Foregger v. Foregger
| Decision Date | 04 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 36,36 |
| Citation | 164 N.W.2d 226,40 Wis.2d 632 |
| Parties | Eleanor H. FOREGGER, Respondent, v. Richard FOREGGER, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Ray T. McCann, Milwaukee, for plaintiff-respondent; Leonard L. Loeb, Milwaukee, of counsel.
Nathan Ruppa, Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.
(on motion for rehearing).
On rehearing respondent-wife argues that if the court considered equitable offsets for the appellant-husband in the contempt proceedings, it was also proper for the trial court in those proceedings to consider equitable debits in the form of increased support provisions.
The matter of contempt goes to the narrow question of appellant's compliance with the provisions of the divorce judgment. The trial court properly ruled that in determining this question it could consider whether the judgment was duplicitous and, if it was, that appellant would be credited with equitable offsets for such amounts.
The question of whether there had been a change of circumstances from the wife's standpoint which would justify a support increase does not relate to the question of whether the appellant complied with the support provisions of the divorce judgment and, therefore, is beyond the scope of the contempt proceeding. Such a matter must be raised in a petition to the trial court as provided in sec. 247.25, Stats. This the respondent did not do. Even if she had, the trial court would have been without jurisdiction under sec. 247.25, Stats., to order a retroactive increase in the support provision of the judgment.
The motion for rehearing denied without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerhardt v. Estate of Moore, 85-0943
...increases in support payments. See, e.g., Foregger v. Foregger, 40 Wis.2d 632, 645, 162 N.W.2d 553 (1968), reh'g denied, 40 Wis.2d 632, 164 N.W.2d 226 (1969); Whitwam v. Whitwam, 87 Wis.2d 22, 30, 273 N.W.2d 366 (Ct.App.1978); Marriage of Greenwood v. Greenwood, 129 Wis.2d 388, 391, 385 N.W......
-
Ennis v. Ennis
...construed as justifying "retroactive" support, awards of the sort prohibited in Foregger v. Foregger, 40 Wis.2d 632, 162 N.W.2d 553, 164 N.W.2d 226 (1968). Any implication to that effect in our previous holding in Monson v. Monson, 85 Wis.2d 794, 803, 271 N.W.2d 137 (1978), is retracted. Mo......
-
Schulz v. Ystad
...make an order directing a retroactive increase in support payments. See Foregger v. Foregger, 40 Wis.2d 632, 644-45, 162 N.W.2d 553, 164 N.W.2d 226 (1968); Marriage of Greenwood v. Greenwood, 129 Wis.2d 388, 391, 385 N.W.2d 213 (Ct.App.1986); Whitwam v. Whitwam, 87 Wis.2d 22, 30, 273 N.W.2d......
-
Poehnelt v. Poehnelt
...an offset of child support overpayments 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 t......