|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED June 6, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0229-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
In re the Marriage of:
TERESA ANN HARE,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
GEORGE NOEL HARE,
Respondent-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Juneau County:
JOHN W. BRADY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Gartzke, P.J.,
Dykman and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. George Noel Hare appeals from an order denying his
motion to reduce his family support obligation.[1] George incurred that obligation pursuant to
a marital settlement agreement incorporated into the judgment divorcing him
from Teresa Hare. He sought a reduction
based on his worsening financial situation and on a change in the children's
physical placement schedule. However,
the parties' settlement agreement provided that the family support payments
"shall be considered to be permanent and nonalterable by the parties for
any reason except as agreed by the parties." On the basis of that provision, the trial court held George
estopped from seeking reduced payments.
We agree and therefore affirm.
George contends that
public policy bars enforcement of agreements not to modify child support, and
that the same rule should apply to family support agreements. However, we reject his contention as applied
in this case. This court has announced
a public policy that prevents enforcement of agreements that put a ceiling on
the child support obligation. Ondrasek
v. Tenneson, 158 Wis.2d 690, 696-97, 462 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Ct. App.
1990). This policy rests on "the
statutory goal of providing for the best interest of the child." Id. at 697, 462 N.W.2d at
918. It does not bar the court from
estopping a party who has previously agreed never to seek a reduction in
support. The distinction between family
support and child support is therefore immaterial. George may not invoke public policy to avoid an agreement that
prevents him from seeking a reduction in the amount of support available to his
children.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.