates an exception to the statute prohibiting retroactive increases in child support and thereby furnishes the authority to transfer certain assets for support distribution.
¶ 35. Moreover, the rule prohibiting retroactive increases in child support is not universal. In Overson v. Overson, 140 Wis. 2d 752, 759, 412 N.W.2d 896 (Ct. App. 1987), an exception was recognized to allow a trial court to adjust support obligations when a case is remanded from this court if an adjustment is necessary to avoid "unnecessary hardship."
¶ 36. Finally, it is my view that what happened here was a fraud upon the court just as much as it was a fraud upon the payee spouse. In such cases, a motion under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(l)(g) — the statute allowing relief from a judgment if it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application— should be allowed to proceed if made in a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud. I note that this same issue was raised by the payee spouse in Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102, ¶ 27 n.12, 304 Wis. 2d 1, 736 N.W.2d 85, but was not considered by the supreme court. The fact that it was not considered at that time does not mean it lacks vitality where there has been a fraud on the court due to the intentional hiding of financial information from the family court.