In re Thompson

• Docket Number: 2021AP2175
• Decision Date: 24 January 2024
• Parties: In re the marriage of: James Michael Thompson, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Lisa Ann Thompson, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

1

In re the marriage of: James Michael Thompson, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Lisa Ann Thompson, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2021AP2175

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II

January 24, 2024

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5 (2021-2022).

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Washington County No. 2015FA143 TODD K. MARTENS, Judge.

Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

PER CURIAM.

2

¶1 In this postdivorce proceeding, Lisa Ann Thompson (Lisa) appeals from an order denying her motion for maintenance and requiring her to pay attorney fees to James Michael Thompson (James). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶2 Lisa and James were married on February 6, 1998. After 19 years of marriage, they divorced on February 28, 2017. Their judgment of divorce included a marital settlement agreement (MSA).

¶3 The MSA addressed a pending personal injury claim that James had relating to a car accident he was in during the marriage. Lisa reserved the right to seek maintenance from any portion of a personal injury award meant to reimburse James for past loss of income/earnings. The MSA states in relevant part:

The parties acknowledge that the petitioner has a pending personal injury claim relating to an automobile accident which occurred during the marriage on January [25], 2014. The parties expressly acknowledge that petitioner intends to assert a claim in such personal injury action for his past loss of income/earnings which accrued after that accident Respondent reserves any and all interest she may have in connection with the hold-open of maintenance to seek an appropriate portion of the petitioner's potential recovery for such past income/earnings that accrued during the parties' marriage. The parties understand that respondent may seek a maintenance award in connection with any recovery for this specific damage item which may be obtained by the petitioner in connection with the pending litigation. The parties expressly understand and agree that any recovery in such pending personal injury action particularly as it relates to recovery for this particular damage item, shall not form the basis for reopening property division and may only potentially constitute an alleged basis for the respondent to seek a maintenance award.

¶4 On April 22, 2019, James settled his personal injury claim for $3,250,000. Lisa subsequently moved for a maintenance award pursuant to the

3

MSA. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no evidence that any portion of the personal injury settlement was for past loss of income/earnings.

¶5 Lisa appealed the circuit court's decision. She later voluntarily dismissed that appeal.

¶6 Nine months later, on July 30, 2021, Lisa filed a new motion for maintenance. In it, she claimed to have evidence that a large portion of James' personal injury settlement was for past loss of income/earnings. The evidence was a combination of old material (i.e., an expert report on James' economic damages prepared in the personal injury case) and new material (i.e., an affidavit from one of the defense attorneys in the personal injury case).

¶7 The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The court noted that it had addressed the issue of maintenance before. It found the motion "duplicative and redundant" with the earlier litigation. To the extent that the motion contained new material, the court found it was...