District ii/IV
December 16, 2014
To:
Hon. Lloyd Carter
Circuit Court Judge
515 W Moreland Blvd
Waukesha, WI 53188
Kathleen A. Madden
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County Courthouse
515 W. Moreland Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188
Gregory S. Mager
O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, De Jong
111 East Wisconsin Ave. Suite 1400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Marylee Dolack Richmond
Child Support Division
515 W. Moreland Blvd., Rm. 348
Waukesha, WI 53188
Anthony M. Keziah
2019 Glendalough Ln.
Matthews, NC 28105
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Anthony M. Keziah (L.C. # 2008FA753) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Blanchard, P.J., Higginbotham and Sherman, JJ.
Anthony Keziah appeals an order concluding that the Keziah divorce action started and completed in North Carolina has since become a Wisconsin case subject to Wisconsin law for all purposes, and therefore the case is no longer subject to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and Wisconsin law applies to the child support arrearage and the assessment of interest on the arrearage. Upon our review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude at conference that the order should be summarily affirmed because the appellant’s brief fails to present a cognizable issue.
Anthony and Mary Keziah were divorced in North Carolina in 2005. The court set the amount of child support and calculated Anthony’s arrearage. After Mary moved to Wisconsin, she filed a motion in the North Carolina court to change venue to Wisconsin. On March 23, 2009, the court granted the motion and directed the North Carolina clerk of court to complete the file, and send the original file to the Waukesha County, Wisconsin court, “for the purposes of all further actions in this matter.” In 2011, at Anthony’s request, the Waukesha County court reduced the amount of child support he must pay. Mary filed a motion for a determination of the amount of interest that should accrue on the arrearage, and Anthony filed a response arguing that North Carolina law should apply to the allowable percentage of his net disposable income for child support and arrearage. He challenged the authority of Wisconsin to retroactively assess interest on the arrearage and argued that Wisconsin lacks the authority to intercept his federal tax return. The circuit court found that, as of March 23, 2009, North Carolina transferred the case to Wisconsin and Wisconsin courts cannot review the earlier North Carolina court’s decisions. Therefore, the court concluded that Wisconsin law shall be applied to the determination of child support arrearage, interest, and enforcement.
While the appellant’s brief clearly expresses dissatisfaction with the circuit court’s decision, it offers no cogent basis for reversing the decision. Contrary to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) (2011-12),[1] the brief recites facts with no citation to the record. It argues matters that have no clear relationship to the issues raised in the brief, contrary to Rule 809.19(1)(e). Parts of the brief appear to request review of decisions made by the North Carolina court. The court has no jurisdiction to review those decisions. This court will not consider arguments that are unexplained, undeveloped, or unsupported by citations to authority. M.C.I., Inc. v. Elbin, 146 Wis. 2d 239, 244-45, 430 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1988). We will not abandon our neutrality by developing Anthony’s amorphous and unsupported arguments for him. See Barakat v. DHSS, 191 Wis. 2d 769, 786, 530 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1995).
IT IS ORDERED that the order is summarily affirmed. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals