Chandler v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 24 November 1964 |
| Citation | 131 N.W.2d 336,25 Wis.2d 587 |
| Parties | Ruth CHANDLER, Respondent, v. John C. CHANDLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Brennan & Brennan, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Edgarton & Hobbs, Found du Lac, for respondent.
Appellant defendant's brief states that the issue defore this court is:
'Are the following findings of the circuit court of Fond du Lac county contrary to the great weight of the evidence:
'(a) That the appellant should pay $100 for unusual medical payments?
'(b) That the divorce judgment should be amended to increase the support payments to $145 per month?'
With respect to the portion of the order which requires defendant to pay the sum of $100, a factual issue is presented as to whether there were at least $100 of the medical and drug expenses incurred by plaintiff for Barbara which were 'unusual' within the meaning of the applicable provision of the divorce judgment. The test, therefore, to be applied to the trial court's determination of this issue is whether such determination is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand, the trial court's determination that the monthly support money payments required to defendant be increased $20 per month to cover sending Barbara to summer camp involves an exercise of discretion and not a fact finding. The test to be applied to it on this appeal is whether it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Jackson v. Jackson (1962), 16 Wis.2d 61, 64, 113 N.W.2d 546; Bradley v. Bradley (1960), 9 Wis.2d 523, 530, 101 N.W.2d 628; Anderson v. Anderson (1959), 8 Wis.2d 133, 142, 98 N.W.2d 434; Littig v. Littig (1938), 229 Wis. 430, 437, 282 N.W. 547.
In Kritzik v. Kritzik (1963), 21 Wis.2d 442, 446, 124 N.W.2d 581, 584, we stated, 'We must sustain the trial court's modification of a divorce judgment unless the determination is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.' This is true only where the modification rests entirely on a factual determination. If the modification rests primarily on an exercise of discretion, this court will not disturb it unless we find an abuse of discretion. The aforequoted statement from the Kritzik Case must be limited to the peculiar facts of that case, and is not to be interpreted as generally applicable to all modifications of support and alimony payment provisions of divorce judgments.
After a review ofd the evidence we determine a trial court's finding, that the following medical and drug expenses incurred by plaintiff for Barbara were 'unusual' within the meaning of the applicable provision of the divorce judgment, would not be against the great weight of the evidence:
Dr. E. W. Pawsat, medical
services $ 68.00
Dr. Hitzelberger 10.00
Dana & Worm, drugs and
medicines 28.75
Dr. James Kalk, X rays 21.00
-------
Total: $127.75
Dr. Pawsat had treated Barbara for virus skin infection, thyroid goiter, kidney malfunction, and swimmer's ear infection and his bill was for services in rendering such treatment. Dr. Hitzelberger had also treated the virus skin infection; Dana & Worm are pharmacists. Their bill was for drugs and medicines prescribed by Drs. Pawsat and Hitzelberger in treating Barbara's aforementioned ailments. Dr. Kalk's bill was for X rays taken in connection with fitting Barbara's teeth with braces. Defendant cannot be heard to complain that the trial court did not pinpoint items aggregating $100 when a finding of $127.75 of unusual medical and drug expenses would have been warranted by the record.
The two principal points of attack made by defendant on the portion of the order which modified the judgment so as to increase the support payments by $20 per month are: (1) there was no change of circumstances shown which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller
...(1970), 48 Wis.2d 512, 522, 180 N.W.2d 578; Kritzik v. Kritzik (1963), 21 Wis.2d 442, 447, 124 N.W.2d 581.9 Chandler v. Chandler (1964), 25 Wis.2d 587, 592, 131 N.W.2d 336; Kritzik v. Kritzik, supra, 21 Wis.2d page 447, 124 N.W.2d 581.10 Foregger v. Foregger, supra, 48 Wis.2d page 522, 180 ......
-
Besaw v. Besaw
...state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. Chandler v. Chandler, (1964), 25 Wis.2d 587, 131 N.W.2d 336." However, the court did note in a footnote to the section quoted above, "We do not here consider mistake or hardship.......
-
Poehnelt v. Poehnelt
...against alimony arrearage. See also: Foregger v. Foregger, 40 Wis.2d 632, 162 N.W.2d 553, 164 N.W.2d 226 (1968); Chandler v. Chandler, 25 Wis.2d 587, 131 N.W.2d 336 (1964). Therefore, we hold that the defendant is entitled to an offset or credit for the $2,800 overpayment of child support m......
-
Brown County Dep't of Human Servs. v. TERRANCE M., No. 04-2379
...Wis. 2d 382, 386, 238 N.W.2d 116 (1976); Thies v. MacDonald, 51 Wis. 2d 296, 301-02, 187 N.W.2d 186 (1971); and Chandler v. Chandler, 25 Wis. 2d 587, 592, 131 N.W.2d 336 (1964). ¶ 9. Chandler dealt with a request for modification of a child support order. The supreme court explained the cla......